Style guide
Pablo
What say the panel about this style guide?
--
Pablo
Stan Brown
>
> http://ec.europa.eu/translation/english/guidelines/documents/styleguide_english_dgt_en.pdf
>
> What say the panel about this style guide?
It's rather a large document. Is there some particular part you'd
like to draw our attention to?
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Shikata ga nai...
Pablo
> On Sat, 12 Feb 2011 13:53:58 +0100, Pablo wrote:
>>
>>
http://ec.europa.eu/translation/english/guidelines/documents/styleguide_english_dgt_en.pdf
>>
>> What say the panel about this style guide?
>
> It's rather a large document. Is there some particular part you'd
> like to draw our attention to?
>
No. Just an opinion as to its suitability as a general guide, as opposed to
just for European translators (of which, as it happens, I am one).
My English has suffered badly over recent years, and I'm putting together
some resources to "have on hand", so to speak.
--
Pablo
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
>http://ec.europa.eu/translation/english/guidelines/documents/styleguide_english_dgt_en.pdf
>
>What say the panel about this style guide?
It is 140 pages long!
The purpose of the guide is explained in the Introduction. It seems
reasonable to me.
Quote:
This Style Guide is intended primarily for English-language authors
and translators, both in-house and freelance, working for the
European Commission. But now that so many texts in and around the EU
institutions are drafted in English by native and nonnative speakers
alike, its rules, reminders and handy references aim to serve a
wider readership as well.
In this Guide, 'style' is synonymous with a set of accepted
linguistic conventions; it therefore refers to recommended in-house
usage, not to literary style. Excellent advice on how to improve
writing style is given in The Plain English Guide by Martin Cutts
(Oxford University press, 1999) and Style: Towards Clarity and Grace
by Joseph M. Williams (University of Chicago Press, 1995), and the
European Commission's own How to write clearly, all of which
encourage the use of good plain English. For reasons of stylistic
consistency, the variety of English on which this Guide bases its
instructions and advice is the standard usage of Britain and Ireland
(for the sake of convenience, called 'British usage' or 'British
English' in this Guide).
The Guide is divided into two clearly distinct parts, the first
dealing with linguistic conventions applicable in all contexts and
the second with the workings of the European Union -- and with how
those workings are expressed and reflected in English. This should
not be taken to imply that 'EU English' is different from 'real
English'; it is simply a reflection of the fact that the European
Union as a unique body has had to invent a terminology to describe
itself. However, the overriding aim in both parts of the Guide is to
facilitate and encourage the writing of clear and reader-friendly
English.
Writing in clear language can be difficult at the Commission, since
much of the subject matter is complex and more and more is written
in English by (and for) non-native speakers, or by native speakers
who are beginning to lose touch with their language after years of
working in a multilingual environment. We must nevertheless try to
set an example by using language that is as clear, simple, and
accessible as possible, out of courtesy to our readers and
consideration for the image of the Commission.
In legislative texts, accuracy and clarity are of course paramount.
But legal or bureaucratic language that we might regard as pompous
elsewhere has its place in both legislation and preparatory
drafting, though the specialist terms must be embedded in
rock-solid, straightforward English syntax. In some cases --
departmental memos or papers for specialist committees -- we may
regard 'Eurospeak' as acceptable professional shorthand; searching
here for 'plain English' periphrases wastes time and simply
irritates readers.
By contrast, in-house jargon is not appropriate in documents
addressing the general public such as leaflets or web pages.
Information of practical use, e.g. on rights, applying for jobs or
accessing funding, must be immediately understandable even to those
unfamiliar with the workings and vocabulary of the EU. This also
means, for example, using short paragraphs, simple syntax and
highlighting devices such as bullets.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Donna Richoux
> Stan Brown escribi�:
Here's my general way to evaluate a reference guide: I look up something
I have an opinion on, and see if the guide agrees with me (and says so
clearly enough to understand). If so, I'm more apt to follow their
recommendation in some area where I haven't a clue.
--
Best -- Donna Richoux
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
Page 5 to 49 on Writing English are potentially of general application.
I assume that the recommendations are for writing that is fairly formal
rather than casual or colloquial.
I'll read those pages and come back with comments.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
<ma...@peterduncanson.net> said:
> On Sat, 12 Feb 2011 15:20:19 +0100, Pablo <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
>> Stan Brown escribi�:
>>
>>> On Sat, 12 Feb 2011 13:53:58 +0100, Pablo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>> http://ec.europa.eu/translation/english/guidelines/documents/styleguide_english_dgt_en.pdf
What
>>
>>>> say the panel about this style guide?
>>>
>>> It's rather a large document. Is there some particular part you'd
>>> like to draw our attention to?
>>>
>>
>> No. Just an opinion as to its suitability as a general guide, as opposed to
>> just for European translators (of which, as it happens, I am one).
>>
>> My English has suffered badly over recent years, and I'm putting together
>> some resources to "have on hand", so to speak.
>
> Page 5 to 49 on Writing English are potentially of general application.
Yes, but they're no improvement on getting a decent dictionary and
getting a decent guide like Oxford or (better in my opinion, Brit
though I be) Chicago. There is no great point in duplicating stuff
that's been done better by others.
I was a bit taken aback by the suggestion that we should use -ise
spellings because they've become more common in the media. Tthere is
nothing wrong with -ize spellings, and they're more acceptable to
Americans. Moreover, what does it matter what is used in the media?
What about publishers of less ephemeral text?
The parts that specifically refer to EU matters are, of course, another
matter. If you need to know the Latvian for "European Commission"
you're not going to find out from Oxford or Chicago.
>
> I assume that the recommendations are for writing that is fairly formal
> rather than casual or colloquial.
>
> I'll read those pages and come back with comments.
--
athel
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
<acor...@ifr88.cnrs-mrs.fr> wrote:
>On 2011-02-12 17:01:45 +0100, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)"
><ma...@peterduncanson.net> said:
>
>> On Sat, 12 Feb 2011 15:20:19 +0100, Pablo <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Stan Brown escribi�:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 12 Feb 2011 13:53:58 +0100, Pablo wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> http://ec.europa.eu/translation/english/guidelines/documents/styleguide_english_dgt_en.pdf
>
>What
>>>
>>>>> say the panel about this style guide?
>>>>
>>>> It's rather a large document. Is there some particular part you'd
>>>> like to draw our attention to?
>>>>
>>>
>>> No. Just an opinion as to its suitability as a general guide, as opposed to
>>> just for European translators (of which, as it happens, I am one).
>>>
>>> My English has suffered badly over recent years, and I'm putting together
>>> some resources to "have on hand", so to speak.
>>
>> Page 5 to 49 on Writing English are potentially of general application.
>
>Yes, but they're no improvement on getting a decent dictionary and
>getting a decent guide like Oxford or (better in my opinion, Brit
>though I be) Chicago. There is no great point in duplicating stuff
>that's been done better by others.
>
>I was a bit taken aback by the suggestion that we should use -ise
>spellings because they've become more common in the media.
>Moreover, what does it matter what is used in the media?
Possibly because many readers (citizens of EU countries) will be more
familiar with English usage in the media than elsewhere.
>Tthere is
>nothing wrong with -ize spellings, and they're more acceptable to
>Americans.
The Guide establishes an EU "house style" for documents for Europeans.
Americans are not the target readers. I wouldn't like to accuse the
authors of deliberately choosing non-American spellings -- but you never
know.
>What about publishers of less ephemeral text?
>
>The parts that specifically refer to EU matters are, of course, another
>matter. If you need to know the Latvian for "European Commission"
>you're not going to find out from Oxford or Chicago.
>>
>> I assume that the recommendations are for writing that is fairly formal
>> rather than casual or colloquial.
>>
>> I'll read those pages and come back with comments.
--
Steve Hayes
<acor...@ifr88.cnrs-mrs.fr> wrote:
>Yes, but they're no improvement on getting a decent dictionary and
>getting a decent guide like Oxford or (better in my opinion, Brit
>though I be) Chicago. There is no great point in duplicating stuff
>that's been done better by others.
It's a house style guide, and so covers some things that others do not cover,
or give alternatives for.
>I was a bit taken aback by the suggestion that we should use -ise
>spellings because they've become more common in the media. Tthere is
>nothing wrong with -ize spellings, and they're more acceptable to
>Americans. Moreover, what does it matter what is used in the media?
>What about publishers of less ephemeral text?
When I was an editor at the University of South ASfrica, I was issued with the
Chicago and Oxford guides, a Collins dictionary and several other books, and
told that we used the first spelling listed in Collins, except in the case of
-ize/-ise, where Collins listed the -ize variant first. That's one of the
things about house style -- where there are two permissable variants, the
house style chooses one for the sake of consistency.
Similarly with judgment/judgement.
It's true that the Oxford one is a house style for OUP, but clearly the EU
wants its own house style.
>The parts that specifically refer to EU matters are, of course, another
>matter. If you need to know the Latvian for "European Commission"
>you're not going to find out from Oxford or Chicago.
They also deal with the kind of errors you often find in multilingual
institutions, that Chicago et al don't deal with.
At Unisa we often had things like "resorts under", "motivate your answer" and
other faux amis.
That will probably make it useful for people for whom English is a second
language, especially in Europe.
I've just glanced at the first few pages, and it seems quite a reasonable
guide of its kind.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Athel Cornish-Bowden
<ma...@peterduncanson.net> said:
> On Sat, 12 Feb 2011 19:13:42 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
> <acor...@ifr88.cnrs-mrs.fr> wrote:
>
>> On 2011-02-12 17:01:45 +0100, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)"
>> <ma...@peterduncanson.net> said:
>>
>>> On Sat, 12 Feb 2011 15:20:19 +0100, Pablo <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Stan Brown escribió:
What
I don't regard -ize spellings as un-British. I realize that I'm in a
minority here, though I have the Oxford University Press on my side.
(I'm reminded of a comment someone made yesterday to the effect that in
the days when Albania had no friends except China, and they had a big
poster saying "Together with our Chinese allies we number 1000 000 000
people". I'm not, however, suggesting that my preference carries as
much weight as that of the OUP.)
>
>> What about publishers of less ephemeral text?
>>
>> The parts that specifically refer to EU matters are, of course, another
>> matter. If you need to know the Latvian for "European Commission"
>> you're not going to find out from Oxford or Chicago.
>>>
>>> I assume that the recommendations are for writing that is fairly formal
>>> rather than casual or colloquial.
>>>
>>> I'll read those pages and come back with comments.
--
athel
Eric Walker
> http://ec.europa.eu/translation/english/guidelines/documents/
styleguide_english_dgt_en.pdf
>
> What say the panel about this style guide?
To me, it seems an intelligent, sane, common-sense document. I certainly
haven't read it all, but I poked through it, and those are my
conclusions. The charmingly brief discussion of the split infinitive was
refreshing. Not that I agree with every last thing in the guide, but
that's not the criterion (even from my personal standpoint): the test is
whether the preponderance of it seems sound.
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
<acor...@ifr88.cnrs-mrs.fr> wrote:
>On 2011-02-12 20:36:51 +0100, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)"
><ma...@peterduncanson.net> said:
>
>> The Guide establishes an EU "house style" for documents for Europeans.
>> Americans are not the target readers. I wouldn't like to accuse the
>> authors of deliberately choosing non-American spellings -- but you never
>> know.
>
>I don't regard -ize spellings as un-British. I realize that I'm in a
>minority here, though I have the Oxford University Press on my side.
It is possible that the style-guiders have gone for simplicity and
chosen a rule with the fewest exceptions.
>(I'm reminded of a comment someone made yesterday to the effect that in
>the days when Albania had no friends except China, and they had a big
>poster saying "Together with our Chinese allies we number 1000 000 000
>people". I'm not, however, suggesting that my preference carries as
>much weight as that of the OUP.)
--