| 
  • If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • You already know Dokkio is an AI-powered assistant to organize & manage your digital files & messages. Very soon, Dokkio will support Outlook as well as One Drive. Check it out today!

View
 

Group 1 Wiki Page

This version was saved 10 years, 7 months ago View current version     Page history
Saved by laura.lisabeth@gmail.com
on August 22, 2013 at 12:06:34 pm
 

 

 

"10. In ordinary composition, use orthodox spelling. do not write nite for night, thru for through, pleez for please, unless you plan to introduce a complete system of simplified spelling and are prepared to take the consequences" (Strunk and White, 108.)

 


     With technology expanding at an exponential rate, communication has been driven to be shortened and simplified. These changes can be seen as wholly unwelcome as they would impede the delicacy of modern language. The cultural traditions that have been set would be easily disregarded. Should newer words develop, connotations would change and the rules would shift. But why not embrace this change? As the world is modernized and technology spreads, newer vocabulary would be needed to convey modern concepts and ideas. Through development and growth, language is allowed to change and flow as needed by the world. Eventually different styles of lingo and language are made that differentiate from previous languages.

 

 

 

 

      "14. Avoid the elaborate, the pretentious, the coy and the cute. Do not be tempted by a twenty-dollar word when there is a ten-center handy, ready and able" (Strunk & White 111.)

 


There is a direct dialogue that exists between the above excerpts (rules 9.  and 14.), from “The Elements of Style” and the excerpt below taken from “On Writing Well” by William Zinsser.

 

"But the secret of good writing is to strip every sentence to its cleanest components.  Every word that serves no function, every long word that could be a short word, every adverb that carries the same meaning that’s already in the verb, every passive construction that leaves the reader unsure of who is doing what—these are the thousand and one adulterants that weaken the strength of a sentence.  And they usually occur in proportion to education and rank.” (William Zinsser, On Writing Well, Seventh Edition, Harper Collins:New York, 2006, p. 6.)

 


There is a direct dialogue that exists between the above excerpts (rules 9 and 14) from The Elements of Style and the excerpt below taken from On Writing Well by William Zinsser.  This dialogue does not only exist between correlating content, but in a larger way that is embodied within the writing itself.  Both extend a commentary on the simplification necessary for fluid writing.  Strunk and White refer to this process with the analogy of the "twenty-dollar word" and the "ten-center", while Zinsser expresses this in literal terms through the need to "(strip)every long word that could be a short word"...There is also a direct relationship between the way that each piece qualifies the use of swollen language as being arguably connected to the psyche of the writer.  Zinsser relates this in the passage, "...these are the thousand and one adulterants that weaken the strength of a sentence.  And they usually occur in proportion to education and rank", creating a connection between the likeliness of a writer to commit one of these fallacies and their class.  Strunk and White however, create a less vague idea within the same concept that defines a writer's lack of filter as their egotism materialized in their writing.  Both the idea of Zinsser and the idea of Strunk and White, produce a larger idea that is useful in writing.  It begs a writer to understand their own nature as a writer as a window to their internal thought or vise versa; a really intriguing concept.

 

Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.