A photo of three towers in a skyline, with the Trump Tower in the middle, larger that the other two and gold.

What’s in a (sur)name?

/in ,

What they tell us about our past

According to Ancestry.com, there are seven types of English surname, each of which reveals different aspects of our family history—who our ancestors were, the place or kind of place they were born, what they did for a living and even what they were like. Nor is England unique in this; a similar pattern can be found among other western nations including, for the purpose of this blog, the US and Germany.

What impact they have on us today

Two of those seven categories—occupational surnames and characteristic or descriptive surnames—have long been a source of humour where the name fails to do justice to its present-day owner. Spare a thought for the vegan whose surname is Butcher, the billionaire born Butler and that really tall bloke called Little.

And then, by contrast, there are those who perfectly embody their name. The Australian urologists Splatt and Weedon are two fantastic examples; the American lawyer Sue Yoo and former English Lord Chief Justice I. Judge are two others. (All genuine, by the way 😊.)

But did these people’s names cause them to gravitate to an area of work that matches them (known as nominative determinism)? Or is it just coincidence that their names and their work/ interests match up (mere aptronyms)?

Is Trump simply a victim of his surname?

The question arose for me recently when I came across the word trumpery. It was in a letter to the Guardian on stupidity in politics. Unlike eponyms (people after whom something is said to be named) such as Walt Disney for his brainchild Disney World or dietary reformer Sylvester Graham for his Graham Crackers, Trump can take no credit for the term. In fact, trumpery has been around since the mid-fifteenth century.

But when I tell you that the word means, variously —

  • ‘something intended to deceive by false show’ and ‘deceit, trickery, fraud’ (Online Etymology Dictionary);
  • ‘worthless nonsense’ and ‘tawdry finery’ (Merriam-Webster); and
  • (with up) ‘to concoct and put forward unscrupulously’ (Chambers Dictionary, 12th Edition)

— you’ll understand where I’m coming from.

Wait a minute, you might say, isn’t the Donald’s ancestral name Drumpf rather than Trump? Okay, and guess what? The Middle High German name Drumpf means ‘bent or crooked’. (However, lest I be accused of some form of trumpery myself, I shall have to confess that it means bent or crooked only in the physical sense.)

As Walt and Sylvester’s creations combined might imply, the world may indeed be crackers 😅. But on balance, I prefer to believe that it’s Donald Trump, and not his name, that is responsible for his particular brand of trumpery.

___________________________

If you know of any other people whose name encapsulates what they do, drop me a line.

Photo by Kenny Eliason on Unsplash

 

Photo of the White House in the US in the background, with a police'do not cross' line in front, sauing 'Ttruth'.

The colour of lies

/in ,

Love him or loathe him, there’s no denying that Donald Trump lies—far, far more, in fact, than any other US president before him (1) (one boast which, if he made it, would be true 😅). To put it into some sort of context, the Pulitzer Prize-winning news organisation PolitiFact rates nearly nine in every ten of his disputed statements to be untrue to some extent (11% half-false; 19% mostly false; 38% completely false; and a further 19% so false as to be ridiculous). In spite of this, today he becomes president of the United States, and for the second time.

How can this be?

Well, as this interesting article explains, the answer may lie in the type of lies Trump deploys: what psychologists have termed ‘blue’ lies.

Blue lies are falsehoods, told on behalf of a group, that benefit or protect that group’s members and/or undermine its opponents. Trump has bombarded us with so many, but let me remind you of just a few—claiming that Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio are eating residents’ pets; accusing the press of being ‘the enemy of the American people’; and perpetuating the lie that the Democrats stole the 2020 election from him.

In cases such as these, whether something is demonstrably true or false becomes secondary to its usefulness as a weapon in the battle of ‘them-against-us’. It has been argued that those in the ‘us’ group may see statements of this kind less as factual lies and more as supporting their own wider, emotional ‘truths’.

How can we stop more air ‘turning blue’?

When it comes to winning partisan audiences over to the facts, who is speaking matters hugely. As the article goes on to say, research shows the most persuasive to be those who look and sound like those audiences and are ‘ideologically sympathetic’ to them. But according to those same researchers, even if we aren’t in the same ideological group there are some things that we as information writers can do. They include:

·   Going beyond simply fact-checking and flagging up lies, to crafting compelling, truthful stories;

·   Not relying solely on text but also using imagery or graphics to illustrate our points; or better still,

·   Doing both of the above at the same time.

These techniques may seem simple but they have been found to be effective. And given the frightening degradation of both political rhetoric the world over (we have our own ‘blue liars’ here, too) and attempts to police it (2), I for one will be doing what I can to heed them. Will you?

____________________

1 George Edwards, former editor of Presidential Studies Quarterly.

2 ‘In January 2025, Mark Zuckerberg announced an end to Meta’s eight-year partnership with PolitiFact, citing a shift in the political and social landscape’ (Wikipedia).

Photo by Jacob Morch on Unsplash, with the wording adapted slightly by me.

Is it wrong to love the word ‘enshittification’?

/in , ,

“The gradual deterioration of a service or product brought about by a reduction in the quality of service provided, especially of an online platform, and as a consequence of profit-seeking” (Macquarie Dictionary)

I confess: I love the word ‘enshittification’.

I don’t love what it stands for. Nor do I love the fact that these days it so aptly describes so much. But I do find the word immensely satisfying to use.

As an advocate of plain language, however, I probably shouldn’t.

As the dictionary committee that voted it their word of 2024 snappily described it, enshittification is “a very basic Anglo-Saxon term wrapped in affixes which elevate it to being almost formal; almost respectable” (the affixes being the ‘en-’ and the ‘-fication’).

In business writing, the desire to sound respectable is clearly a good thing. Less good is using pompous-sounding nouns in this way, to give things a formality, gravitas or legitimacy they neither need nor merit. For more obvious examples, think utilisation instead of use or dissemination instead of send out, or feel free to visit another of my social media communications (😉) on the subject, here).

Yet it is precisely because ‘enshittification’ knowingly exploits this technique that I love it even more.

____________________

With thanks to Andrew Martin (aitoff) on Pixabay for the image.

Picture of eyes peeping through holes in a brown paper bag.

Is plain language in need of an image makeover?

/in ,

A few years ago I hosted a ‘makeup and jewellery makeover afternoon’ on behalf of two friends who also have businesses (professional makeup artist Sarah, and Tropic Ambassador Fiona). As you can imagine, I had no trouble getting prospective customers to come along—something I noted with only a modicum of envy (because who in their right mind would come to a ‘plain language’ do at any time of day? 😅).

Fast forward to January 2025, and I’m wondering: Is plain language in need of a makeover of its own?

Many people are turned off by the idea of ‘plain language’. But I wonder if at least some of that is down to the term itself. To start with, consider the various meanings of the word ‘plain’—ordinary, dull, simplistic, blunt, unappealing, unsophisticated, and so on. Indeed, writers often cite precisely these perceived qualities to explain why they don’t use plain language themselves. Add the word ‘language’ and the image gets worse—in your mind’s eye, you’re back in English class at school, desperately trying to recall a) what a subjunctive is and b) what to do with it were you to find one 😉.

In fact, because it’s about being clear, precise and understandable, plain language is both simpler and more elegant than a lot of business writing. Nor do you need to be an expert in English grammar to use it. It also makes content more appealing and accessible, which makes it inclusive and socially responsible to boot.

But none of that is obvious from the term ‘plain language’. So, what could we call it instead to give it a more deserving image? Well to start you off, let me offer up ‘Clear Writing’. I like it for three main reasons:

  • Neither word has any obvious negative connotations.
  • It recognises that the plain language concept goes beyond language to encompass other elements of our writing (tone, layout, structure, etc). And,
  • It comes closer to encapsulating and exemplifying its goal—and in these times of misinformation, disinformation and ‘alternative facts’, that goal is surely one we can all sign up to.

But is there another name that could do it more justice? What do you think?

____________________

 

B&W photo of a lamp-post with a 'self-parking' sign that also has a drawing of a spaceship on it.

Flying flapjack, anyone?

/in ,

I learnt today that what were once referred to as flying flapjacks, but what most of us probably remember as unidentified flying objects (or UFOs), now have an even more fun-sapping label: unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAP).

So, why the name changes?

Well, both changes mark attempts by the United States Air Force, and subsequently by NASA, to be less restrictive in their definition. Thus, UFO meant that flying objects of all sorts of shapes, and not just those resembling flapjacks, could be included. The more recent UAP has now extended this further, to phenomena spotted beneath the sea or up, up and away in space.

However, in becoming more inclusive both terms have become decidedly less colourful too, as the coiner of ‘unidentified flying object’, Capt. Edward J. Ruppelt, himself admitted. The more recent of the two, ‘unidentified anomalous phenomena’, is also less plain in the sense of it not being easy to understand.

And that made me wonder: while generalising naturally means being less precise, does it have to mean being less colourful and less understandable too?

Far more importantly, though, can you think of a snappier label than ‘unidentified anomalous phenomena’? If so, please let us know, and perhaps NASA too while you’re at it 😁.

____________________

Photo by Michael Herren on Unsplash

What kind of ‘tired’ are we? Let me count the ways

/in , ,

According to Mintel’s latest insights report, 2023 Consumer Trends, if you’re not already suffering from hyper fatigue you soon will be. It’s one of five major global consumer trends predicted to influence our behaviour over the next five years.

That many of us are feeling tired, if not necessarily to a hyper degree, was recently confirmed by a YouGov poll for the World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF). Based on a sample of 2,086 UK adults, its results suggest that 35% of us – that’s more than 1 in 3 – believe that tiredness is preventing us from making healthy changes to our diet and physical activity levels.

But as Emma Beddington of the Guardian points out (Guardian, 21 May 2023), tiredness and even hyper-tiredness come in many shapes and sizes. As she goes on to say, ‘… surely there must be better ways to describe what we’re experiencing? One word shouldn’t cover everything from a 50-mile bike ride, to five teething night feeds, to soul-crushing world-weariness’.

I agree, and am reminded of a series of LinkedIn posts I created a while back on the habit many public writers have of using one blunt word repeatedly instead of multiple precise ones. Over the coming weeks and months, I’ll share them with you. I wonder how many of them you use? 😁

____________________

Photo by Cris Saur on Unsplash 

An explosion in space

An explosion by any other name

/in ,

Space X rocket undergoes ‘rapid unscheduled disassembly’.

Shortly after its launch on Thursday of this week, the most powerful rocket ever built exploded. Since then, Elon Musk’s team at SpaceX has been learning that the names we give things don’t change what they really are, however much we might wish it.

Thankfully the ‘rapid unscheduled disassembly’, both in itself and as a phrase, harmed no one in its making 😁. But not all euphemisms are so benign. What’s more, as readers we’re not always good at spotting them—benign or otherwise. Consider the disturbing acceptability implied by the concepts ‘friendly fire’ and ‘collateral damage’; the dehumanising implicit in the terms ‘rightsizing’ and ‘re-calibrating’; and the denial of responsibility inherent in the labels ‘disadvantaged’ and ‘underprivileged’. You may well have a few examples of your own, and if so please do share.

If we truly want to make the world a better place, we public writers must be honest with our readers. As George Monbiot puts it: ‘If we wish to reclaim public life from the small number of people who have captured it, we must also reclaim the language in which it is expressed. To know what we are talking about: this, in more than one sense, is the task of those who want a better world.’

____________________

(For more thoughts on euphemisms, or weasel words as the Chambers English Dictionary calls them, see my blog from 2013 – Jack Nicholson was right!)

Photo by Tim Mossholder on Unsplash

Photo of people protesting in the US

So, who gets your vote?

/in ,

Doublespeak, a term derived from the concepts of ‘doublethink’ and ‘Newspeak’ in George Orwell’s novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, is language

‘that pretends to communicate but really doesn’t. …that makes the bad seem good, the negative appear positive, the unpleasant appear attractive or at least tolerable. …that avoids or shifts responsibility, …that is at variance with its real or purported meaning. …that conceals or even prevents thought’  (William Lutz)

Put another way, it’s how individuals and institutions speak when giving us incomplete or incorrect information so that we form the opinion they want us to.

If you thought Doublepseak was a relatively recent phenomenon, then think again. As far back as 1972, the National Council of Teachers of English in the US was so concerned by the amount of misleading language politicians and advertisers were peddling that it set up a Committee on Public Doublespeak to monitor it. Two years later, it introduced the Doublespeak Award. Its purpose was to honour what academic Doris Minin-White describes as ‘outrageous examples of misleading language in public discourse’ (my use of ‘honour’ there being a minor example 😁).

Thus, today’s

  • Donald Trump (winner in 2020, 2019, 2016—for, among other things, ‘perpetuating language that is grossly deceptive, evasive, euphemistic, confusing and self-centred’), and his appalling acolytes:
  • Rudy Giuliani (2018—‘truth isn’t truth’) and
  • Kellyanne Conway (2017—‘alternative facts’)

…are yesterday’s

  • George W. Bush (2008, 2006, 2004, 2003—when talking about the Iraq War, climate change and Hurricane Katrina)
  • The tobacco industry (2000—for ‘abusing language in pursuit of their right to sell a deadly drug’), and
  • The National Rifle Association (1999—for the ‘artful twisting of language to blur issues, the invocation of patriotism, reverence, love of freedom, and the opposing use of dread words to colour the opposition’)

(With those last two bullet points I’ve just created my own ‘smoking gun’ 😅.)

_________________

Why does it matter?

For democracy to work properly, electorates must be well-informed. At best, that requires information-givers to be clear and honest with voters; at the very least, it requires voters to recognise when information-givers are being unclear and dishonest.

Let us know who you would nominate.

_______________

George Orwell (1948). Nineteen Eighty-Four. Secker & Warburg, UK. 

William Lutz (1989). Doublespeak. Ig Publishing, New York.

Doris Minin-White (2017) Political Speech, Doublespeak, And Critical-Thinking Skills in American Education. Hamline University. Minnesota. https://digitalcommons.hamline.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1105&context=hse_cp

https://ncte.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Past_Recipients_Doublespeak_Award.pdf

____________________________________________________________________________________

Photo by DJ Paine on Unsplash

Female hand holding white cahlk and pointing to a small blackboard with calculations and E=MC2 equation on it

Common objections to Plain English #4

/in ,
OBJECTION #4: My subject matter is too complex for Plain English.

Some of the world’s finest minds in science, medicine, philosophy and law would beg to differ. And so to end this mini-series, I shall leave them to speak for me.

____________________________________________________________________________________

‘Most of the fundamental ideas of science are essentially simple, and may, as a rule, be expressed in language comprehensible to everyone.’ Albert Einstein

  • Stephen Hawking: The renowned physicist was a champion of plain language. He believed that using simple language was a sign of clear thinking rather than a lack of intelligence.

‘Vague forms of speech have so long passed for mysteries of science; and hard words mistaken for deep learning, that it will not be easy to persuade either those who speak or those who hear them, that they are but a hindrance to true knowledge.’ John Locke

  • Ruth Bader Ginsburg: The late Supreme Court justice was known for her clear and concise writing, which made her opinions accessible to a wide audience. She believed that the law should be understandable to the average person, not just to legal scholars.

‘The murkiness that plagues so much official and legal prose is usually generated by the writer, not by the substance. It comes more from bad style than from the inherent difficulty of the subject.’ Professor Joseph Kimble

‘The language of law must not be foreign to the ears of those who are to obey it.’ Billings Learned Hand

  • Neil deGrasse Tyson: The astrophysicist and science communicator is known for his ability to explain complex scientific concepts in language anyone can understand. For Neil, clear communication is essential for scientific progress and for raising public interest in important topics.

‘The chief virtue that language can have is clearness, and nothing detracts from it so much as the use of unfamiliar words.’ Hippocrates

____________________________________________________________________________________

Photo by JESHOOTS.COM on Unsplash

Image of a little girl watering a flower and of a little boy pushing a wheelbarrow

Common objections to Plain English #3

/in ,
OBJECTION #3: Plain English is ‘Janet and John’ writing.

For those of you too young to have met Janet and John (or Peter and Jane, or their US counterparts Dick and Jane), they were the main characters in a series of early reading books for children. The books were extremely popular in schools back in the 1950s and up to the 1970s.

Whether fan or critic, you will agree, I‘m sure, that their dull and simplistic content was never likely to set young pulses racing, as the extract below demonstrates.

____________________________________________________________________________________

See Janet, Mother.                                            This is Father.

See Janet and the can.                                     See John and Father. ____________________________________________________________________________________

So while the books’ authors, Mabel O’Donnell and Rona Munro, may enjoy the kudos of having introduced millions of us to reading, I’m not sure they could be said to have introduced us to the joy of reading.

All of which leads me to why I disagree with Plain English objection #3.

1.Plain English does not make for dull reading. Quite the reverse, in fact. Plain English prefers fresh, sharp vocabulary and active sentences—precisely the opposite of the dull, stodgy, repetitive language used in most business writing. (Sign up for our 10 Top Writing Habits to find out more.)

2. Plain English is not oversimplified writing. There is a difference between oversimplifying something, i.e. describing something as simpler than it really is, and expressing something simply, i.e. in a way that’s easy to understand. The first is misleading; the second, helpful. And Plain English is all about being helpful.

3. For both those reasons, Plain English makes reading if not a joy—there’s nothing it can do about the subject matter 😁—then at least a more enjoyable experience.