Comments on: Six Types of Words That You Should Axe in Business Writing

By: Zac

Zac — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 21:08:07 +0000

What a great post. Honestly, I am surprised at some of the comments – maybe some of you that express a great deal of hostility at the idea of “dumbing it down” need to work on reading comprehension. That is not the intent of this post. My sister, an executive for an Inc 50 company in communications says, “If you can write in a way that sends the message without forcing people to think, you’ve done your job.” I am not a dumb person, nor am I the smartest person on the face of the earth. But after reading 200 emails a day even word ascertain starts to tax my mind.

By: andrew

andrew — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 03:23:09 +0000

this article is retarded. just write your emails without being retarded and you should be fine.

By: shehzil

shehzil — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 05:25:36 +0000

normal good

By: Thanushka

Thanushka — Wed, 13 May 2009 12:21:22 +0000

I’m not a writer but a common reader. I feel short and ‘to the point’ is the way to go when it’s come to online content.
Having less copy on pages has become popular now and I feel it’s for the better. The internet is filled with too many unnecessary content anyway. An average visitor only stays at your site for about 4 to 8 minutes and during that short time who want to bore them with too long paragraphs and heavy words which will make them leave even faster?

By: lsaid

lsaid — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 01:08:11 +0000

What is wrong with using simple words to communicate to the general masses? If your business is to talk to people and make a living from it, you owe it to yourself and your audience to make it as easy as possible. You should not feel superior even though you think you are.

You should respect your audience and hopefully in turn they will do too.

By: Vince

Vince — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 02:20:16 +0000

I'm studying to write articles for magazines. The course I'm on stresses that only plain, clear language will be accepted by an editor.

The long words have their place for variety and where they add a special touch, so they'll never be discarded from the wonderful English language.

There's nothing 'dumbing down' with this approach. It's far better to communicate than to impress someone by showing them how deep you can write.

With readers you don't know, it's safer to assume they are laypeople..just in case!

By: John-Allen Payne

John-Allen Payne — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 19:45:24 +0000

I quite enjoyed this article, but I would probably disagree slightly about the advice to avoid passive voice verbs. I would change the advice to \"avoid \'unnecessary\' use of passive voice verbs.\" The passive voice is a valuable tool when a writer wants to avoid mentioning an agent that is unknown, unimportant, obvious, confidential, or difficult to identify. It also allows spekers and writers to place emphasis on receivers of an action by placing them at the beginning of a sentence. For example:

1. My car has been stolen.
2. Much tobacco is grown in Eastern Europe.
3. Both French and English are spoken in Canada.
4. Thirteen people were injured by a tornado in Florida.
5. I have been robbed.
6. These works of art were all produced by women.

A really popular use of the passive voice is to keep discourse topics in the subject position over successive sentences in order to keep adding new information about a topic.

For example:
The first programmable electronic computer was built in England during World War 2. IT was called the the Colossus, and IT was used to decipher Adolf Hitler\'s confidential messages to his generals. After the war, IT was destroyed so that the world would not learn how the British broke codes. presently, IT is being reconstructed at Bletchley Park in England where IT can be viewed by visitors.

If these sentences were cast in the active voice, the flow of old to new information would be lost and the paragraph would probably be harder to process quickly by a reader.

By: Smart one, back again

Smart one, back again — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 21:14:40 +0000

One more thing. We should definitly not axe these words from the English language. I am concerned about the quality of language today. In my class, a couple weeks ago, some people decided that we shouldn’t use “big words” anymore. For a few days, those fascinated by the concept used only words with no more than four letters! It was awful! Also, I’m wondering the effect of teenager’s textian language. Fifty years from now, will we spk lk ths? What happened to vowels!!! The funny thing is, textian was “invented” for quick reading, but when my friends use textian, I am forced to e-mail them back, asking what the phrases mean! I spent a whole two minutes puzzling over Joolz #44’s “dsnt wnt 2b l8 4 dnr”! Keep language concise, yes, but not so concise that the meaning is totally annulled!

By: Smart One

Smart One — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 20:53:39 +0000

I think the idea behind the article was a good one. It is very nice to be able to read, understand, and move on. Too many “big words” in one sentence is overkill.

However, people aren’t dumb (most of us, at least). We know those words. Heck, I’m an eighth-grader (yes, a so called simple-minded grade schooler!), and I knew every word in the article! Anyway, basically, I like big words. They are fun to use. Just don’t get carried away.

By: Emily

Emily — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 11:40:13 +0000

Well, at least it’s got you all thinking. Which is nice.