An ode to English plurals

We'll begin with a box, and the plural is boxes,
But the plural of ox becomes oxen, not oxes.
One fowl is a goose, but two are called geese,
Yet the plural of moose should never be meese.
You may find a lone mouse or a nest full of mice,
Yet the plural of house is houses, not hice.

If the plural of man is always called men,
Why shouldn't the plural of pan be called pen?
If I speak of my foot and show you my feet,
And I give you a boot, would a pair be called beet?
If one is a tooth and a whole set are teeth,
Why shouldn't the plural of booth be called beeth?

Then one may be that, and three would be those,
Yet hat in the plural would never be hose,
And the plural of cat is cats, not cose.
We speak of a brother and also of brethren,
But though we say mother, we never say methren.
Then the masculine pronouns are he, his and him,
But imagine the feminine: she, shis and shim!

Let's face it - English is a crazy language.
There is no egg in eggplant nor ham in hamburger;
neither apple nor pine in pineapple.

English muffins weren't invented in England.
We take English for granted, but if we explore its paradoxes,
we find that quicksand can work slowly, boxing rings are square,
and a guinea pig is neither from Guinea nor is it a pig.

And why is it that writers write but fingers don't fing,
Grocers don't groce and hammers don't ham?
Doesn't it seem crazy that you can make amends but not one amend?
If you have a bunch of odds and ends and get rid of all but one of them, what do you call it?
If teachers taught, why didn't preachers praught?
If a vegetarian eats vegetables, what does a humanitarian eat?

Sometimes I think all the folks who grew up speaking English should be committed to an asylum for the verbally insane.
In what other language do people recite at a play and play at a recital?
We ship by truck but send cargo by ship.
We have noses that run and feet that smell.
We park in a driveway and drive in a parkway.

And how can a slim chance and a fat chance be the same,
while a wise man and a wise guy are opposites?
You have to marvel at the unique lunacy of a language
in which your house can burn up as it burns down,
in which you fill in a form by filling it out, and in which an alarm goes off by going on.

And in closing, if Father is Pop, how come Mother's not Mop?

Web site or website?

Web is short for World Wide Web. It should therefore be capitalized. If we accept that Web is a proper noun (and I do), it cannot be arbitrary joined at the hip to the word "site." Hence, neither "website" nor "Website" is acceptable. This is consistent with most authorities I have consulted, though perhaps not with much of geekdom, which invented these words. Language changes, and nowhere is it changing more quickly than in cyberspace, but it is best that it change slowly when it comes to smashing words together. As one of my authorities points out, "if the Internet is replaced by direct-broadcast-to-the-brain technology tomorrow, website will soon look as silly as draftdodging and braburning and goldfishswallowing." (Bill Walsh, Lapsing into a Comma)

My own preference is to avoid the word "Web" altogether because it lacks precision. Not everything that is available via the Internet is on the Web. I use "Internet" or "Internet site." I especially dislike the notion that something can be "posted on the Web." I prefer to "make it available on the Bank's Internet site" or "on the Bank's internal network" or similar locutions.

Similarly, I use home page and Web page when referring to a particular virtual page, but I use "document" or "file" when I am referring to a file that can be opened from that page.

Finally, I am not an editor who insists that the language stand still to suit my prescriptions. At some point in the future I may need to change my mind about this stylistic point.

Banished words

Since 1976, Lake Superior State University in Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, has been compiling a list of words that many of us in the writing business would like to see banished.

Word-watchers from around the world pull their annual nominations from everyday speech, as well as from the news, the fields of education, technology, advertising, politics, and more. A committee gathers the entries and chooses the best in December.

The list is released on New Year’s Day. Read this year’s selections at http://www.lssu.edu/banished/current/default.html or browse through the lists from precious years by selecting Compiled Lists on the main page.

Weed out Latinate language

Latinate words have many legitimate uses, but they can also overwhelm and obscure meaning. They are quite common in bureaucratic and academic writing, much of which aims to impress the reader by conveying authority and complexity rather than to illuminate and inform. The careful writer will keep a sharp lookout for such words and question whether they are needed. When they appear in great abundance the reader should question the writer's purpose.

Many Latinate words can be recognized by their suffixes; watch for the ones listed below.

-age
-ality
-ance
-ation
-ence
-ific
-ity
-ist
-ization
-ize
-ocentrism
-ous

Facts, findings, lessons, and recommendations

I have often found that the distinctions between facts, findings, lessons, and recommendations are not well understood. Many World Bank documents mix them up. The following table has proved useful in explaining the distinctions.

	What is it?	Example	Intent
Fact	What happened – an event and data (results). Not in dispute.	“The project manager was dismissed in Year 5”	Provides the story line.
Finding	What the analyst interpreted from the factual events, establishing the significance of the facts recorded. Can be arguable.	“Mainly because replacement of the project manager was delayed, the project did not meet its targets”	Draws conclusions (from the facts) specific to the project.
Lesson	The broader significance of a finding.	“Poor performance by project managers can critically affect project outcomes.”	Draws a general conclusion from experience beyond the single instance of the operation under review.
Recommendation	Suggests how to proceed in the future in the light of this experience.	“Ensure that key project management positions are filled with competent staff. Ensure this through appropriate covenants and prompt supervision follow-up”	An imperative; proposes action(s).

Editing for reading ease

Much bureaucratic writing is dense and difficult to read. Careful editing to ensure reading ease, but cutting down on passive voice, using plain, straightforward language (particularly reducing jargon), and organizing thoughts in smaller chunks can go a long way toward making a report more readable. Here is an example.

BEFORE

The Bank’s experience suggests an additional caution with regard to privatization in post-conflict situations. There must be adequate capacity in the government to plan, implement and oversee the process. In addition, the state enterprise(s) to be privatized must be sound enough to attract private investors or managers. The experience of Rwanda suggests that the Bank pushed prematurely for privatization of the major utility, before the government had the requisite knowledge and capability to proceed, and before the management and operation of the utility itself were sufficiently strengthened to attract even a private sector management contract, let alone investors. The Bank’s approach has recently been modified and technical assistance is being provided to strengthen the management structure and systems of the utility before attempting again to attract a private management firm. Privatization of agricultural marketing entities was a second tranche condition, one among a wide range of conditionalities for SAL I (L3293) in El Salvador. The Implementation Completion Report for the project points out that implementation of this measure, while ultimately carried out, was delayed by stiff political and labor opposition. Whether this condition should have been part of this first SAL, approved in 1991 during a critical period while Peace Accords were still being negotiated, is open to question.

Words	209
Characters	1201
Paragraphs	1
Sentences	8
Sentences/Paragraph	8
Words/Sentence	26.1
Longest Sentence	51
Shortest Sentence	14
Characters/Word	5.6
Passive	50%
Reading Ease	22

AFTER

The urge to engage in post-conflict privatization should be tempered by two concerns. First, the government must have adequate capacity to plan, implement, and oversee the process. Second, enterprises targeted for privatization must be sound enough to attract private investors or managers. The Bank’s privatization experiences in Rwanda and El Salvador are illustrative.

In Rwanda the Bank’s push for privatization of the major utility may have been premature. Bank documents suggest the government lacked the knowledge and capability needed to proceed. Moreover, the utility’s management and operation were not yet strong enough to attract a private sector management contract, let alone investors. The Bank, to its credit, recently modified its approach in this case. Now technical assistance is strengthening the management structure and utility systems before making another attempt to attract a private management firm.

In El Salvador the Bank made privatization of agricultural marketing entities a condition for disbursement of the second tranche of SAL I (L3293). Here, the history is important. The SAL was approved during sensitive peace negotiations in 1991. According to the project’s Implementation Completion Report, stiff political and labor opposition subsequently delayed the required privatization. In hindsight, the condition probably should not have been part of the SAL.

Words	203
Characters	1190
Paragraphs	3
Sentences	14
Sentences/Paragraph	4.7
Words/Sentence	14.5
Longest Sentence	23
Shortest Sentence	5
Characters/Word	5.7
Passive	14%
Reading Ease	31.7

Characteristics of well-written evaluations

Most of my work for the past 10 years has involved evaluation, a sub-genre of bureaucratic writing with some very particular requirements. Chief among them is that the report must communicate to policymakers and provide them with the information they need to make decisions. Though the following list of characteristics was developed specifically for evaluation, many of them are appropriate for any sort of institutional writing.

A well-written evaluation answers these questions early in the report:

• Why did you do the evaluation?
• What did you do?
• Who did you do it for (who else might benefit)?
• How do you expect the results to be used (directly influence policy, affect conceptualization, persuade others of a new direction)?

A well-written evaluation is also:

Easy to Use

• Material organized coherently and in a way that will make sense to the reader
• Clearly labeled sections, tables, charts, boxes
• Main points summarized in predictable, convenient location
• Explains its metrics, models, and methods
• Written with the audience/reader in mind
• Visually effective – uses elements to help browsers find what they need without having to wade through acres of text
• Length appropriate to the argument presented

Easy to Understand

• Delivers what it promises, does not over-promise, does not deliver more than is needed
• Illustrates general points with specific, easily understood examples
• Answers the evaluative questions it poses (clearly identifying them as the answers)
• Avoids ambiguity and abstractions
• Explains its concepts
• Avoids clichés, tired metaphors, overused or vague language, and jargon
• Is free of generalizations, misstatements, exaggeration, pontification, advocacy, inconsistency, and irrelevancies
• Presents all the evidence necessary to support its main points
• Leads the reader from evidentiary facts, to conclusions, lessons, and recommendations