[DrBazza]

> Feynman said, that if you cannot explaind it to a child you do not understand it, not that you should communicate with everyone like they were kids.

That's not what I said, there was a full stop, not a comma. I was applying Feynman's idea to writing, if you can't explain something simply in plain English, you really should rewrite it to reach a wider audience.

> I hate seeing advice like "use simple, reduced vocabulary".

Sure, and if articles are written 'normally', for people with English as a second language, that means that they will learn more English words when they encounter new ones.

However "I" is one person, and an author wants to reach the widest audience, with the lowest common denominator. I don't understand much German or French, for example, but an article written in simple German or French is much more accessible to me (the lowest common denominator).

Writing is about reaching all of your audience.

[buran77]

I think it boils down to "don't use a five dollar word when a fifty cent word will do".

It's not a matter of always using simple language, sometimes that doesn't cut it. Some concepts can't be broken down to the simplest words and still keep the quality of the conversation, the precision, the density of information.

I think it's just better to keep language as simple as it can be, as simple as the topic dictates. Don't complicate it just for the sake of sounding smart if the discussion doesn't require it.

[rhn_mk1]

> Writing is about reaching all of your audience.

Sorry to be nitpicking. It sounds like what you really mean is "writing is about reaching the widest audience possible". I would argue that it's not true. Writers can try to reach any limited slice of the public they dream of, and nothing more beyond that.

That means writing doesn't need to be as simple as possible. Merely as simple as needed.