[Osmf-talk] [OSM-talk] LCCWG Moderation Subcommittee holding public discussions on Etiquette Guidelines

Minh Nguyen minh at nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us
Thu Aug 26 20:34:22 UTC 2021


Vào lúc 12:32 2021-08-26, Amanda McCann đã viết:
> I have seen this complaint a few times now. I think there are 2 problems. (i) uncommon "technical" words (aka jargon) and (ii) metaphors and idioms.
>
> e.g. “to dead name [somebody]” is an new English verb which means to refer to a transgender person using their old name. Sometimes people do it deliberately, in order to misgender a transgender person. “to misgender” is another new verb (which isn't even in my Firefox's spellchecker!), which means to call someone the wrong gender. Other examples “innuendo”, “intimidation”, “retaliation”. For all of these words, one can write a dictionary entry, one can define them. Those words are in normal dictionaries. These are useful words with specific meanings. We could write a dictionary for these words, if that would help. It is good to have these technical words. If we do not include those specific words, then (to keep the same meaning) we will have to have very long sentences, or use simplier words that don't mean the same thing. In English this type of specialist langauge is called “jargon” (which also has negative meanings).
>
> This is not just unique to non-native English speakers. Different dialects of English have different meanings. I'm a native speaker of Hiberno English, and had some of the words from the mod subcttee (et al.) mean different things, like “town hall”, ”biweekly”, or “through [time period]”.
Perhaps the document could have footnotes or a “Definitions” section to 
clarify jargon or other terms that are subject to interpretation, as 
you’ve done here. As an American English speaker, I would consider 
“dead-naming” to benefit from a definition in the document, 
“intimidation” to be more subjective with readily available definitions, 
and “lifeblood” to be a rhetorical flourish.
> (ii) Metaphors, and idioms, are different. e.g. “X is the lifeblood of Y”. These can be hard to non-native speakers to understand. I often use metaphors & idioms. I am trying to do that less, in order to be understood better. Unfortunately, the best way to do this, is to write very simple sentences. One must write like a robot. The language that comes out, sounds cold, and unfriendly, and distant. This can be hard for native speakers, because one wants to sound friendly, and nice, and happy. But it can be good to write clearly.

This is always a difficult balance to strike, especially writing for an 
audience from a wide variety of backgrounds. If there’s a way to work 
the “lifeblood” bit into the introduction, which is more conceptual, 
then it could be less of a barrier to understanding the substance of the 
rest of the document. If anything else in the document needs further 
explanation, this would be a good forum to get that out of the way too. 
It’s important to make the wording presentable but even more important 
to make sure it presents the right standards.

For non-native speakers specifically, I’m looking forward to helping 
with a translation of this document once it’s ready, and I’m sure others 
are eager to as well.

-- 
Minh Nguyen <minh at nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us>




More information about the osmf-talk mailing list