Polysyllabic Locutions (Big Words) 

Clients love them. Readers hate them. 

If what you have to say is really profound, you won’t need to dress it up in technical language or jargon. There’s a widely held belief that specialist terms and complex language impress people.  Not so.  Complexity is just unhelpful. 

Listen to the things people say when commending a great product or service.  Notice how often they use the word ‘simple’.  And what goes for a great product applies equally to a great product description.  If you say that your “consultants have recommended systemised organisational timeframes” nobody will be impressed because nobody will know what you’re talking about.  (And neither, probably, will you…)

The truth is that a lot of these big words are completely meaningless even to the people using them – bovine excrement. 

Let’s keep it simple. 

The world is a more elegant place without “four-dimensional relative contingencies” or “homogenised incremental matrix approaches”.  Nobody’s actually in the market for “compatible modular resources’ or “logistical paradigm shifts” so let’s stop banging on about them.  

If the product you’re selling really is a “synchronised organisational template methodology” then good luck to you.  But if we can find a simpler way to describe it and what it does,  we might even by tempted to buy one here at the office.

So: Utilise = use; Methodologies = methods; Activate = start; Capabilities = abilities; Facilitate = help, enable; Implement = yet another word for use etc.

Starting sentences with conjunctions: why it’s OK. 

“You must never start a sentence with And, But or So.”  So said my daughter the other day, when she came home from school.  And no doubt many of us remember being taught something similar ourselves. 

It’s not clear where this myth about not starting sentences with conjunctions originated.  But a myth is certainly all it is.  Starting sentences with And, But and So is perfectly acceptable.  So sayeth The Bible, which has more sentences beginning with And than any other word.  The opening sentence of the King James edition actually begins: “And in the beginning…” 

Non-believers will want a more authoritative perspective.  So in response we offer “Fowler’s Modern English Usage” (edited by Sir Ernest Gowers) – the writers’ bible perhaps – which says: “That it is a solecism to begin a sentence with And is a faintly lingering SUPERSTITION.  The OED gives examples ranging from the 10th to the 19th century.”  And Fowler’s has the same to say about But. 

Edward Good, author of “A Grammar Book for You and I…oops, Me!” says the following: “Never start a sentence with a conjunction.  Poppycock!  Not only can you start a sentence with a conjunction, but you must – if you ever want to become a good writer, that is.” 

And the “Chicago Manual of Style” reiterates Good’s thoughts in the following discussion: “There is a widespread belief – one with no historical or grammatical foundation – that it is an error to begin a sentence with a conjunction such as And, But or So.  In fact, a substantial percentage (often as many as 10 percent) of sentences in first-rate writing begin with conjunctions.” 

And in his popular writer’s handbook Troublesome Words, author Bill Bryson concurs, saying: “The belief that And should not be used to begin a sentence is without foundation.  And that’s all there is to it.”

OK, I hear you say.  There may be occasions when it’s stylistically acceptable to start a sentence with a conjunction: In fiction, prose, humorous or light-hearted travel writing perhaps.  But surely it has no place in serious copy.  Well, The Economist is full of serious copy.  And it’s also full of sentences beginning with And, But or So.  So is the FT.  And so is Forbes.  Far from finding the approach too light-hearted, serious writers have discovered that it’s a useful way to add a bit of zest to dry or weighty subject matter.

So, please miss, if you really don’t like it we’ll change it.  But starting sentences with conjunctions isn’t bad grammar.  And it often makes for good writing.

The power of punctuation 

Punctuation can have just as much impact on your message as wording.  Don’t believe me? 

I hope you’ll enjoy this classic demonstration: 

Dear John, 

I want a man who knows what love is all about.  You are generous, kind, thoughtful. People who are not like you admit to being useless and inferior. You have ruined me for other men.  I yearn for you.  I have no feelings whatsoever when we’re apart.  I can be forever happy – will you let me be yours?

Gloria 

That sounds like good news for John. Or does it? 

Dear John, 

I want a man who knows what love is.  All about you are generous, kind, thoughtful people, who are not like you.  Admit to being useless and inferior.  You have ruined me.  For other men, I yearn.  For you, I have no feelings whatsoever.  When we’re apart, I can be forever happy.  Will you let me be?

Yours, 

Gloria 

Notice again, not a single change to the wording or word order between the two versions. 

That’s the power of punctuation.

US versus UK spellings

George Bernard Shaw said that England and America were two countries separated by a common language.  This is seldom more apparent than when writing copy.

Businesses need to adopt different spelling conventions depending on their country of nationality or on the geographical audience they’re addressing. 

The trouble is that the industry standard word processing software (you know the one) doesn’t always discriminate in the way that human beings do. This results from the creeping acceptance of certain US spellings, which progresses at differing rates in the minds of individual writers, scholars and readers.

I should say now that I don’t voice any particular opposition to the adoption of US spellings over time.  Language has always been progressive. In the same way that spellings like ‘fayre’ have now lapsed from common use (other than as a deliberate contrivance) so we’re probably destined to adopt ‘color’ and ‘behavior’ in the future.  But we’re not quite there yet.  And while the two instances above will still prompt a wiggly red underlining from even the most up-to-date edition of the software, there are numerous others that will look plain wrong to your customers, but will still evade the spell checker.

The biggest issues arise with the many word endings that can now - theoretically at least - be correctly spelled with either an ‘S’ or a ‘Z’. While striving to remain impartial, we still bristle at these. Perhaps it's just an aesthetic thing. There's something abrasive about the jagged angularity of a 'Z' as opposed to the voluptuous curves of an 'S'.  

In confronting this issue, many organisations (organizations) have tried in vain to customise (customize) the spell checker’s parameters.  One of my associate writers once did a global replace on 'ize' to 'ise', resulting in numerous infuriating instances of 'sise' and the like.  My current best solution is simply to search the letter ‘Z’ and then take a judgement (judgment?) on a case-by-case basis.

As noted above, I remain unopposed to the universal adoption of US spellings in the near future...