Inappropriate Adjectives, Or You use that word so much--I don't think it means what you think it means

I was looking over the "technical writing manual" for a client of a client (it wasn't really a manual, it was more of a style guide).  What amazed me was the number of adjectives they used in the guide:

• Our goal is to create effective manuals
  
• Documents should be organized into a logical structure
• Documents should have comprehensive coverage of the material

As in most cases, these modifiers don't add any value for the reader. When the author of this document used "effective", "logical" and "comprehensive," the author did one of the following:

• Just put the words in because they "sound good" (i.e. no thought at all)
  
• Assumed that these words mean the same thing to everyone (sadly, not true)
  
• Used the words to disguise the fact that the organization couldn't agree on criteria for authors
  

That last bullet probably requires some explanation: Frequently, in official documents, modifiers are "weasel" words that disguise the fact that the author, managers, and readers don't actually agree on anything: The modifier means whatever the current reader needs it to mean. In my client's client's style guide, if the organization can't establish what criteria to use to judge user manuals then they substitute the word "effective"; if the organization can't figure out how to determine whether or not a document covers everything it should then they say that the document has to be "comprehensive"; if you can't agree on how your writers are to organize their documents then you substitute the word "logical."

Using modifiers like this does give the organization a lot of flexibility: You can change the meanings to do whatever you need when the time comes. You pick the right definition for the documents you want to praise; pick a different definition when you want to punish the author. I can see the discussion now: "Your document structure isn't logical", "Yes, it is!", "No, it isn't!" The winner isn't the person with the right document structure, it's the person with the most clout in the organization--very advantageous if you're the person in charge.

What these words don't do is actually help the organization's authors do a good job (or, at any rate, a job that meets the company's criteria). When you use modifiers in your documents, you--more often than not--do the same thing: You fail to support your readers.

My recommendation: Omit all modifiers (adjectives, adverbs, phrases) unless you have a gun to your head.If you do include a modifier, make sure it means exactly one thing to both you and your readers--or just tell your readers what the word means to you.

Reading or read

• JLA: One Million by Grant Morrison

Rules, or Why Grade Six Still Matters

I was watching Mythbusters and heard one of the hosts comment "We did good." Grammatically, of course, he should have said "We did well" because he was modifying a verb ('did') which requires an adverb ('well'); he could use 'good' only if he was modifying a noun (e.g. "We did a good job"). As I noted in an tweet a few weeks back, I think we're seeing the death of the adverb. Over time, I wouldn't be surprised to see the adverb form of most modifiers disappear into the single adjective form--"good" will replace "well" and be used to modify both verbs and nouns.

What's interesting about this is how many people react to this idea when I mention it. Most people are horrified and see it as the language "degenerating." Notice: They don't say it's 'wrong'--they apply a moral term like 'degenerate.'

Equally interestingly: no one seems to feel it's bad if we add new rules to the language. When discussing an article I'm editing with an author, I've occasionally brought up a grammatical rule that the author has obviously never heard. The strongest reaction I get is "Really? I didn't know that." No one ever says "That's stupid. This whole language is getting too complicated." But ignore a rule that the author knows about...and it's just another sign of the world sinking into confusion.

In general, English has gotten simpler over time. For instance, we have fewer "cases" than the languages English descended from (cases refer to how words change depending on their grammatical purpose). Really, in English, only pronouns (he, she, you, I, etc.) have cases: We use 'I' as a subject and 'me' as an object. We used to have more--the pronouns have have actually lost cases. The instrumental case (a special form when something was used as a tool) existed in Old English but has disappeared from modern English. The possessive case is now handled by adding 's to the end of any noun or pronoun--I don't know if that even counts as a case. The subsumation of adverbs into adjectives is just part of that trend.

Most people seem to feel that our language is fixed and immutable--that there is a set of rules that have been laid down by...well, I'm not clear who is supposed to have laid down the rules. In North America people are deeply attached to the rules they were drilled in during grades five and six. You can add more rules to that set but any attempt to reduce that set of rules is morally repugnant. Somehow, the idea has arisen that the only contribution current generations are allowed to make to the language is to add new nouns. We're no longer allowed to change the meaning of existing words and adding new verbs is regarded with deep suspicion. And we are certainly not allowed to modify any of the rules!

But ask people if they want to speak like William Shakespeare did and they'll tell you "Oh, no. Our current language is much better." Makes you wonder how they think we got from Will to now.

Reading or Read

• See the Child: A Novel by David Bergen
• A Nurse's Story by Tilda Shalof
• On War by Carl von Clausewitz
• Myths and Legends of India by William Radice (ed)