Have you heard of "Easy Read"?

This is an off-the-cuff answer, but it seems to me that the “Easy Read” way of writing is the active voice. The “plain English ” version reads, to me, more like the passive voice. I was taught to write in the active voice as much as possible, so the “Easy Read” version is much more familiar to me.

To answer your question – I like it!

It reminds me of when the Chinese government introduced simplified characters. (Here are a few examples of differences between simplified and traditional.) That led to increased literacy there.

The difference is, I guess, that Easy Read changes the actual words. Complex words and sentence structures let us convey different shades of meaning and be precise when we write or speak. I wouldn’t want to think, write, or speak in a language that didn’t have enough words. I could see Easy Read leading to increased literacy, like the simplified characters, but it also strongly reminds me of the newspeak in 1984.

Maybe the most helpful way to use it would be to have traditional English and Easy Read versions side by side? That might also let people who read at the level of Easy Read to start reading and understanding the same ideas in traditional English. I’m all for anything that increases knowledge. If it leads to increased literacy- great! But if we all start writing that way- fuck that!

So basically pidgin english written version. I think verbage is very important so I’m not a big fan.

@Haleth Good point. I wouldn’t want Easy Read to replace our usual way of writing. All subtle differences would be lost, sarcasm and poetry would die…no. The way I understand it, official websites would exist in two versions, as well as some books. So, what you suggested, basically.

@tedibear Yes, using the passive voice is strictly forbidden ;)

@KNOWITALL Pidgin English? What’s that?

@KNOWITALL This seems to be grammatically correct English, not pidgin. It just looks like writing things to be less passive and get to the point more quickly.

@longgone How you talk to children and foreigners in short, simple sentences.

Looks like dumbing down, to me. I don’t have a problem with it as a tool, but I don’t care for the example given because I don’t like being talked down to. If I didn’t know the meaning of the word offend, I would look it up.

I don’t think there is excellence in pandering to the lowest common denominator, and I think we already do too much of it.

its anti-fluther n loks 2 mch lke txtspek 2 me.

I wish some principals I worked with used Easy Read. I remember having to stumble through bad corporate-ese that used lots of buzzwords but made no sense. I know corporations have a reputation for this as well.

ACK! Stalker alert ^!

@longgone – LOL! The Forbidden Passive Voice sounds like a terrible novel title.

Except for the definition of “offend,” the way the message is much clearer in the active voice. I might change “We need to see the poster before we put it up. This is because it must not offend anyone,” to “We need to see the poster before we put it up to ensure that there is no potentially offensive material.” Not the most active sentence, but not like the “Plain English” example.

Wow, I just noticed at least two mistakes in my previous post. This is what happens when I don’t proofread! Sorry about that, Fluther.