
English: 
Why is so much writing so bad?
Why do we have to struggle
with so much legalese,
as in the revocation by these
regulations of a provision
previously revoked
subject to savings
does not affect the
continued operations.
Why do we put up
with academese, as
in "it is the moment
of nonconstruction,
disclosing the absentation of
actuality from the concept,
in part through its
invitation to emphasise
in reading the helplessness of
its fall into conceptuality."
Why is it so hard to set the
time on a digital alarm clock?
[LAUGHTER]
There's no shortage of
theories, and the one
that I hear most
often is captured

Spanish: 
¿Por qué tanta escritura es pésima?
¿Por qué debemos luchar con tanta jerigonza legal?
como en: la revocación por éstas regulaciones de una provisión
previamente revocada sujeta a ahorros
no afecta las operaciones continuadas.
¿Por qué debemos aguantar con galamatías académica como
en "es el momento de no-construcción,
revelando la ausencia de sustantividad del concepto,
en parte a través de su invitación a enfatizar
en leer la impotencia de su desmoronamiento hacia la conceptualización".
¿Por qué es tan difícil ajustar la hora en un reloj de alarma digital?
[RISA]
No existe escasez de teorías, y aquella
que escucho más a menudo se captura

English: 
Why is so much writing so bad?
Why do we have to struggle
with so much legalese?
As in, "The revocation
by these Regulations of a provision
previously revoked subject to savings
does not affect the
continued operations."
Why do we put up with academese?
As in, "It is the moment
of non-construction,
disclosing the absentation of
actuality from the concept
in part through its
invitation to emphasize,
in reading, the helplessness
of its fall into conceptuality."
Why is it so hard to set
the time on a digital alarm clock?
[LAUGHTER]
There's no shortage of theories;
and the one that I hear
most often is captured

Spanish: 
en ésta caricatura en la que el jefe dice
al escritor de tecnología, "buen comienzo.
Necesita algo más de palabrería"
Eso es, que la mala escritura es una elección deliberada.
Burócratas insisten en galimatías para evadir responsabilidad.
Nerds pálidos toman su venganza
en las chicas que los rechazaron para citas en secundaria
y los deportistas que pateaban arena en sus caras.
Pseudo-intelectuales intentan embaucar a sus audiencias
con jerigonza pomposa, ocultando el hecho
de que no tienen nada que decir.
Bueno, no tengo duda que la teoría de la fullería
es cierta para algunos escritores algunas veces.
Pero como una explicación general, no suena verdadero.
Conozco muchos científicos quienes hacen trabajo innovador
en temas importantes.
No tienen nada que esconder ni necesidad de impresionar,
pero su escritura apesta.
Buenas personas pueden escribir mala prosa.
La segunda teoría más popular es que los medios digitales
están arruinando el lenguaje.
Google nos está haciendo estúpidos.

English: 
in this cartoon in
which a boss says
to a tech writer, "good start.
Need some more gibberish."
That is, that bad writing
is a deliberate choice.
Bureaucrats insist on gibberish
to evade responsibility.
Pasty-faced nerds
get their revenge
on the girls who turned them
down for dates in high school
and the jocks who kicked
sand in their faces.
Pseudo-intellectuals try to
bamboozle their audiences
with highfalutin gobbledygook,
disguising the fact
that they have nothing to say.
Well, I have no doubt that
the bamboozlement theory
is true of some writers
some of the time.
But as a general explanation,
it doesn't ring true.
I know many scientists
who do groundbreaking work
on important topics.
They have nothing to hide
and no need to impress,
but still their writing stinks.
Good people can write bad prose.
The second most popular
theory is that digital media
are ruining the language.
Google is making us stupid.

English: 
in this cartoon, in which
a boss says to a tech writer,
"Good start. Needs more gibberish."
That is, that bad writing is
a deliberate choice.
Bureaucrats insist on gibberish
to evade responsibility.
Pasty-faced nerds get their revenge
on the girls who turned them
down for dates in high school;
and the jocks who kicked
sand in their faces.
Pseudo-intellectuals try to
bamboozle their audiences
with highfalutin gobbledygook,
disguising the fact
that they have nothing to say.
Well, I have no doubt that
the bamboozlement theory is
true of some writers
some of the time;
but as a general explanation,
it doesn't ring true.
I know many scientists
who do groundbreaking work
on important topics.
They have nothing to hide
and no need to impress,
but still their writing stinks.
Good people can write bad prose.
The second most popular theory is
that digital media are ruining the language.
Google is making us stupid.

English: 
The digital age
stupefies young Americans
and jeopardises our future.
Twitter is forcing us to
think in 140 characters.
Well, if the dumbest
generation theory were true,
then that implies
that it must have
been much better before the
advent of digital media,
such as in the 1980s.
Many of you will
remember that that
was an era in which teenagers
spoke in articulate paragraphs.
Remember when bureaucrats
wrote in plain English
and every academic
article was a masterpiece
in the art of the essay?
Or was it the '70s?
The thing is, that complaints
about the imminent decline
of the language can
be found in every era,
such as 1961, in which a
commentator complained,
"recent graduates, including
those with university degrees,
seem to have no mastery
of the language at all."
Well, we can then go
back before the advent
of radio and television.

Spanish: 
La era digital pasma a jóvenes americanos
y amenaza nuestro futuro.
Twitter nos está forzando a pensar en 140 caracteres.
Bueno, si la teoría de la generación más embrutecida fuera verdad,
entonces eso implica que debe haber
sido mucho mejor antes del advenimiento de los medios digitales.
como en los 1980 ’s
Muchos de ustedes recordaran que esa
era una era en la que los adolescentes hablaban en párrafos articulados.
¿Recuerdan cuando los burócratas escribían en Inglés simple
y cada artículo académico era una obra maestra
en el arte del ensayo?
O era los 70 ’s?
La cosa es, que quejas sobre el declive inminente
del lenguaje pueden ser encontrados en cada era,
como en 1961, en la que un comentador se quejaba,
"graduados recientes, incluyendo aquellos con grados universitarios,
parecen no tener proficiencia del lenguaje para nada."
Bueno, podemos entonces ir antes del advenimiento
de radio y televisión.

English: 
The digital age
stupefies young Americans
and jeopardises our future.
Twitter is forcing us
to think in 140 characters.
Well, if the dumbest generation
theory were true,
then that implies that
it must have been much better
before the advent of digital media,
such as in the 1980s.
Many of you will remember that
that was an era in which teenagers
spoke in articulate paragraphs.
Remember when bureaucrats
wrote in plain English
and every academic
article was a masterpiece
in the art of the essay?
Or was it the '70s?
The thing is that complaints
about the imminent decline
of the language can
be found in every era,
such as 1961, in which a
commentator complained,
"recent graduates, including
those with university degrees,
seem to have no mastery
of the language at all."
Well, we can then go back
before the advent
of radio and television.
In 1917, a commentator wrote,

Spanish: 
En 1917, un comentador escribió, "desde cada universidad
en la universidad se eleva el lamento, nuestros estudiantes no pueden deletrear,
no pueden puntuar.
Cada colegio está en deterioro
porque sus pupilos son tan ignorantes
de los meros rudimentos."
Bien, tal vez tenga que volver aún más temprano, digamos, los días
gloriosos de la Ilustración Europea,
como en 1785, cuando un comentador dijo, "nuestro lenguaje
se está degenerando demasiado rápido.
Empiezo a temer que será imposible revisarlo."
Y entonces hay la policía gramatical antigua que dijo, "oh,
por el amor de Dios, nunca terminas
una oración con ave chica."
[RISAS]
Pienso que una mejor teoría viene de Charles Darwin, quien
escribió "el hombre tiene una tendencia instintiva
a hablar como vemos en el balbuceo de nuestros hijos jóvenes,
mientras no niño tiene tendencia instintiva
para hornear, fermentar, o escribir."
Es decir, mientras el habla es instintiva,
escribir es y siempre ha sido difícil.

English: 
In 1917, a commentator
wrote, "from every college
in the country goes up the
cry, our freshmen can't spell,
can't punctuate.
Every high school
is in disrepair
because its pupils
are so ignorant
of the merest rudiments."
Well, maybe you have to go back
even earlier to, say, the glory
days of the European
Enlightenment,
such as 1785, in which a
commentator said, "our language
is degenerating very fast.
I begin to fear that it will
be impossible to check it."
And then there are the ancient
grammar police said, "oh,
for crying out
loud, you never end
a sentence with a little bird."
[LAUGHTER]
I think a better theory comes
from Charles Darwin, who
wrote "man has an
instinctive tendency
to speak as we see in the
babble of our young children,
whereas no child has
an instinctive tendency
to bake, brew, or write."
That is, whereas
speech is instinctive,
writing is and
always has been hard.

English: 
"From every college in the country
goes up the cry,
'Our freshmen can't spell,
can't punctuate.'
Every high school is in disrepair
because its pupils are so ignorant
of the merest rudiments."
Well, maybe you have to go back
even earlier to, say,
the glory days of
the European Enlightenment,
such as 1785, in which
a commentator said,
"our language is degenerating very fast...
I begin to fear that it will be
impossible to check it."
And then there are the ancient
grammar police said,
"Oh, for crying out loud...
you never end a sentence
with a little bird."
[LAUGHTER]
I think a better theory
comes from Charles Darwin
who wrote, "Man has an instinctive
tendency to speak,
as we see in the babble
of our young children,
whereas no child has
an instinctive tendency
to bake, brew, or write."
That is, whereas speech is instinctive,
writing is and always has been hard.

Spanish: 
Tus lectores son desconocidos, invisibles, inescrutables.
Existen sólo en tu imaginación
cuando pones pluma al papel.
Ellos no pueden reaccionar o irrumpir o pedir aclaración.
Como resultado, escribir es un acto de pretensión,
y escribir es un acto de artesanía.
Bien, ¿qué podemos hacer para mejorar el oficio de la escritura?
Por muchas décadas, ésta pregunta tuvo, al menos en los Estados
Unidos, una simple respuesta, que debes entregarle a estudiantes
éste, el icónico "Los Elementos del Estilo"
del Profesor de Cornell William Strunk, Jr. y su estudiante,
EB White, quien luego pasó a la gloria
como el ensayista del New Yorker y autor del clásico
de los niños, La Red de Charlotte y Stuart Little.
Nota, por cierto, que ambos nacieron
antes del cambio de siglo.
Es decir, antes de la entrada del siglo 20.
Ahora, hay sin lugar a dudas muy buen sentido
en Los Elementos del Estilo.
Hay pequeñas gemas de consejo como usar

English: 
Your readers are unknown,
invisible, inscrutable.
They exist only in
your imagination
when you put pen to paper.
They can't react or break in
or ask for clarification.
As a result, writing is an act of pretense,
and writing is an act of craftsmanship.
Well, what can we do then
to improve the craft of writing?
For many decades,
this question had, at least in the United States,
a single answer,
which is that you hand students this,
the iconic "The Elements Of Style"
by Cornell Professor William Strunk, Jr.
and his student, EB White,
who later went on to glory
as the New Yorker essayist
and the author of the children's classics,
Charlotte's Web and Stuart Little.
Note, by the way, that
both these men were born
before the turn of the century.
That is, before the turn
of the 20th century.
Now, there is, undoubtedly,
a lot of good sense
in The Elements of Style.
There are little gems of advice like

English: 
Your readers are unknown,
invisible, inscrutable.
They exist only in
your imagination
when you put pen to paper.
They can't react or break
in or ask for clarification.
As a result, writing
is an act of pretence,
and writing is an
act of craftsmanship.
Well, what can we do then to
improve the craft of writing?
For many decades, this question
had, at least in the United
States, a single answer, which
is that you hand students
this, the iconic The
Elements Of Style
by Cornell Professor William
Strunk, Jr. and his student,
EB White, who later
went on to glory
as the New Yorker essayist and
the author of the children's
classics, Charlotte's
Web and Stuart Little.
Note, by the way, that
both these men were born
before the turn of the century.
That is, before the turn
of the 20th century.
Now, there is undoubtedly
a lot of good sense
in The Elements of Style.
There are little gems
of advice like use

Spanish: 
lenguaje definido, específico y concreto.
Escribir con sustantivos y verbos.
Poner las palabras enfáticas al final.
Y mi favorito, su directiva primaria, omitir palabras innecesarias,
el que es por cierto un excelente ejemplo de sí mismo.
Por otro lado, hay muchas razones por las que Los Elementos
de Estilo y otros manuales de estilo tradicionales como
"Uso del Inglés Moderno" de Fowler, probablemente el equivalente en Inglés
más cercano, por qué no deben ser la base del consejo de escritura
en el siglo 21.
Por un lado, un montón del consejo es obsoleto.
El lenguaje cambia.
Por ejemplo, Strunk y White declararon que "finalizar es
un verbo pomposo y ambiguo."
Ahora, muchos de ustedes se sorprenderán en encontrar
que ésta palabra perfectamente  intachable y útil palabra
sería considerada pomposa y ambigua en la época.
Pero es lo que resulto nuevo en la era del Profesor Strunk
Rallaba en sus oídos.
La declaró pomposa, pero luego cayó en uso común.
Y nadie recuerda que fue jamás

English: 
definite, specific,
concrete language.
Write with nouns and verbs.
Put the emphatic
words at the end.
And my favourite, their prime
directive, omit needless words,
which is by the way, an
excellent example of itself.
On the other hand, there are
many reasons why The Elements
of Style and other
traditional style manuals like
Fowler's Modern English Usage,
probably the closest English
equivalent, why they cannot
be the basis of writing advice
in the 21st century.
For one thing, a lot of
the advice is obsolete.
Language changes.
For example, Strunk and White
declared that "to finalise is
a pompous, ambiguous verb."
Now, many of you will
be surprised to find
that this perfectly
unexceptionable and useful word
would be deemed pompous
and ambiguous at the time.
But it just happened to be
new in Professor Strunk's era.
It grated on his ears.
He declared it pompous, but it
then fell into common usage.
And no one even remembers
that it was ever

English: 
"Use definite, specific, concrete language."
"Write with nouns and verbs."
"Put the emphatic words at the end."
And my favourite,
their prime directive,
"Omit needless words."
—which is, by the way,
an excellent example of itself.
[LAUGHTER]
On the other hand,
there are many reasons why
The Elements of Style
and other traditional style manuals
like Fowler's Modern English Usage,
probably the closest
English equivalent, why they cannot
be the basis of writing advice
in the 21st century.
For one thing, a lot of
the advice is obsolete.
Language changes.
For example,
Strunk and White declared that,
"to finalize is a pompous,
ambiguous verb."
Now, many of you will be
surprised to find
that this perfectly unexceptionable
and useful word would be
deemed pompous
and ambiguous at the time.
But it just happened to be new
in Professor Strunk's era.
It grated on his ears.
He declared it pompous,
but it then fell into common usage,
and no one even remembers

Spanish: 
considerada no gramatical.
O contactar es impreciso y presumido.
No contacte personas.
Comuníquese con ellos, búsquelos, llámelos, encuéntrelos,
o reúnase con ellos.
Por supuesto, Strunk y White no
vivieron para ver el día en que también podrías chatear con ellos
twittearlos y mandarles correo electrónico
etc.
Ni apreciaron realmente que contactar en verdad
es un verbo indispensable, porque hay veces
cuando no te importa si una persona llama o encuentra
o chatea a otra, siempre y cuando se contacten con ellos
por un medio u otro.
Y para ése propósito, contactar es un verbo perfectamente útil.
Parte del consejo es desconcertante, como aquí -
"la palabra people (personas) no debe ser usada con palabras de número
en lugar de personas.
Es decir, no deberías decir six people (seis personas)."
¿Por qué no?
Bien, de six people (seis personas), cinco se fueron,
¿cuántas people (personas) quedan?
¿Respuesta?
One people. (Una personas)
[RISAS]

English: 
that it was ever considered
ungrammatical.
Or, "to contact is vague
and self-important.
Do not contact people;
get in touch with them, look them up,
phone them, find them, or meet them."
Of course, Strunk and White did not live
to see the day in which
you could also text them,
instant message them,
tweet them, email them, and so on.
Nor did they really appreciate that
"to contact" actually is
an indispensable verb,
because there are some times
when you don't care whether
one person phones or meets
or texts another,
as long as they do get in touch with them
by one means or another.
And for that purpose, "to contact" is
a perfectly useful verb.
Some of the advice is baffling,
such as this,
"the word people is not to
be used with words of number,
in place of persons."
That is, you should not say 'six people'.
Why not?
Well, "if of 'six people' five went away,
how many people would be left?
Answer: one people."
[LAUGHTER]

English: 
considered ungrammatical.
Or to contact is vague
and self-important.
Do not contact people.
Get in touch with them, look
them up, phone them, find them,
or meet them.
Of course, Strunk
and White did not
live to see the day in which
you could also text them
and instant message them and
tweet them and email them
and so on.
Nor did they really appreciate
that to contact actually
is an indispensable verb,
because there are sometimes
when you don't care whether
one person phones or meets
or texts another, as long as
they do get in touch with them
by one means or another.
And for that purpose, to contact
is a perfectly useful verb.
Some of the advice is
baffling, such as this--
"the word people is not to
be used with words of number
in place of persons.
That is, you should
not say six people."
Why not?
Well, of six people,
five went away,
how many people would be left?
Answer?
One people.
[LAUGHTER]

Spanish: 
¿Entendieron?
Por la misma lógica, nunca deberías
decir tengo two children (dos niños) o 32 teeth (dientes)
o two feet (dos pies) o cualquier otro plural irregular.
O ¿qué tal ésto?
Notar que la palabra clever significa una cosa
aplicado a personas, y otra aplicado a caballos.
Un clever horse es un caballo amistoso y no uno ingenioso.
[RISAS]
El problema con el consejo de estilo tradicional es que
consiste en una lista arbitraria de hacer y no hacer basado
en gustos y humor de los autores.
No está basado en principios de entendimiento
de como funciona el lenguaje.
Como resultado, usuarios no tienen manera
de entender y asimilar el consejo.
Y como he notado, bastante del consejo simplemente está mal.
Pienso que podemos hacerlo mejor ahora.
Podemos basar el consejo de escritura en ciencia y erudición
del lenguaje, en teoría gramatical moderna, que
es una ventaja sobre gramática antigua

English: 
Did you get that?
By the same logic, you should never say,
I have two children or 32 teeth.
or two feet or any other
irregular plural.
Or how's this?
Note that the word
clever means one thing
when applied to people,
another when applied to horses.
A clever horse is a good-natured
one not an ingenious one.
[LAUGHTER]
The problem with traditional
style advice is that it
consists of an arbitrary
list of dos and don'ts based
on the tastes and
peeves of the authors.
It's not based on a
principled understanding
of how language works.
And as a result,
users have no way
of understanding and
assimilating the advice.
And as I've noted, much of
the advice is just wrong.
I think we can do better today.
We can base advice on writing
on the science and scholarship
of language, on modern
grammatical theory, which
is an advance over
the old grammars

English: 
Did you get that?
By the same logic,
you should never
say I have two
children or 32 teeth
or two feet or any
other irregular plural.
Or how's this?
Note that the word
clever means one thing
when applied to people,
another when applied to horses.
A clever horse is a good-natured
one not an ingenious one.
[LAUGHTER]
The problem with traditional
style advice is that it
consists of an arbitrary
list of dos and don'ts based
on the tastes and
peeves of the authors.
It's not based on a
principled understanding
of how language works.
And as a result,
users have no way
of understanding and
assimilating the advice.
And as I've noted, much of
the advice is just wrong.
I think we can do better today.
We can base advice on writing
on the science and scholarship
of language, on modern
grammatical theory, which
is an advance over
the old grammars

Spanish: 
que se reporta desde el Latín,
en diccionarios basados en evidencia, en investigación
de ciencia cognitiva sobre que hace a las oraciones
fáciles o difíciles de leer, y en estudios históricos y críticos
de uso.
Todo comienza con un modelo efectivo de comunicación en prosa.
Como he enfatizado, escribir es un acto no natural,
y buen estilo debe empezar con un modelo mental coherente
de el escenario de comunicación, como el escritor imagina
al lector, y lo que el escritor intenta conseguir.
Y mi modelo favorito de éste tipo viene de un libro encantador
de los académicos ingleses Francis-Noeal Thomas y Mark
Turner, y lo llaman el estilo clásico.
El modelo detrás el estilo clásico es que la prosa
es una ventana hacia el mundo.
El escritor ha visto algo en el mundo
que el lector no ha notado aún.
Él posiciona al lector de manera que
éste pueda verlo con sus propios ojos.
El escritor y lector son iguales.
El objetivo es ayudar al lector a ver la realidad objetiva

English: 
that are reported
over from Latin,
on evidence-based
dictionaries, on research
in cognitive science
on what makes sentences
easy or hard to read, and an
historical and critical studies
of usage.
It all begins with a model of
effective prose communication.
As I have been emphasising,
writing is an unnatural act,
and good style must begin
with a coherent mental model
of the communication scenario,
how the writer imagines
the reader, and what the
writer is trying to accomplish.
And my favourite model of this
sort comes from a lovely book
by the English scholars
Francis-Noel Thomas and Mark
Turner, and they call
it classic style.
The model behind classic
style is that prose
is a window onto the world.
The writer has seen
something in the world
that the reader has
not yet noticed.
He positions the
reader so that she
can see it with her own eyes.
The writer and
reader are equals.
The goal is to help the
reader see objective reality

English: 
that are ported over from Latin,
on evidence-based dictionaries,
on research in cognitive science
on what makes sentences
easy or hard to read,
and on historical and critical studies of usage.
It all begins with a model of
effective prose communication.
As I have been emphasising,
writing is an unnatural act,
and good style must begin
with a coherent mental model
of the communication scenario:
How the writer imagines the reader,
and what the writer is trying
to accomplish.
And my favourite model of this
sort comes from a lovely book
by the English scholars
Francis-Noël Thomas and Mark Turner,
and they call it classic style.
The model behind classic
style is that prose
is a window onto the world.
The writer has seen
something in the world
that the reader has
not yet noticed.
He positions the
reader so that she
can see it with her own eyes.
The writer and
reader are equals.
The goal is to help the
reader see objective reality

English: 
and the style is conversation.
Now, that may seem
obvious, but classic style
is just one of a variety of
styles that they explicate,
including contemplative
style, oracular style,
and practical style.
But the one that they argue
that infects most academic prose
is one they call post-modern or
self-conscious style, in which
the writer's chief if
unstated concern is
to escape being convicted
of philosophical naivete
about his own enterprise.
They continue.
"When we open a cookbook,
we completely put aside
and expect the author to put
aside the kind of question that
leads to the heart of certain
philosophical traditions.
Is it possible to
talk about cooking?
Do eggs really exist?
Is food something about
which knowledge is possible?
Can anyone ever tell us
anything true about cooking?
Classic style
similarly puts aside
as inappropriate philosophical
questions about its enterprise.
If it took those
questions up, it

English: 
and the style is conversation.
Now, that may seem
obvious, but classic style
is just one of a variety of
styles that they explicate,
including contemplative
style, oracular style,
and practical style.
But the one that they argue
that infects most academic prose
is one they call post-modern or
self-conscious style, in which
the writer's chief if
unstated concern is
to escape being convicted
of philosophical naivete
about his own enterprise.
They continue.
"When we open a cookbook,
we completely put aside
and expect the author to put
aside the kind of question that
leads to the heart of certain
philosophical traditions.
Is it possible to
talk about cooking?
Do eggs really exist?
Is food something about
which knowledge is possible?
Can anyone ever tell us
anything true about cooking?
Classic style
similarly puts aside
as inappropriate philosophical
questions about its enterprise.
If it took those
questions up, it

Spanish: 
y el estilo es la conversación.
Ahora, eso puede parecer obvio, pero el estilo clásico
es solo uno de una variedad de estilos que explican,
incluyendo el estilo contemplativo, estilo profético,
y estilo práctico.
Pero el que ellos argumentan infecta la mayoría de prosa académica
es uno que llaman pos-moderno o estilo cohibido
la principal preocupación del escritor, si no lo especifica,
es escapar ser convicto de ingenuidad filosófica
sobre su propia empresa.
Continúan.
"Cuando abrimos un libro de cocina, completamente ponemos a un lado
y esperamos que el autor ponga a un lado el tipo de cuestionamiento que
lleva al corazón de ciertas tradiciones filosóficas.
¿Es posible hablar de cocinar?
¿Realmente existen los huevos?
¿Es la comida algo sobre lo cual el conocimiento es posible?
¿Puede alguien decirnos alguna vez algo verdadero acerca de cocinar?
El estilo clásico similarmente pone a un lado
como inapropiadas preguntas filosóficas sobre su propia empresa.
Si emprendiera tomar esas cuestiones,

Spanish: 
nunca terminaría de tratar su propio tema,
y su propósito es exclusivamente tratar su tema."
Bien, estaría desafiando los principios de la prosa clásica
si solo hablara de ella sin mostrar un ejemplo.
Y aquí está un ejemplo.
Es un artículo por el físico Brian Greene
sobre la teoría de la cosmología inflacionaria
y una de sus implicaciones, universos múltiples.
Y lo escribió para la revista Newsweek.
Greene escribe, "si el espacio ahora se expande, entonces
en tiempos aún más tempranos el universo
debió haber sido aún más pequeño.
En algún momento en el pasado distante, todo
lo que ahora vemos, los ingredientes responsables
de cada planeta, cada estrella, cada galaxia, incluso el espacio
en sí mismo, debió haber estado comprimido
en un punto infinitesimal que luego se expandió,
evolucionando en el inverso como lo conocemos.
La teoría del Big Bang nació.
Aún así científicos estaban conscientes que la teoría del Big Bang sufría
de una desventaja significativa - de todas las cosas
no explica el Bang.
Las ecuaciones de Einstein hacen un maravilloso trabajo
en describir como el universo evolucionó desde un fragmento de segundo

English: 
could never get around
to treating its subject,
and its purpose is exclusively
to treat its subject."
Well, I'd be defying the
principles of classic prose
if I just talked about it
without showing you an example.
And here's an example.
It is an article by the
physicist Brian Greene
on the theory of
inflationary cosmology
and one of its implications,
multiple universes.
And he wrote it for
Newsweek magazine.
Greene writes, "if space
is now expanding, then
at ever earlier
times the universe
must have been ever smaller.
At some moment in the
distant past, everything
we now see, the
ingredients responsible
for every planet, every star,
every galaxy, even space
itself, must have
been compressed
to an infinitesimal speck
that then swelled outward,
evolving into the
universe as we know it.
The Big Bang Theory was born.
Yet scientists were aware that
the Big Bang Theory suffered
from a significant
shortcoming-- of all things
it leaves out the bang.
Einstein's equations
do a wonderful job
of describing how the universe
evolved from a split-second

English: 
could never get around
to treating its subject,
and its purpose is exclusively
to treat its subject."
Well, I'd be defying the
principles of classic prose
if I just talked about it
without showing you an example.
And here's an example.
It is an article by the
physicist Brian Greene
on the theory of
inflationary cosmology
and one of its implications,
multiple universes.
And he wrote it for
Newsweek magazine.
Greene writes, "if space
is now expanding, then
at ever earlier
times the universe
must have been ever smaller.
At some moment in the
distant past, everything
we now see, the
ingredients responsible
for every planet, every star,
every galaxy, even space
itself, must have
been compressed
to an infinitesimal speck
that then swelled outward,
evolving into the
universe as we know it.
The Big Bang Theory was born.
Yet scientists were aware that
the Big Bang Theory suffered
from a significant
shortcoming-- of all things
it leaves out the bang.
Einstein's equations
do a wonderful job
of describing how the universe
evolved from a split-second

English: 
after the bang,
but the equations
break down, similar to
the error message returned
by a calculator when
you try to divide 1
by 0, when applied to
the extreme environment
of the universe's
earliest moment.
The Big Bang thus
provides no insight
into what might have
powered the bang itself."
Now, in these few
sentences, Greene
has covered some fairly
sophisticated cosmology
and physics.
But he does it in a way that
anyone can see for themselves.
That is, if you can imagine
the universe expanding,
you can run that
mental movie backwards
and imagine that it
must have originated
in an infinitesimal speck.
And even the abstruse
mathematical notion
of equations breaking
down, he presents in a way
that anyone can
see for themselves.
You can either pull
out a calculator
and try it-- try
dividing 1 by 0,
and indeed you will
get an error message,
or you can try to wrap your mind
around what it could possibly
mean to divide the
number 1 into 0 parts.
And that is classic style.

English: 
after the bang,
but the equations
break down, similar to
the error message returned
by a calculator when
you try to divide 1
by 0, when applied to
the extreme environment
of the universe's
earliest moment.
The Big Bang thus
provides no insight
into what might have
powered the bang itself."
Now, in these few
sentences, Greene
has covered some fairly
sophisticated cosmology
and physics.
But he does it in a way that
anyone can see for themselves.
That is, if you can imagine
the universe expanding,
you can run that
mental movie backwards
and imagine that it
must have originated
in an infinitesimal speck.
And even the abstruse
mathematical notion
of equations breaking
down, he presents in a way
that anyone can
see for themselves.
You can either pull
out a calculator
and try it-- try
dividing 1 by 0,
and indeed you will
get an error message,
or you can try to wrap your mind
around what it could possibly
mean to divide the
number 1 into 0 parts.
And that is classic style.

Spanish: 
luego del Big Bang, pero las ecuaciones
se averían, similar al mensaje de error que regresa
una calculadora cuando tratas de dividir 1
sobre 0, cuando aplicadas a un ambiente extremo
del universo en sus etapas iniciales.
El Big Bang entonces no provee visión
sobre lo que pudo haber iniciado el Bang en sí mismo."
Ahora, en éstas pocas oraciones, Greene
a cubierto algo de cosmologia y física
bastante sofisticada.
Pero lo hace de manera que todos puedan ver por sí mismos.
Es decir, si puedes imaginar el universo expandiéndose,
puedes correr la película mental en reversa
e imaginar que debió haberse originado
en un punto infinitesimal.
E incluso la noción matemática abstrusa
de ecuaciones averiándose, el lo presenta en una manera
que todos puedan ver por si mismos.
Puedes sacar una calculadora
e intentarlo - intenta dividir 1 sobre 0,
y en verdad tendrás un mensaje de error,
o puedes intentar envolver tu mente alrededor de que podría
significar dividir el número 1 en 0 partes.
Y ese es estilo clásico.

English: 
The reader can see
it for herself.
Now, many examples of
writing advice I think
are implications of the
model behind classic prose.
To begin with, the
focus of classic prose
is on the thing being shown, not
on the activity of studying it.
So here's an example
of the kind of prose
that I have to wade through
during my working day.
A typical article in my field
might begin as follows--
in recent years, an increasing
number of researchers
have turned their attention to
the problem of child language
acquisition.
In this article, recent
theories of this process
will be reviewed.
Well, no offence, but
not a whole lot of people
are all that interested in how
professors spend their time.
A more classic introduction
to the same subject matter
could have been, all
children acquire the ability
to speak and
understand a language
without explicit lessons.
How do they
accomplish this feat?
A corollary of this advisory
is to minimise the kind

English: 
The reader can see
it for herself.
Now, many examples of
writing advice I think
are implications of the
model behind classic prose.
To begin with, the
focus of classic prose
is on the thing being shown, not
on the activity of studying it.
So here's an example
of the kind of prose
that I have to wade through
during my working day.
A typical article in my field
might begin as follows--
in recent years, an increasing
number of researchers
have turned their attention to
the problem of child language
acquisition.
In this article, recent
theories of this process
will be reviewed.
Well, no offence, but
not a whole lot of people
are all that interested in how
professors spend their time.
A more classic introduction
to the same subject matter
could have been, all
children acquire the ability
to speak and
understand a language
without explicit lessons.
How do they
accomplish this feat?
A corollary of this advisory
is to minimise the kind

Spanish: 
El lector puede ver por sí mismo.
Ahora, muchos ejemplos de consejo de escritura que puedo pensar
son implicaciones del modelo detrás de la prosa clásica.
Para comenzar, el objetivo de la prosa clásica
es en el objeto siendo mostrado, no en la actividad que lo estudia.
Así que aquí hay un ejemplo del tipo de prosa
que tengo que vadear durante mi día de trabajo.
Un artículo típico de mi campo podría comenzar así -
en años recientes, un creciente número de investigadores
han dirigido su atención al problema de la adquisición de lenguaje
en infantes
En éste artículo, teorías de éste proceso
serán revisadas.
Bien, sin ofender, pero no tantas personas
están del todo interesadas en como profesores usan su tiempo.
Una introducción más clásica del mismo tema
podría haber sido, todos los niños adquieren la habilidad
de hablar y entender un languaje
sin lecciones explícitas.
¿Cómo logran ésta hazaña?
Un corolario de éste consejo es minimizar el tipo

English: 
of apologising that academics
in particular feel compelled
to do.
Again, this is the
kind of sentence
that I have to deal
with in my daily life.
The problem of
language acquisition
is extremely complex.
It is difficult to give
precise definitions
of the concept of language
and the concept of acquisition
and the concept of children.
There is much uncertainty
about the interpretation
of experimental data and a great
deal of controversy surrounding
the theories.
More research needs to be done.
[LAUGHTER]
Now, this is the
kind of verbiage
that could be deleted at a
stroke with no loss in content,
because classic prose
gives the reader credit
for knowing that many
concepts are hard to define
and many controversies
hard to resolve.
The reader is there to see what
the writer will do about it.
Another corollary is to minimise
the hedging that is apparently
obligatory in academic prose.
The sprinkling of words
into prose such a somewhat,
fairly, rather, nearly,
relatively, seemingly, in part,

English: 
of apologising that academics
in particular feel compelled
to do.
Again, this is the
kind of sentence
that I have to deal
with in my daily life.
The problem of
language acquisition
is extremely complex.
It is difficult to give
precise definitions
of the concept of language
and the concept of acquisition
and the concept of children.
There is much uncertainty
about the interpretation
of experimental data and a great
deal of controversy surrounding
the theories.
More research needs to be done.
[LAUGHTER]
Now, this is the
kind of verbiage
that could be deleted at a
stroke with no loss in content,
because classic prose
gives the reader credit
for knowing that many
concepts are hard to define
and many controversies
hard to resolve.
The reader is there to see what
the writer will do about it.
Another corollary is to minimise
the hedging that is apparently
obligatory in academic prose.
The sprinkling of words
into prose such a somewhat,
fairly, rather, nearly,
relatively, seemingly, in part,

Spanish: 
de disculpas que académicos en particular se sienten obligados
a ofrecer.
De nuevo, éste es el tipo de oración
con la que debo toparme en mi vida cotidiana.
El problema de la adquisición del lenguaje
es extremadamente complejo.
Es difícil dar  definiciones precisas
del concepto de lenguaje y el concepto de adquisición
y el concepto de infantes.
Hay mucha incertidumbre acerca de la interpretación
de datos experimentales y un gran bagaje de controversia envolviendo
las teorías.
Más investigación es necesaria.
[RISAS]
Ahora, éste es el tipo de verbosidad
que podría ser eliminada de un pincelazo sin pérdida de contenido,
porque la prosa clásica le da crédito al lector
de saber que muchos conceptos son difíciles de definir
y muchas controversias difíciles de resolver.
El lector está ahí para ver lo que el escritor va a hacer al respecto.
Otro corolario es minimizar la evasión que es aparentemente
obligatoria en prosa académica.
La salpicadura de palabras en prosa tales como un tanto,
copiosamente, pletóricamente,  relativamente, aparentemente, en parte,

Spanish: 
comparativamente, predominantemente, por lo visto,
por así decirlo, y presumiblemente.
Y el similar uso de citas,
mediante las cuales el escritor se distancia
de una figura retórica familiar.
Así que aquí está un ejemplo de una carta de recomendación
que recibí.
"Ella es una "esponja" y ha sido
capaz de es educarse a sí misma "virtualmente" en cualquier área que
le interesase."
Bien, se supone que debemos tomar ésta recomendación como diciendo que
la joven mujer en cuestión es una esponja o que es
una "esponja", a saber alguien de quien solo se rumora o alega
que es una esponja para el estudio pero en realidad no es.
Y si ella ha sido capaz de educarse a sí misma
en virtualmente cualquier área que le interesase, ¿existen
algunas áreas que le interesan donde
ella intentó educarse pero simplemente falló?
Éste hábito fue llevado a casa
cuando me encontré a un conocido
en una conferencia académica.
No nos habíamos visto en un número de años,
y le pregunté como estaba.
Y mientras sacaba una foto de su hija de cuatro años,

English: 
comparatively,
predominantly, apparently,
so to speak, and presumably.
And the similar use
of shutter quotes,
by which a writer
distances himself
from a familiar
figure of speech.
So here's an example from
a letter of recommendation
I received.
"She is a quick
study and has been
able to educate herself
in virtually any area that
interests her."
Well, are we to take this
recommendation as saying that
the young woman in question is
a quick study or that she is
a quick study, namely someone
who is only rumoured or alleged
to be a quick study
but really isn't.
And if she's been able
to educate herself
in virtually any area that
interests her, are there
some areas that
interest her where
she tried to educate
herself but just failed?
This habit was
brought home to me
when I came across
an acquaintance
at an academic conference.
We hadn't seen each other
in a number of years,
and I asked how she was.
And as she pulled out a picture
of her four-year-old daughter,

English: 
comparatively,
predominantly, apparently,
so to speak, and presumably.
And the similar use
of shutter quotes,
by which a writer
distances himself
from a familiar
figure of speech.
So here's an example from
a letter of recommendation
I received.
"She is a quick
study and has been
able to educate herself
in virtually any area that
interests her."
Well, are we to take this
recommendation as saying that
the young woman in question is
a quick study or that she is
a quick study, namely someone
who is only rumoured or alleged
to be a quick study
but really isn't.
And if she's been able
to educate herself
in virtually any area that
interests her, are there
some areas that
interest her where
she tried to educate
herself but just failed?
This habit was
brought home to me
when I came across
an acquaintance
at an academic conference.
We hadn't seen each other
in a number of years,
and I asked how she was.
And as she pulled out a picture
of her four-year-old daughter,

Spanish: 
y decía, virtualmente la adoramos.
[RISAS]
Aw.
¿Por qué tanta evasión compulsiva?
Bien, hay un imperativo en muchas burocracias
de que los burócratas abrevian como CTA -
Cubre Tu Anatomía.
Pero hay una alternativa al estilo clásico -
"así que demándame."
Es decir, es mejor ser claro y posiblemente equivocado que turbio
y, como los físicos dicen, ni siquiera equivocado.
También la prosa clásica da cuentas de la naturaleza cooperativa
de la conversación ordinaria.
El hecho de que dos personas en cháchara
leerán entre líneas y conectarán puntos
de manera que no todo tiene que ser expuesto con absoluta precisión.
Así que si yo fuera de decir, bien, en años recientes Americanos se
han vuelto más obesos, tu interpretas
que significa en promedio o en general.
No vas a unirme a la afirmación

English: 
and she said, we
virtually adore her.
[LAUGHTER]
Aw.
Why the compulsive hedging?
Well, there is an imperative
in many bureaucracies
that the bureaucrats
abbreviate as CYA--
cover your anatomy.
But there is an alternative
in classic style--
so sue me.
That is, it's better to be clear
and possibly wrong than muddy
and, as the physicists
say, not even wrong.
Also classic prose counts
on the cooperative nature
of ordinary conversation.
The fact that two
people in chit-chat
will read between the
lines and connect the dots
so that not everything has to be
stated with absolute precision.
So if I were to say, well, in
recent years Americans have
been getting fatter,
you interpret it
as meaning on average
or in general.
You're not going to
hold me to the claim

English: 
and she said, we
virtually adore her.
[LAUGHTER]
Aw.
Why the compulsive hedging?
Well, there is an imperative
in many bureaucracies
that the bureaucrats
abbreviate as CYA--
cover your anatomy.
But there is an alternative
in classic style--
so sue me.
That is, it's better to be clear
and possibly wrong than muddy
and, as the physicists
say, not even wrong.
Also classic prose counts
on the cooperative nature
of ordinary conversation.
The fact that two
people in chit-chat
will read between the
lines and connect the dots
so that not everything has to be
stated with absolute precision.
So if I were to say, well, in
recent years Americans have
been getting fatter,
you interpret it
as meaning on average
or in general.
You're not going to
hold me to the claim

Spanish: 
de que cada uno de los 350 millones de ciudadanos de los Estados Unidos
todos han estado engordando.
Llamo a éstas tendencias narcisismo profesional,
la confusión de las actividades de tu gremio
o campo o profesión en el tema
que está diseñado  tratar.
Y no es solo un problema en académicos,
sino que infecta muchas profesiones.
Noticieros, por ejemplo, a menudo cubrirán la cobertura,
dando lugar a la notoria cámara de eco de los medios.
Bastante cobertura de películas y música popular
te dirá todo acerca de  los ingresos brutos de la semana
y el número de semanas en las carteleras
pero dirá nada acerca de la obra de arte.
Estoy seguro que no soy la única persona que
ha sido aburrido a lágrimas por la exhibición del museo
donde un casco de cerámica en la vitrina
y una explicación extensa de como
entra dentro de una clasificación de estilos de alfarería.
Pero no dice nada sobre las personas que lo hicieron
o que hacían con ella.

English: 
that every last one of the 350
million citizens of the United
States have all
been getting fatter.
I call these tendencies
professional narcissism,
the confusion of the
activities of your guild
or field or profession
with the subject matter
that it is designed
to deal with.
And it is not just a
problem in academics,
but it infects many professions.
News media, for example, will
often cover the coverage,
giving rise to the notorious
media echo chamber.
Much coverage of movies
and popular music
will tell you all about the
first weekend gross receipts
and the number of
weeks on the charts
but say nothing about
the actual work of art.
I'm sure I'm not
the only person who
has been bored to tears
by the museum display
where you get a
shard in the showcase
and a lengthy
explanation of how it
fits into a classification
of pottery styles.
But it says nothing about
the people who made it
or what they did with it.

English: 
that every last one of the 350
million citizens of the United
States have all
been getting fatter.
I call these tendencies
professional narcissism,
the confusion of the
activities of your guild
or field or profession
with the subject matter
that it is designed
to deal with.
And it is not just a
problem in academics,
but it infects many professions.
News media, for example, will
often cover the coverage,
giving rise to the notorious
media echo chamber.
Much coverage of movies
and popular music
will tell you all about the
first weekend gross receipts
and the number of
weeks on the charts
but say nothing about
the actual work of art.
I'm sure I'm not
the only person who
has been bored to tears
by the museum display
where you get a
shard in the showcase
and a lengthy
explanation of how it
fits into a classification
of pottery styles.
But it says nothing about
the people who made it
or what they did with it.

Spanish: 
Y muchas páginas web gubernamentales y de negocios te instruirán
sobre la organización burocrática pero no tienen
manera fácil de encontrar la información que en verdad necesitas.
Una segunda característica de la prosa clásica
es que mantiene la ilusión de que el lector está
viendo el mundo en vez de sólo escuchando palabrería.
Y de ésta manera, evita clichés como la plaga.
Todos estamos familiarizados con el tipo de escritor que
dispensa oraciones como: necesitabamos
pensar fuera de la caja en nuestra búsqueda por el santo grial
pero hallamos que no era ni una bala mágica ni un golpe fuerte.
Así que rodamos con los golpes y dejamos
las papas caer donde pudieran mientras veían el vaso
como medio lleno.
Es pan comido!.
Ahora, el problema con escribir con clichés
es que o forza al lector
a cerrar su cerebro visual
y solo procesar las palabras como bla, bla, bla, bla, bla
bla, bla.
O si en verdad piensa a través de la prosa
hacia la imagen subyacente, inevitablemente

English: 
And many government and business
websites will instruct you
into the bureaucratic
organisation but have no ready
way to find the information
that you actually need.
A second feature
of classic prose
is that it keeps up the
illusion that the reader is
seeing a world rather than
just listening to verbiage.
And as such, it avoids
cliches like the plague.
We are all familiar with
the kind of writer who
dispenses sentences
such as we needed
to think outside the box in
our search for the holy grail
but found that it was neither
a magic bullet nor a slam dunk.
So we rolled with
the punches and let
the chips fall where they
may while seeing the glass
as half full.
It's a no-brainer.
Now, the problem with
writing in cliches
is that it either
forces the reader
to kind of shut down
her visual brain
and just process the words as
blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,
blah, blah.
Or if she actually does
think through the prose
to the underlying
image, she'll inevitably

English: 
And many government and business
websites will instruct you
into the bureaucratic
organisation but have no ready
way to find the information
that you actually need.
A second feature
of classic prose
is that it keeps up the
illusion that the reader is
seeing a world rather than
just listening to verbiage.
And as such, it avoids
cliches like the plague.
We are all familiar with
the kind of writer who
dispenses sentences
such as we needed
to think outside the box in
our search for the holy grail
but found that it was neither
a magic bullet nor a slam dunk.
So we rolled with
the punches and let
the chips fall where they
may while seeing the glass
as half full.
It's a no-brainer.
Now, the problem with
writing in cliches
is that it either
forces the reader
to kind of shut down
her visual brain
and just process the words as
blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,
blah, blah.
Or if she actually does
think through the prose
to the underlying
image, she'll inevitably

English: 
be upended by the
inevitable mixed metaphors.
Here's another sentence from
a letter of recommendation
I received.
"Jeff is a Renaissance
man, drilling down
to the core issues and
pushing the envelope."
It's not clear how you can do
all of those at the same time.
Or this is from an article
in The New York Times.
"No one has yet
invented a condom that
will knock people's socks off."
[LAUGHTER]
And if you write
this way, you will
be eligible for membership
in AWFUL, that is, Americans
Who Figuratively Use Literally.
And I'm told there's
a British chapter.
Now, it is perfectly acceptable
to say she literally blushed.
It's much more problematic to
say she literally exploded.
And it's very, very bad to say
she literally emasculated him.
Now, third, classic
prose is about the world.
It's not about the
conceptual tools with which

English: 
be upended by the
inevitable mixed metaphors.
Here's another sentence from
a letter of recommendation
I received.
"Jeff is a Renaissance
man, drilling down
to the core issues and
pushing the envelope."
It's not clear how you can do
all of those at the same time.
Or this is from an article
in The New York Times.
"No one has yet
invented a condom that
will knock people's socks off."
[LAUGHTER]
And if you write
this way, you will
be eligible for membership
in AWFUL, that is, Americans
Who Figuratively Use Literally.
And I'm told there's
a British chapter.
Now, it is perfectly acceptable
to say she literally blushed.
It's much more problematic to
say she literally exploded.
And it's very, very bad to say
she literally emasculated him.
Now, third, classic
prose is about the world.
It's not about the
conceptual tools with which

Spanish: 
será volteado por la mezcolanza inevitable de las metáforas.
Aquí está otra oración de una carta de recomendación
que recibí.
"Jeff es un hombre del Renacimiento,  perforando
hacia el núcleo de las problemáticas y rompiendo esquemas."
No está claro como puedes hacer todas esas cosas al mismo tiempo.
O ésto es de un artículo en The New York Times
"Nadie ha inventado aún un condón
que quite los calcetines de las personas"
[RISAS]
Y si escribes de ésta forma, serás
elegible para una membresía en  AWFUL (horrible), Americanos
Que Figurativamente Usan Literalmente.
Y me han dicho que hay una sucursal británica.
Ahora, es perfectamente aceptable decir ella literalmente se enrojeció.
Es mucho más problemático decir ella literalmente explotó.
Y es muy, muy malo decir ella literalmente lo emasculó.
Ahora, tercero, la prosa clásica se trata sobre el mundo.
No acerca de herramientas conceptuales con las cuales

English: 
we understand the world.
And as such, it avoids
the excessive use
of metaconcepts, that is,
concepts about other concepts,
such as approach, assumption,
concept, condition, context,
framework, issue, level, model,
paradigm, perspective, process,
rule, strategy,
tendency, variable.
Admit it, you use these
words a lot when you write.
As in, this is a sentence
taken from an editorial
by a legal scholar.
"I have serious
doubts that trying
to amend the Constitution
would work on an actual level.
On the aspirational
level, however,
a constitutional
amendment strategy
may be more valuable,
which is to say,
I doubt that trying to
amend the Constitution
would actually
succeed, but it may
be valuable to aspire to it."
Or this from an
email I received.
"It is important to
approach the subject
from a variety of strategies,
including mental health
assistance, but also from a
law enforcement perspective."
Translation-- we should consult
a psychiatrist about this man,
but we may also have
to inform the police.
[LAUGHTER]

English: 
we understand the world.
And as such, it avoids
the excessive use
of metaconcepts, that is,
concepts about other concepts,
such as approach, assumption,
concept, condition, context,
framework, issue, level, model,
paradigm, perspective, process,
rule, strategy,
tendency, variable.
Admit it, you use these
words a lot when you write.
As in, this is a sentence
taken from an editorial
by a legal scholar.
"I have serious
doubts that trying
to amend the Constitution
would work on an actual level.
On the aspirational
level, however,
a constitutional
amendment strategy
may be more valuable,
which is to say,
I doubt that trying to
amend the Constitution
would actually
succeed, but it may
be valuable to aspire to it."
Or this from an
email I received.
"It is important to
approach the subject
from a variety of strategies,
including mental health
assistance, but also from a
law enforcement perspective."
Translation-- we should consult
a psychiatrist about this man,
but we may also have
to inform the police.
[LAUGHTER]

Spanish: 
entendemos al mundo.
Y como tal, evita uso excesivo
de metaconceptos, es decir conceptos acerca de otros conceptos,
tales como abordaje, suposición, concepto, condición, contexto,
marco, problema, nivel, modelo, paradigma, perspectiva, proceso,
regla, estrategia, tendencia, variable.
Admítanlo, usan bastante éstas palabras cuando escriben.
Como en, ésta es una oración tomada de un editorial
por un académico de derecho.
"Tengo serias dudas de que intentar
emendar la Constitución funcionaría en un nivel fáctico.
En un nivel aspiracional, sin embargo,
una estrategia de enmienda constitucional
puede ser más valioso, lo que quiere decir,
dudo que intentar enmendar la Constitución
tendría éxito, pero podría
ser valioso aspirar a ello."
O éste de un email que recibí.
"Es importante abordar el tema
desde una variedad de estrategias, incluyendo asistencia
de salud mental, pero también desde una perspectiva de enforzamiento legal."
Traducción - deberíamos consultar un psiquiatra acerca de éste hombre,
pero tal vez debamos también informar a la policía.
[RISA]

English: 
Classic prose narrates
ongoing events.
We see agents who perform
actions that affect objects.
Non-classic prose
thingifies the events
and then refers to
them with a single word
using a dangerous tool
of English grammar called
nominalization, turning a verb
or an adjective into a noun.
So instead of appearing,
you make an appearance.
Instead of organising
something, you bring about
the organisation of that thing.
Helen Sword, a language scholar,
calls them zombie nouns,
because they kind
of lumber across
the page with no conscious agent
actually directing the action.
And they can turn prose into
a Night of the Living Dead.
Participants read assertions
whose veracity was either
affirmed or denied by the
subsequent presentation
of an assessment word, which
is another way of saying
people saw sentences,
each followed
by the word true or false.

English: 
Classic prose narrates
ongoing events.
We see agents who perform
actions that affect objects.
Non-classic prose
thingifies the events
and then refers to
them with a single word
using a dangerous tool
of English grammar called
nominalization, turning a verb
or an adjective into a noun.
So instead of appearing,
you make an appearance.
Instead of organising
something, you bring about
the organisation of that thing.
Helen Sword, a language scholar,
calls them zombie nouns,
because they kind
of lumber across
the page with no conscious agent
actually directing the action.
And they can turn prose into
a Night of the Living Dead.
Participants read assertions
whose veracity was either
affirmed or denied by the
subsequent presentation
of an assessment word, which
is another way of saying
people saw sentences,
each followed
by the word true or false.

Spanish: 
La prosa clásica narra eventos en marcha.
Vemos agentes que hacen acciones que afectan objetos.
Prosa no clásica cosifica los eventos
y entonces refiere a ellos con una sola palabra
usando una peligrosa herramienta de la gramática inglesa llamada
nominalización, volver un verbo o un adjetivo en un sustantivo.
Así en vez de aparecer, se hace una aparición.
En vez de organizar algo, llevas a cabo
la organización de esa cosa.
Helen Sword, un académico del lenguaje, los llama sustantivos zombies,
porque avanzan a través
de la página sin agente consciente verdaderamente dirigiendo la acción.
Y pueden convertir la prosa en una Noche de los Muertos Vivientes.
Participantes leen afirmaciones cuya veracidad fue
afirmada o negada por la subsecuente presentación
de una palabra valorativa, lo que es otra manera de decir
personas vieron oraciones, seguidas
por la palabra verdadero o falso.

English: 
Subjects were tested
under conditions
of good to excellent
acoustic isolation, to wit,
we tested the students
in a quiet room.
But again, it is
not just academics
who have this bad habit.
It is also politicians.
When a hurricane threatened
the Republican Party National
Convention a few years ago,
Florida Governor Rick Scott
said, "right now there
is not any anticipation
there will be a cancellation."
That is, right now
we don't anticipate
that we will have to cancel it.
And just to be nonpartisan,
on the other side
of the American
political spectrum,
here we have Secretary of
State John Kerry saying
"the president is
desirous of trying
to see how we can make
our best efforts in order
to find a way to facilitate."
In other words, the
president wants to help.
[LAUGHTER]
And corporate consultants.
A young man interviewed
by a journalist
explained that he is a digital
and social media strategist.
"I deliver programmes, products,
and strategies to our corporate

Spanish: 
Sujetos fueron examinados bajo condiciones
de buena a excelente aislamiento acústico, esto es,
examinamos a los estudiantes en un cuarto silencioso.
Pero de nuevo, no es sólo académicos
que tienen éste mal hábito.
También son los políticos.
Cuando un huracán amenazaba la Convención Nacional del Partido
Republicano unos años atrás, el gobernante de Florida Rick Scott
dijo, "justo ahora ni hay ninguna anticipación
de que habrá una cancelación."
Eso es, justo ahora no anticipamos
que tendremos que cancelarlo.
Y para ser no partidista, en el otro lad
del espectro político americano,
tenemos al Secretario de Estado John Kerry diciendo
"el presidente es deseoso de intentar
avizorar como podemos hacer nuestros mejores esfuerzos de modo
que encontremos una forma de facilitar."
En otra palabras, el presidente quiere ayudar.
[RISAS]
Y consultores corporativos.
Un hombre joven entrevistado por un periodista
explicó que él es un estratega digital y social de medios
"Yo entrego programas, productos y estrategias a nuestros clientes

English: 
Subjects were tested
under conditions
of good to excellent
acoustic isolation, to wit,
we tested the students
in a quiet room.
But again, it is
not just academics
who have this bad habit.
It is also politicians.
When a hurricane threatened
the Republican Party National
Convention a few years ago,
Florida Governor Rick Scott
said, "right now there
is not any anticipation
there will be a cancellation."
That is, right now
we don't anticipate
that we will have to cancel it.
And just to be nonpartisan,
on the other side
of the American
political spectrum,
here we have Secretary of
State John Kerry saying
"the president is
desirous of trying
to see how we can make
our best efforts in order
to find a way to facilitate."
In other words, the
president wants to help.
[LAUGHTER]
And corporate consultants.
A young man interviewed
by a journalist
explained that he is a digital
and social media strategist.
"I deliver programmes, products,
and strategies to our corporate

English: 
clients across the spectrum
of communications functions."
And when the
journalist confessed
that he had no idea what
that meant and asked him
what he really did,
he finally broke down
and he said, "I teach big
companies how to use Facebook."
[LAUGHTER]
And product engineers.
Portable generators
and combustion heaters
used to carry a warning
more or less like this--
"mild exposure to CO can
result in accumulated damage
over time.
Extreme exposure
to CO may rapidly
be fatal without producing
significant warning symptoms."
Yeah, yeah.
Whatever.
And as a result, several
hundred Americans
every year turn their
houses into gas chambers
and asphyxiated themselves
and their families
by running heaters and
generators indoors,
until they replaced the
warning with this one--
"using a generator indoors
can kill you in minutes."
[LAUGHTER]
So classic prose can literally
be a matter of life and death.

Spanish: 
corporativos a lo largo del espectro de funciones comunicacionales."
Y cuando el periodista confesó
que no tenía idea de que significaba y le preguntó
que hacía de verdad, finalmente se venció
y dijo, "Enseño a grandes compañías como usar Facebook"
[RISAS]
E ingenieros de productos.
Generadores portables y calefactores de combustión
solían llevar una advertencia mas o menos como ésta -
"exposición leve a CO puede resultar en daño acumulado
en el tiempo.
Exposición extrema a CO puede rápidamente
ser fatal sin producir síntomas de advertencia significativos."
Yeah, yeah.
Como sea.
Y como resultado, varios cientos de americanos
cada año convertían sus casas en cámaras de gas
y se asfixiaron a sí mismos y sus familias
por usar calefactores y generadores dentro de casa,
hasta que reemplazaron la advertencia con ésta -
"usar un generador dentro de casa puede matarte en minutos."
[RISAS]
Así la prosa clásica puede literalmente ser una cuestión de vida o muerte.

English: 
clients across the spectrum
of communications functions."
And when the
journalist confessed
that he had no idea what
that meant and asked him
what he really did,
he finally broke down
and he said, "I teach big
companies how to use Facebook."
[LAUGHTER]
And product engineers.
Portable generators
and combustion heaters
used to carry a warning
more or less like this--
"mild exposure to CO can
result in accumulated damage
over time.
Extreme exposure
to CO may rapidly
be fatal without producing
significant warning symptoms."
Yeah, yeah.
Whatever.
And as a result, several
hundred Americans
every year turn their
houses into gas chambers
and asphyxiated themselves
and their families
by running heaters and
generators indoors,
until they replaced the
warning with this one--
"using a generator indoors
can kill you in minutes."
[LAUGHTER]
So classic prose can literally
be a matter of life and death.

Spanish: 
Sí, literalmente.
Así que segunda parte.
¿Cómo puede un entendimiento del diseño del lenguaje
conducir a mejor consejo de escritura?
Otro contribuyente a la prosa zombi es la voz pasiva.
Ésta refiere al contraste entre una oración
en la voz activa, como en el perro muerde al hombre,
y una oración como el hombre fue mordido por el perro,
en la voz pasiva.
Es bien conocido que la voz pasiva es sobreutilizada por académicos,
como en: en la base del análisis que
fue hecho de los datos que fueron colectados,
es sugerido que la hipótesis nula puede ser rechazada.
Cuatro pasivos en una oración.
Y abogados.
Si el excepcional balance es pagado completo,
los cargos financieros no ganados serán reembolsados.
Tres pasivos.
Pero quizá más indignante de todos, políticos.
Aquí tenemos uno de los candidatos para presidente
de los Estados Unidos, Gobernador de New Jersey Chris Christie, quien
en explicar como fue que su administración causó
un embotellamiento de tres horas por cerrar deliberadamente

English: 
Yes, literally.
So part two.
How can an understanding
of the design of leaving
lead to better writing advice?
Another contributor to zombie
prose is the passive voice.
This refers to the
contrast between a sentence
in the active voice, such
as the dog bit the man,
and a sentence like the
man was bitten by the dog,
in the passive voice.
It's well known that the passive
voice is overused by academics,
as in, on the basis
of the analysis which
was made of the data
which were collected,
it is suggested that the null
hypothesis can be rejected.
For passives in one sentence.
And lawyers.
If the outstanding balance
is prepaid in full,
the unearned finance
charge will be refunded.
Three passives.
But perhaps most infamously
of all, politicians.
Here we have one of
candidates for president
in the United States, New Jersey
Governor Chris Christie, who
in explaining how it was that
his administration caused
a three-hour traffic jam
by deliberately closing

English: 
Yes, literally.
So part two.
How can an understanding
of the design of leaving
lead to better writing advice?
Another contributor to zombie
prose is the passive voice.
This refers to the
contrast between a sentence
in the active voice, such
as the dog bit the man,
and a sentence like the
man was bitten by the dog,
in the passive voice.
It's well known that the passive
voice is overused by academics,
as in, on the basis
of the analysis which
was made of the data
which were collected,
it is suggested that the null
hypothesis can be rejected.
For passives in one sentence.
And lawyers.
If the outstanding balance
is prepaid in full,
the unearned finance
charge will be refunded.
Three passives.
But perhaps most infamously
of all, politicians.
Here we have one of
candidates for president
in the United States, New Jersey
Governor Chris Christie, who
in explaining how it was that
his administration caused
a three-hour traffic jam
by deliberately closing

English: 
the lanes to a tunnel
during rush hour
in order to punish the mayor of
a town that would not endorse
his re-election, he said,
"mistakes were made."
The infamous politician's
evasive passive.
Not surprisingly, all of
the traditional manuals
warn against using
the passive voice.
Strunk and White say,
"use the active voice.
The active voice is usually
more direct and vigorous
than the passive.
Many a tame sentence can
be made lively and emphatic
by substituting a transitive
in the active voice
for some such
perfunctory expression
as there is or could be heard."
Well, I'm glad to
hear from the laughter
that a number of people
have noted that, yes, Strunk
and White used the passive
in order to tell people not
to use the passive.
The other iconic bit
of writing advice
is the classic essay, Politics
and the English Language
by George Orwell, probably the
second-most widely distributed
bit of advice on writing.

Spanish: 
los carriles a un túnel durante hora pico
para castigar al alcalde de una ciudad que no apoyaba
su reelección, dijo, "errores se cometieron."
La evasiva pasiva indignante del político.
No sorprende, todos los manuales tradicionales
advierten en contra del uso de la voz pasiva."
Strunk y White dicen, "use la voz activa.
La voz activa es usualmente más directa y vigoroza
que la voz pasiva.
Muchas frases pueden ser hechas vívidas y enfáticas
al sustituir un transitivo en la voz pasiva
para una expresión ligera tal
que haya o pueda ser oída."
Bien, me alegra oír de la risa
que un número de personas han notado que, sí, Strunk
y White usaron la voz pasiva para decir a las personas
que no usen el pasivo.
El otro pedazo de consejo icónico de escritura
es el ensayo clásico, Política y el Lenguaje Inglés
de George Orwell, probablemente el segundo más ampliamente distribuido
pedazo de consejo sobre escritura.

English: 
the lanes to a tunnel
during rush hour
in order to punish the mayor of
a town that would not endorse
his re-election, he said,
"mistakes were made."
The infamous politician's
evasive passive.
Not surprisingly, all of
the traditional manuals
warn against using
the passive voice.
Strunk and White say,
"use the active voice.
The active voice is usually
more direct and vigorous
than the passive.
Many a tame sentence can
be made lively and emphatic
by substituting a transitive
in the active voice
for some such
perfunctory expression
as there is or could be heard."
Well, I'm glad to
hear from the laughter
that a number of people
have noted that, yes, Strunk
and White used the passive
in order to tell people not
to use the passive.
The other iconic bit
of writing advice
is the classic essay, Politics
and the English Language
by George Orwell, probably the
second-most widely distributed
bit of advice on writing.

English: 
And Orwell too says,
"a mixture of vagueness
and sheer incompetence is the
most marked characteristic
of modern English
prose," he wrote in 1949,
showing that some
things don't change.
"I list below
various of the tricks
by means of which the
work of prose construction
is habitually dodged.
The passive voice is wherever
possible used in preference
to the active."
A passage that has not one but
two uses of the passive voice
to tell people not to
use the passive voice.
Well, the passive
construction could not
have survived in the English
language for 1,500 years
if it did not
serve some purpose.
Why can't we do without it
even when telling people
not to overuse it?
It comes down to the
design of language.
You can think of
language as an app
for converting a web of
thoughts into a string of words.
Now, the writer's
knowledge can be
thought of as a kind
of mind-wide web

English: 
And Orwell too says,
"a mixture of vagueness
and sheer incompetence is the
most marked characteristic
of modern English
prose," he wrote in 1949,
showing that some
things don't change.
"I list below
various of the tricks
by means of which the
work of prose construction
is habitually dodged.
The passive voice is wherever
possible used in preference
to the active."
A passage that has not one but
two uses of the passive voice
to tell people not to
use the passive voice.
Well, the passive
construction could not
have survived in the English
language for 1,500 years
if it did not
serve some purpose.
Why can't we do without it
even when telling people
not to overuse it?
It comes down to the
design of language.
You can think of
language as an app
for converting a web of
thoughts into a string of words.
Now, the writer's
knowledge can be
thought of as a kind
of mind-wide web

Spanish: 
Y Orwell también dice, "una mezcla de imprecisión
y plana incompetencia es la característica más marcada
de la prosa inglesa moderna," escribió en 1949,
mostrando que algunas cosas no cambian.
"Listo abajo varios de los trucos
por medio de los cuales el trabajo de construcción de prosa
es habitualmente esquivado.
La voz pasiva es cuando posible usada en preferencia
a la activa."
Un pasaje que tiene no una pero dos usos de la voz pasiva
para decir a las personas que no usen la voz pasiva.
Bien, la construcción pasiva no podría
haber sobrevivido en el lenguaje inglés por 1500 años
si no sirviera algún propósito.
¿Por qué no podemos desistir de ella incluso cuando decimos a las personas
que no la sobreutilicen?
Proviene del diseño del lenguaje.
Puedes pensar en el lenguaje como una aplicación
para convertir una red de pensamientos en una hilera de palabras.
Ahora, el conocimiento del escritor puede ser
pensado como un tipo de red amplia mental

English: 
what cognitive psychologists
call a semantic network.
That is, a collection
of nodes for concepts.
Here we have a fragment
of a person's knowledge
of the tragic events brought to
life by Sophocles in his play
Oedipus Rex.
So you've got a number of
nodes for concepts like father,
kill, marry.
You've got a bunch of
links that indicate
how the concepts are related.
Doer, done to,
about, is, and so on.
Now, when you just lie back
and ponder your knowledge base,
your mind can surf
from one concept
to another in pretty
much any order.
But what happens when you have
to translate your web of ideas
into a sentence?
Well, now you've got to
convert that tangled web
into a linear string of words.
In Sophocles play,
Oedipus married his mother

Spanish: 
lo que psicólogos cognitivos llaman una red semántica.
Es decir, una colección de nodos para conceptos.
Aquí tenemos un fragmento del conocimiento de una persona
de los eventos trágicos dados vida por la obra de Sófocles
Edipo el Rey
Así tienes un número de nodos para conceptos como padre,
matar, casamiento.
Tienes un puñado de enlaces que indican
como los conceptos se relacionan.
Hacedor, hecho sobre, acerca de, es, etc.
Ahora, cuando te reclinas y reflexionas sobre tu base de conocimiento,
tu mente puede surfear de un concepto
a otro en prácticamente cualquier orden.
Pero ¿qué pasa cuando tienes que traducir tu red de ideas
a una oración?
Bien, ahora tienes que convertir la entramada red
en un hilo linear de palabras.
En la obra de Sófocles, Edipo se casó con su madre

English: 
what cognitive psychologists
call a semantic network.
That is, a collection
of nodes for concepts.
Here we have a fragment
of a person's knowledge
of the tragic events brought to
life by Sophocles in his play
Oedipus Rex.
So you've got a number of
nodes for concepts like father,
kill, marry.
You've got a bunch of
links that indicate
how the concepts are related.
Doer, done to,
about, is, and so on.
Now, when you just lie back
and ponder your knowledge base,
your mind can surf
from one concept
to another in pretty
much any order.
But what happens when you have
to translate your web of ideas
into a sentence?
Well, now you've got to
convert that tangled web
into a linear string of words.
In Sophocles play,
Oedipus married his mother

English: 
and killed his father.
That means that there's
an inherent problem baked
into the design of language.
The order of words in a sentence
has to do two things at once.
It's the code that
English syntax
uses to express who
did what to whom.
At the same time, it
necessarily presents some bits
of information to the
reader before others
and thereby affects
how the information
is going to be absorbed.
In particular, the early
material in the sentence
refers to the sentence's
topic and naturally
connects back to what's
already reverberating
in the reader's mind.
In the metaphor
of classic prose,
it refers to the
general direction
in which the reader is looking.
The later words in
the sentence contain
the sentence's focal point,
what fact it is now conveying.
In the metaphor,
it's what the reader
is supposed to now notice.
Any prose that violates
these principles,
even if each sentence
is clear, will

English: 
and killed his father.
That means that there's
an inherent problem baked
into the design of language.
The order of words in a sentence
has to do two things at once.
It's the code that
English syntax
uses to express who
did what to whom.
At the same time, it
necessarily presents some bits
of information to the
reader before others
and thereby affects
how the information
is going to be absorbed.
In particular, the early
material in the sentence
refers to the sentence's
topic and naturally
connects back to what's
already reverberating
in the reader's mind.
In the metaphor
of classic prose,
it refers to the
general direction
in which the reader is looking.
The later words in
the sentence contain
the sentence's focal point,
what fact it is now conveying.
In the metaphor,
it's what the reader
is supposed to now notice.
Any prose that violates
these principles,
even if each sentence
is clear, will

Spanish: 
y mató a su padre..
Eso significa que hay un problema inherente cocinado
en el diseño del lenguaje.
El orden de las palabras en una oración tiene que ver con dos cosas a la vez.
Es el código que la sintaxis inglesa
usa para expresar quién le hizo qué a quién.
Al mismo tiempo, necesariamente presenta algunas partes
de información al lector antes que otras
y de éste modo afecta como la información
va a ser absorbida.
En particular, el material temprano en la oración
refiere al tema de la oración y naturalmente
conecta de vuelta a lo que está ya reberverando
en la mente del lector.
En la metáfora de prosa clásica,
refiere a una dirección general
en la que el lector está viendo.
Las últimas palabras en la oración contienen
el punto focal de ésta, que hecho se está comunicando.
En la metáfora, es lo que el lector
se supone que ahora debe notar.
Cualquier prosa que viole éstos principios,
incluso si cada oración es clara, se

English: 
feel choppy or
disjointed or incoherent.
And that brings
us to the passive.
The passive is a
workaround in English
for this inherent design
limitation of the language.
It allows writers to convey
the same ideas, namely
who did what to whom, while
varying the order of words.
In particular, it
allows a writer
to start the sentence with
the done to or the acted upon
rather than the
doer or the actor.
And that's why avoid the passive
as a general law is bad advice.
The passive is, in fact,
the better construction
when the done to
or the acted upon
is currently the target of
the reader's mental gaze.
Again, I'll give you an example.
This comes from the Wikipedia
entry for Oedipus Rex,
and it describes
the pivotal moment
in the play in which the
horrific backstory is
revealed to the audience.
Spoiler alert.
"A messenger arrives
from Corinth.

Spanish: 
sentirá picada o desarticulada o incoherente.
Y eso nos lleva al pasivo.
El pasivo es una alternativa en inglés
para ésta limitación inherente de diseño del lenguaje.
Permite al escritor comunicar las mismas ideas, de
quién hizo qué a quién, mientras varía el orden de las palabras.
En particular, permite al escritor
iniciar una oración con el hecho a o aquello sobre lo cual se actúa
en vez del hacedor o actor.
Y es por lo que evitar el pasivo como ley general es mal consejo.
El pasivo es, de hecho, la mejor construcción
cuando el hecho a o aquello sobre lo cual se actúa
es en el momento objeto del vistazo mental del lector.
De nuevo, les daré un ejemplo.
Éste viene de la entrada de Wikipedia para Edipo Rey
y describe el momento esencial
en la obra en la que la horrible historia de fondo es
revelada a la audiencia.
Alerta de spoiler.
"Un mensajero llega desde Corinto.

English: 
feel choppy or
disjointed or incoherent.
And that brings
us to the passive.
The passive is a
workaround in English
for this inherent design
limitation of the language.
It allows writers to convey
the same ideas, namely
who did what to whom, while
varying the order of words.
In particular, it
allows a writer
to start the sentence with
the done to or the acted upon
rather than the
doer or the actor.
And that's why avoid the passive
as a general law is bad advice.
The passive is, in fact,
the better construction
when the done to
or the acted upon
is currently the target of
the reader's mental gaze.
Again, I'll give you an example.
This comes from the Wikipedia
entry for Oedipus Rex,
and it describes
the pivotal moment
in the play in which the
horrific backstory is
revealed to the audience.
Spoiler alert.
"A messenger arrives
from Corinth.

Spanish: 
Emerge que era anteriormente un pastor en el Monte Kithaeron,
y durante ese tiempo se le entregó un bebé.
El bebé, dijo, fue dado a éste
por otro pastor de la casa de
Laiusm quien había sido ordenado de deshacerse del niño."
Ahora nota que éste pasaje tiene tres oraciones pasivas
en fila y por una buena razón.
Mientras el pasaje abre, nuestros ojos están en el mensajero -
un mensajero llega de Corinto -
y así la oración siguiente que nos dice
algo acerca del mensajero debe comenzar con una referencia
al mensajero, y gracias a la voz pasiva, así lo hace.
A él, el mensajero,  se le entregó un bebé.
Bien ahora como que figurativamente
vemos al bebé, al menos nuestro ojo mental lo hace,
y la oración siguiente debe comenzar con el bebé.
Y de nuevo, gracias a la voz pasiva, lo hace.
El bebé fue entregado al mensajero por otro pastor.
Bien, ahora estamos viendo a éste nuevo pastor
y la oración siguiente que nos dice algo sobre éste
debería comenzar por ello.
Y de nuevo, la voz pasiva lo hace posible.
El otro pastor ha sido ordenado de deshacerse del niño.
Ahora imagina que el escritor de éste pasaje

English: 
It emerges that he was formerly
a shepherd on Mount Kithaeron,
and during that time
he was given a baby.
The baby, he said,
was given to him
by another shepherd
from the Laius
household, who had been told
to get rid of the child."
Now notice that this passage
has three passive sentences
in a row and for good reason.
As the passage opens, our
eyes are on the messenger--
a messenger arrives
from Corinth--
and so the next
sentence telling us
something about the messenger
should begin with a reference
to the messenger, and thanks to
the passive voice, so it does.
He, the messenger,
was given a baby.
Well, now we're
kind of figuratively
looking at the baby, at
least our mind's eye is,
and the next sentence should
then begin with the baby.
And again, thanks to the
passive voice, it does.
The baby was given to the
messenger by another shepherd.
Well, now we're looking
at this new shepherd
and the next sentence telling
us something about him
should begin with that.
And again, the passive
makes that possible.
The other shepherd had been
told to get rid of the child.
Now imagine that the
writer of this passage

English: 
It emerges that he was formerly
a shepherd on Mount Kithaeron,
and during that time
he was given a baby.
The baby, he said,
was given to him
by another shepherd
from the Laius
household, who had been told
to get rid of the child."
Now notice that this passage
has three passive sentences
in a row and for good reason.
As the passage opens, our
eyes are on the messenger--
a messenger arrives
from Corinth--
and so the next
sentence telling us
something about the messenger
should begin with a reference
to the messenger, and thanks to
the passive voice, so it does.
He, the messenger,
was given a baby.
Well, now we're
kind of figuratively
looking at the baby, at
least our mind's eye is,
and the next sentence should
then begin with the baby.
And again, thanks to the
passive voice, it does.
The baby was given to the
messenger by another shepherd.
Well, now we're looking
at this new shepherd
and the next sentence telling
us something about him
should begin with that.
And again, the passive
makes that possible.
The other shepherd had been
told to get rid of the child.
Now imagine that the
writer of this passage

English: 
had either followed the advice
in the traditional manuals
literally or was the victim
of the kind of copyeditor
that turns every passive
sentence back into an active,
then you would have a
messenger arrives from Corinth.
It emerges that he was formerly
a shepherd on Mount Kithaeron,
and during that time
someone gave him a baby.
Another shepherd from
the Laius household,
he says, whom someone had
told to get rid of a child,
gave the baby to him.
Now, I think you will agree
that this is not an improvement.
Your attention is
kind of jerked around
from one part of the
story to another.
And participants
kind of parachute in
without warning or a
proper introduction.
More generally, English
syntax provides writers
with constructions that
vary the order in the string
while preserving the meaning.
Oedipus killed Laius.
Laius was killed by Oedipus.
It was Laius whom
Oedipus killed.
It was Oedipus who
killed Laius, and so on.
And writers must
choose the construction
that introduces ideas to
the reader in the order

English: 
had either followed the advice
in the traditional manuals
literally or was the victim
of the kind of copyeditor
that turns every passive
sentence back into an active,
then you would have a
messenger arrives from Corinth.
It emerges that he was formerly
a shepherd on Mount Kithaeron,
and during that time
someone gave him a baby.
Another shepherd from
the Laius household,
he says, whom someone had
told to get rid of a child,
gave the baby to him.
Now, I think you will agree
that this is not an improvement.
Your attention is
kind of jerked around
from one part of the
story to another.
And participants
kind of parachute in
without warning or a
proper introduction.
More generally, English
syntax provides writers
with constructions that
vary the order in the string
while preserving the meaning.
Oedipus killed Laius.
Laius was killed by Oedipus.
It was Laius whom
Oedipus killed.
It was Oedipus who
killed Laius, and so on.
And writers must
choose the construction
that introduces ideas to
the reader in the order

Spanish: 
hubiera seguido el consejo de manuales tradicionales
literalmente o fuera víctima de algún tipo de editor
que cambia cada oración pasiva en una activa,
entonces tendrías, un mensajero llega desde Corinto.
Emerge que él era anteriormente un pastor en el Monte Kithaeron,
y durante ese tiempo alguien le dio un bebé.
Otro pastor de la casa de Laius
dice, a quien alguien le ordenó que se deshiciera del niño,
le dió el bebé a él.
Ahora, pienso que estarán de cuerdo que ésto no es una mejora.
Tu atención como que es jalada alrededor
de una parte de la historia hacia otra.
Y los participantes como que aterrizan en paracaídas
sin advertencia o una presentación adecuada.
Generalmente, la sintaxis  inglesa provee escritores
con construcciones que varían el orden en el hilo
mientras se preserva el significado.
Edipo asesinó a Laius.
Laius fue asesinado por Edipo.
Fue Laius a quien Edipo asesinó.
Fué Edipo quien asesinó a Laius, etc.
Y escritores deben escoger la construcción
que presenta ideas al lector en el orden

English: 
in which she can absorb them.
Well, why then is the
passive so common in bad
writing, as it surely is?
It's because good
writers narrate
a story, advanced
by protagonists
who make things happen.
Bad writers work backwards
from their own knowledge,
writing down ideas in the order
in which they occur to them.
They begin with the
outcome of the event,
because they know
how it happened.
And then they throw in the
cause as an afterthought,
and the passive makes
that all too easy.
So why should this be so hard?
Why is it so hard for writers
to deploy the resources made
available by the
English language
to convey ideas effectively?
The best explanation that I know
of is conveyed by this cartoon,
and it's called the
curse of knowledge.
The fact that when
you know something,
it's hard to imagine what
it's like for someone else
not to know it.
Psychologists give
it various names.

Spanish: 
en que éste puede absorberlos.
Bien, ¿por qué es la voz pasiva tan común en mala
escritura, como seguramente lo es?
Es porque buenos escritores narran
una historia, avanzada por protagonistas
quienes hacen que las cosas pasen.
Malos escritores trabajan en reversa desde su propio conocimiento,
escribiendo ideas en el orden en que se les ocurre.
Ellos comienzan con el resultado del evento,
porque ellos saben lo que pasó.
Y entonces ellos vierten la causa como una idea tardía,
y la voz pasiva lo hace todo muy fácil.
Entonces ¿por qué ésto debe ser tan difícil?
¿Por qué es tan difícil para escritores desplegar los recursos
disponibles por el lenguaje inglés
para comunicar ideas efectivamente?
La mejor explicación que conozco es entregada por ésta caricatura,
y se llama la maldición del conocimiento.
El hecho de que cuando sabes algo,
es difícil imaginar como es para alguien más
no saberlo.
Psicólogos le dan varios nombres.

English: 
in which she can absorb them.
Well, why then is the
passive so common in bad
writing, as it surely is?
It's because good
writers narrate
a story, advanced
by protagonists
who make things happen.
Bad writers work backwards
from their own knowledge,
writing down ideas in the order
in which they occur to them.
They begin with the
outcome of the event,
because they know
how it happened.
And then they throw in the
cause as an afterthought,
and the passive makes
that all too easy.
So why should this be so hard?
Why is it so hard for writers
to deploy the resources made
available by the
English language
to convey ideas effectively?
The best explanation that I know
of is conveyed by this cartoon,
and it's called the
curse of knowledge.
The fact that when
you know something,
it's hard to imagine what
it's like for someone else
not to know it.
Psychologists give
it various names.

English: 
It's also called mind blindness,
egocentrism, hindsight bias,
about half a dozen others.
Perhaps the best
introduction comes
from a classic
experiment that will
be familiar to any of you
taking a course in child
psychology, the M&M
study or in Britain you
can call it the Smarties Study.
A three-year-old boy comes into
a lab, sits down at a table.
The experimenter gives
him a box of Smarties.
He's all excited.
He opens it, and he finds that
instead of containing Smarties,
the box contains pencils.
So the child is surprised.
And the experimenter puts
the pencils back in the box,
closes it, puts it
back down on the table.
And he says, OK.
Well, now another little boy
is going to come in, Jason.
What does Jason
think is in the box?
And the boy will say pencils.
Even though, of
course, Jason has
no way of knowing that
the box contains pencils,
the boy knows it, but
a newcomer would not.
And in fact, if
you ask him, well,
when you came into
the room, what
did you think was in the box?
And he'll say pencils.
Now that he knows
it, he can no longer

English: 
It's also called mind blindness,
egocentrism, hindsight bias,
about half a dozen others.
Perhaps the best
introduction comes
from a classic
experiment that will
be familiar to any of you
taking a course in child
psychology, the M&M
study or in Britain you
can call it the Smarties Study.
A three-year-old boy comes into
a lab, sits down at a table.
The experimenter gives
him a box of Smarties.
He's all excited.
He opens it, and he finds that
instead of containing Smarties,
the box contains pencils.
So the child is surprised.
And the experimenter puts
the pencils back in the box,
closes it, puts it
back down on the table.
And he says, OK.
Well, now another little boy
is going to come in, Jason.
What does Jason
think is in the box?
And the boy will say pencils.
Even though, of
course, Jason has
no way of knowing that
the box contains pencils,
the boy knows it, but
a newcomer would not.
And in fact, if
you ask him, well,
when you came into
the room, what
did you think was in the box?
And he'll say pencils.
Now that he knows
it, he can no longer

Spanish: 
También le llaman ceguera mental, egocentrismo, sesgo de retrospección,
entre otra docena más.
Tal vez la mejor presentación viene
de un experimento clásico que será
familiar a cualquiera de ustedes que tome un curso en
psicología infantil, los M&M study o en Gran Bretaña
los llaman los Smarties Study.
Un niño de tres años llega al laboratorio, se sienta en una mesa.
El experimentador le da una caja de Smarties.
Está emocionado.
La abre, y encuentra que en vez de Smarties,
la caja contiene lápices.
Así que el niño está sorprendido.
Y el experimentador pone los lápices de vuelta en la caja,
la cierra y la pone de vuelta en la mesa.
Y dice, OK.
Bien, ahora otro niño va a venir, Jason.
¿Qué piensa Jason que hay en la caja?
Y el niño dirá lápices.
Aún cuando, por supuesto Jason
no tiene manera de saber que la caja tiene lápices,
el niño sabe, pero un recién llegado no lo sabría.
De hecho, si le preguntas, bien,
cuando llegaste al cuarto, qué
pensabas que había en la caja?
Y él dirá lápices
Ahora que lo sabe, no puede

English: 
recover the innocent state in
which he once did not know it.
Now adults, of course,
outgrow this limitation--
kind of, a little--
because many studies have shown
a similar effect in adults.
People will tend to attribute
their own obscure vocabulary
to the population at large.
If they know of fact, they
assume everyone else does.
And in one study, the more
practise someone had at using
a complicated gadget
like a smartphone,
the less time they estimated
it would take someone else
to learn it, because the
more familiar the were,
the obviously easier it must be,
because it was easy for them.
I think that the
curse of knowledge
is the chief contributor
to opaque writing.
It simply doesn't
occur to the writer
that readers haven't
learned their jargon,
don't know the
intermediate steps that
seem too obvious
to mention, can't
visualise a scene
that's currently

Spanish: 
recuperar el estado inocente en el que una vez no lo sabía.
Ahora adultos, por supuesto, dejaron esta limitación -
casi, un poco -
porque muchos estudios han mostrado un efecto similar en adultos.
Las personas tienden a atribuir su propio vocabulario obscuro
a la población en general.
Si ellos conocen un hecho, asumirán que todos lo hacen.
Y en un estudio, entre más práctica tenía alguien de usar
un dispositivo como un smartphone,
menos tiempo estimaban que le tomaría alguien más
aprenderlo, porque entre más familiarizados estaban,
obviamente más fácil debe ser, porque era fácil para ellos.
Pienso que la maldición del conocimiento
es el principal contribuidor a la escritura oscura.
Simplemente no se le ocurre al escritor
que los lectores no han aprendido su jerga,
no saben los pasos intermedios que
parecen tan obvios mencionar, no pueden
visualizar una escena que está actualmente

English: 
recover the innocent state in
which he once did not know it.
Now adults, of course,
outgrow this limitation--
kind of, a little--
because many studies have shown
a similar effect in adults.
People will tend to attribute
their own obscure vocabulary
to the population at large.
If they know of fact, they
assume everyone else does.
And in one study, the more
practise someone had at using
a complicated gadget
like a smartphone,
the less time they estimated
it would take someone else
to learn it, because the
more familiar the were,
the obviously easier it must be,
because it was easy for them.
I think that the
curse of knowledge
is the chief contributor
to opaque writing.
It simply doesn't
occur to the writer
that readers haven't
learned their jargon,
don't know the
intermediate steps that
seem too obvious
to mention, can't
visualise a scene
that's currently

English: 
in the writer's mind's eye.
And so the writer doesn't
bother to explain the jargon
or spell out the logic or supply
the concrete details, even when
writing for professional peers.
It's a lazy excuse
that writers often have
that they don't have
to spell things out
because, after all,
they're just writing
for their professional peers.
But because of the
curse of knowledge,
even prose written
for professional peers
is often surprisingly opaque.
I'll give you an example.
This is a passage from an
article on consciousness
written in a journal
called Trends
In Cognitive Science, which
is designed to present
short, readable
summaries of research
for the benefit of cognitive
scientists keeping up with one
another's work.
So here's a passage.
"The slow and integrative
nature of conscious perception
is confirmed behaviorally by
observation such as the "rabbit
illusion" and its
variants or the way
in which a stimulus is
ultimately perceived,
is influenced by
post-stimulus events

Spanish: 
en el ojo mental del escritor.
Entonces el escritor no se molesta en explicar la jerga
o explicar la lógica o proveer los detalles concretos, incluso cuando
escribe para colegas profesionales.
Es una excusa perezosa  que tienen a veces los escritores
de que no pueden explicar cosas
porque, después de todo, ellos solo están escribiendo
para sus colegas profesionales.
Pero por la maldición del conocimiento,
incluso la prosa escrita para compañeros profesionales
es a menudo sorprendentemente opaca.
Les daré un ejemplo.
Éste es un pasaje de un artículo sobre conciencia
escrito por una revista llamada Trends
In Cognitive Science, que está diseñado a presentar
resúmenes de investigación cortos, legibles
para el beneficio de científicos cognitivos manteniéndose al día
con el trabajo de los otros.
Aquí está el pasaje.
"La naturaleza lenta e integrativa de la percepción consciente
es confirmada conductualmente por observación como la "ilusión
del conejo" y sus variantes o la manera
en que un estímulo es últimamente percibido,
es influenciado por eventos pos-estímulo

English: 
in the writer's mind's eye.
And so the writer doesn't
bother to explain the jargon
or spell out the logic or supply
the concrete details, even when
writing for professional peers.
It's a lazy excuse
that writers often have
that they don't have
to spell things out
because, after all,
they're just writing
for their professional peers.
But because of the
curse of knowledge,
even prose written
for professional peers
is often surprisingly opaque.
I'll give you an example.
This is a passage from an
article on consciousness
written in a journal
called Trends
In Cognitive Science, which
is designed to present
short, readable
summaries of research
for the benefit of cognitive
scientists keeping up with one
another's work.
So here's a passage.
"The slow and integrative
nature of conscious perception
is confirmed behaviorally by
observation such as the "rabbit
illusion" and its
variants or the way
in which a stimulus is
ultimately perceived,
is influenced by
post-stimulus events

English: 
arising several
hundreds of milliseconds
after the original stimulus."
Now, I've been in this
business for almost 40 years,
and I have no idea what
they're talking about.
I have never heard of
the rabbit illusion,
though I know an awful
lot of illusions.
And I know what the
word stimulus means,
but I have no idea
what they're talking
about when they talk about
how a stimulus is ultimately
perceived.
So I went to my
bookshelves, and I
found one that had an
entry for something
called the cutaneous
rabbit illusion, which
works as follows--
the subject closes his
eyes, sticks out his arm.
The experimenter
taps him three times
on the wrist, three
times on the elbow,
three times on the shoulder.
And the person experiences it
as a series of taps running up
the length of his arm, kind of
like a hopping rabbit, hence
the rabbit illusion.
Well, why didn't
they just say that?
Not only is it no
less scientific
to spell out the
concrete scenario,
but it's actually
more scientific

English: 
arising several
hundreds of milliseconds
after the original stimulus."
Now, I've been in this
business for almost 40 years,
and I have no idea what
they're talking about.
I have never heard of
the rabbit illusion,
though I know an awful
lot of illusions.
And I know what the
word stimulus means,
but I have no idea
what they're talking
about when they talk about
how a stimulus is ultimately
perceived.
So I went to my
bookshelves, and I
found one that had an
entry for something
called the cutaneous
rabbit illusion, which
works as follows--
the subject closes his
eyes, sticks out his arm.
The experimenter
taps him three times
on the wrist, three
times on the elbow,
three times on the shoulder.
And the person experiences it
as a series of taps running up
the length of his arm, kind of
like a hopping rabbit, hence
the rabbit illusion.
Well, why didn't
they just say that?
Not only is it no
less scientific
to spell out the
concrete scenario,
but it's actually
more scientific

Spanish: 
naciendo cientos de milisegundos
luego del estímulo original."
Ahora, he estado en éste negocio por casi 40 años,
y no tengo idea de lo que están hablando.
Jamás he oído de la ilusión del conejo,
a pesar de que conozco un montón de ilusiones.
Y conozco lo que la palabra estímulo significa,
pero no tengo idea de lo que están hablando
acerca de como un estímulo es últimamente
percibido.
Así que fui a mi biblioteca, y
encontré uno que tenía una entrada para algo
llamado la ilusión cutánea del conejo, que
funciona de así -
el sujeto cierra los ojos, y extiende su brazo.
El experimentador lo golpetea tres veces
en la muñeca, tres veces en el codo,
y tres veces en el hombro.
Y la persona experimenta una seria de golpeteos que corren
la longitud de su brazo, como un conejo saltarín, así
la ilusión del conejo.
Bueno, ¿por qué no simplemente lo dijeron?
No solo no es menos científico
explicar el escenario concreto,
sino que es en verdad más científico

Spanish: 
porque sabiendo que éso es de lo que trata la ilusión del conejo,
yo puedo entonces seguir la lógica de lo que están afirmando
es decir que supuestamente nos muestra que la consciencia
no sigue eventos sensoriales en tiempo real.
Sino que nuestro cerebro constantemente edita nuestra experiencia
después del hecho para hacerlo sentir más coherente.
Bien, sabiendo en qué consiste en verdad la ilusión,
puedo cuestionarme si eso en verdad se concluye,
sea que es la interpretación correcta de la ilusión
o sea que podría haber otra explicación alternativa,
algo que no puedo hacer con estímulo ésto y pos-estímulo
lo otro.
Las tentaciones de abreviación irreflexiva
son pienso yo mejor capturadas por una vieja broma.
Así que un hombre entra a un resort Carskills en Upstate New York
y entra al comedor, entonces él
ve un puñado de comediantes retirados de Borscht Belt
sentados alrededor de una mesa.
Y hay una silla vacía.

English: 
because knowing that that's
what the rabbit illusion is,
I can then follow the logic
of what they are claiming,
namely what it allegedly
shows us is consciousness
does not track sensory
events in real time.
But our brain is constantly
editing our experience
after the fact to make
it feel more coherent.
Well, knowing what the
illusion actually consists of,
I can then ponder whether
that really follows,
whether that's a correct
interpretation of the illusion
or whether it might have
some alternative explanation,
something that I can't do with
stimulus this and post-stimulus
that.
The temptations of
thoughtless abbreviation
are I think best
captured by an old joke.
So a man walks into a Catskills
resort in Upstate New York
and walks into the
dining room, and he
sees a bunch of retired
Borscht Belt comedians
sitting around a table.
And so there's an empty chair.

English: 
because knowing that that's
what the rabbit illusion is,
I can then follow the logic
of what they are claiming,
namely what it allegedly
shows us is consciousness
does not track sensory
events in real time.
But our brain is constantly
editing our experience
after the fact to make
it feel more coherent.
Well, knowing what the
illusion actually consists of,
I can then ponder whether
that really follows,
whether that's a correct
interpretation of the illusion
or whether it might have
some alternative explanation,
something that I can't do with
stimulus this and post-stimulus
that.
The temptations of
thoughtless abbreviation
are I think best
captured by an old joke.
So a man walks into a Catskills
resort in Upstate New York
and walks into the
dining room, and he
sees a bunch of retired
Borscht Belt comedians
sitting around a table.
And so there's an empty chair.

English: 
He joins them.
And he hears one of the
comedians saying 47,
and the others break out
into uproarious laughter.
Another one says 112,
and then again they
all just burst out into peals of
laughter, rolling on the floor.
And he can't figure
out what's going on.
So he asked the guy next to him.
He says, what's happening?
And the guy says,
well, you know,
these old timers, they've been
together for so long, that they
all though the same jokes.
So to save time, they've
given each joke a number,
and now they just have
to say the number.
They guy says, that's ingenious.
I'll try it.
So he says 31.
Stony silence.
He says 77.
Everyone stares at him.
No one laughs.
So he sinks back down into his
seat and he says to his friend,
uh, what happened?
Why didn't anyone laugh?
The guy says, well, it's
all in the way you tell it.
[LAUGHTER]
So how do you exercise
the curse of knowledge?
Well, the traditional solution
is always keep in mind
the reader over your shoulder.

English: 
He joins them.
And he hears one of the
comedians saying 47,
and the others break out
into uproarious laughter.
Another one says 112,
and then again they
all just burst out into peals of
laughter, rolling on the floor.
And he can't figure
out what's going on.
So he asked the guy next to him.
He says, what's happening?
And the guy says,
well, you know,
these old timers, they've been
together for so long, that they
all though the same jokes.
So to save time, they've
given each joke a number,
and now they just have
to say the number.
They guy says, that's ingenious.
I'll try it.
So he says 31.
Stony silence.
He says 77.
Everyone stares at him.
No one laughs.
So he sinks back down into his
seat and he says to his friend,
uh, what happened?
Why didn't anyone laugh?
The guy says, well, it's
all in the way you tell it.
[LAUGHTER]
So how do you exercise
the curse of knowledge?
Well, the traditional solution
is always keep in mind
the reader over your shoulder.

Spanish: 
Él se une.
Y él escucha uno de los comediantes diciendo 47,
y los otros rompen en risa estruendosa.
Otro dice 112, y de nuevo ellos
explotan en repiques de risa, rodando en el piso.
Y él no puede entender que está pasando.
Así que le pregunta al sujeto a su lado.
Dice, ¿qué está pasando?
Y el sujeto dice, bueno, sabes,
estos veteranos, ellos han estado juntos tanto tiempo, que todos
saben las mismas bromas.
Así que para ahorrar tiempo, ellos han dado cada broma un número,
y ahora ellos solo tienen que decir el número.
Éstos chicos dice, eso es ingenioso.
Lo intentaré.
Así que él dice 31.
Silencio petrificante.
Dice 77.
Todos lo regresan a ver.
Nadie se ríe.
Así que se hunde en su asiento y dice a su amigo,
uh, ¿qué pasó?
¿Por qué nadie se rió?
El sujeto dice, bueno, todo esta en la manera que lo cuentes.
[RISAS]
Así que ¿cómo ejercitas la maldición del conocimiento?
Bien, la solución tradicional es siempre mantener en mente
al lector sobre tu hombro.

English: 
That is, empathise
with your reader,
see the world from her point
of view, try to feel her pain,
walk a mile in her
moccasins, and so on.
Well, this is good
advice as far as it goes,
but it only goes so far, because
a lot of research in psychology
has shown that we're not
very good at figuring out
what people know, even when
we try really, really hard.
A better solution
is to actually show
a draft to a real-live
representative reader,
and you will often discover
that what's obvious to you
isn't obvious to anyone else.
You can even show
a draft to yourself
after some time has passed,
and it's no longer familiar.
And if you're like
me, you'll find
yourself thinking
that wasn't clear
or what did I mean
by that, or all
too often, who wrote this crap?
[LAUGHTER]
And then rewrite,
ideally several times,
with the single goal
of making the prose

Spanish: 
Eso es, empatizate con el lector,
mira el mundo desde su punto de vista, intenta sentir su dolor,
camina una milla en sus mocasines, y etc.
Bueno, éste es buen consejo hasta ahora,
pero solo va hasta cierto punto, porque mucha investigación en psicología
ha mostrado que no somos muy buenos en figurarnos
lo que las personas saben, incluso cuando en serio, en serio intentamos.
Una mejor solución es en verdad mostrar
un borrador a un lector representativo de la vida real,
y a menudo descubrirás que lo que es obvio para ti
no es obvio para todos los demás.
Incluso te puedes mostrar un borrador a  ti mismo
luego de que un tiempo haya pasado, y ya no es familiar.
Y si eres como yo, te encontrarás
pensando que eso no estuvo claro
o qué quisiste decir con eso, o
muy seguido, ¿quién escribió esta basura?
[RISAS]
Y entonces reescribe, idealmente varias veces,
con el único objetivo de hacer la prosa

English: 
That is, empathise
with your reader,
see the world from her point
of view, try to feel her pain,
walk a mile in her
moccasins, and so on.
Well, this is good
advice as far as it goes,
but it only goes so far, because
a lot of research in psychology
has shown that we're not
very good at figuring out
what people know, even when
we try really, really hard.
A better solution
is to actually show
a draft to a real-live
representative reader,
and you will often discover
that what's obvious to you
isn't obvious to anyone else.
You can even show
a draft to yourself
after some time has passed,
and it's no longer familiar.
And if you're like
me, you'll find
yourself thinking
that wasn't clear
or what did I mean
by that, or all
too often, who wrote this crap?
[LAUGHTER]
And then rewrite,
ideally several times,
with the single goal
of making the prose

Spanish: 
entendible para el lector.
Finalmente, ¿cómo deberíamos pensar acerca del uso correcto
de que esta bien o mal, correcto o incorrecto?
¿Cuál es el aspecto de la escritura que por mucho atrae la mayor
atención y despierta la mayor emoción.
Ahora, algunos usos están claramente mal.
Hay un famoso y estimado personaje americano de niños
conocido como Coockie Monster, famoso en los Muppets
y Plaza Sésamo, cuya línea insignia
es, "mi quiero galleta."
Ahora, incluso, niños de tres años
aprecian y pueden reírse de Coockie Monster, porque incluso
por sus propias luces, ellos sabe que Cookie Monster
ha cometido un error gramatical.
Muchos de ustedes pueden estar familiarizados con la forma de humor o alegado
humor llamado el lolcat, como en ¿yo puedo tiene emparedado?,

English: 
understandable to the reader.
Finally, how should we
think about correct usage
of what is right or wrong,
correct or incorrect?
Which is the aspect of writing
that by far attracts the most
attention and arouses
the most emotion.
Now, some usages
are clearly wrong.
There is a famous and beloved
American children's character
known as Cookie Monster,
who's famous on the Muppets
and Sesame Street,
whose signature line
is, "me want cookie."
Now, even,
three-year-olds appreciate
and can laugh at Cookie
Monster, because even
by their own lights, they
know that Cookie Monster
has made a grammatical error.
Many of you may be familiar with
the form of humour or alleged
humour called the lolcat,
as in I can has cheezburger,

English: 
understandable to the reader.
Finally, how should we
think about correct usage
of what is right or wrong,
correct or incorrect?
Which is the aspect of writing
that by far attracts the most
attention and arouses
the most emotion.
Now, some usages
are clearly wrong.
There is a famous and beloved
American children's character
known as Cookie Monster,
who's famous on the Muppets
and Sesame Street,
whose signature line
is, "me want cookie."
Now, even,
three-year-olds appreciate
and can laugh at Cookie
Monster, because even
by their own lights, they
know that Cookie Monster
has made a grammatical error.
Many of you may be familiar with
the form of humour or alleged
humour called the lolcat,
as in I can has cheezburger,

Spanish: 
el humor que reside en el hecho de que éste gato es
incompetente en la gramática inglesa.
Si no reconociéramos que el gato estaba haciendo un error
gramatical, no lo hallaríamos gracioso,
al menos aquellos que lo encuentran gracioso.
[RISAS]
¿Está nuestros niños aprendiendo?
Incluso el ex presidente George W. Bush
reconoció que éste fue un error gramatical
en un discurso autocrítico en el que señaló algunos
de sus errores de discurso pasados.
Pero otros no están tan claros, de nuevo sólo para ser no partidista,
el presidente demócrata Bill Clinton,
cuando postuló para el cargo en 1992,
tuvo como uno de sus eslogan de campaña
"dale a Al Gore y a yo una oportunidad de traer de vuelta a América,"
apaleando a los profesores de inglés de la nación
quienes señalaron que éste es un ejemplo de la notorio
error entre tu y yo.
Y debería ser "dale a Al Gore y a mí una oportunidad
de traer de vuelta a América."

English: 
the humour in which resides
in the fact that this cat is
incompetent at English grammar.
If we didn't recognise that the
cat was making a grammatical
error, we would
not find it funny,
at least those people
who do find it funny.
[LAUGHTER]
Is our children learning?
Even ex-president
President George W. Bush
acknowledged that this
was a grammatical error
in a self-deprecating speech
in which he pointed out many
of his own past speech errors.
But others are not so clear,
just again to be nonpartisan,
the Democratic
President Bill Clinton,
when he was running
for office in 1992,
had as one of his
campaign slogans
"give Al Gore and I a chance
to bring America back,"
appalling the nation's
English teachers
who pointed out that this is
an example of the notorious
between you and I error.
And it should be "give
Al Gore and me a chance
to bring America back."

English: 
the humour in which resides
in the fact that this cat is
incompetent at English grammar.
If we didn't recognise that the
cat was making a grammatical
error, we would
not find it funny,
at least those people
who do find it funny.
[LAUGHTER]
Is our children learning?
Even ex-president
President George W. Bush
acknowledged that this
was a grammatical error
in a self-deprecating speech
in which he pointed out many
of his own past speech errors.
But others are not so clear,
just again to be nonpartisan,
the Democratic
President Bill Clinton,
when he was running
for office in 1992,
had as one of his
campaign slogans
"give Al Gore and I a chance
to bring America back,"
appalling the nation's
English teachers
who pointed out that this is
an example of the notorious
between you and I error.
And it should be "give
Al Gore and me a chance
to bring America back."

Spanish: 
Otro presidente demócrata, Barack Obama,
dijo no americano debe vivir bajo una nube de sospecha
sólo por como ellos se ven.
El indigante error singular "ellos".
El capitán Kirk de Star Trek, la misión de cinco años
de la Starship Enterprise, "audazmente ir
donde no hombre ha ido antes."
Divide el infinitivo.
Los Beatles, "piensas que perdíste tu amor.
Bueno, la vi ayer.
Es tu ella esta pensando en, y ella me dijo lo que diga."
¿Alguien?
Oración con la preposición al final.
Preposición al final de una oración.
Y entonces dudo que muchas personas reconocerán éste ícono
americano.
Éste es Dick Cavett, quien fue el anfitrión
de nuestro corto y muy extrañado urbano,
ingenioso e inteligente programa de entrevistas.
Y en un Op Ed en el que hablaba sobre una reunión de

English: 
Another Democratic
President, Barack Obama,
said no American should live
under a cloud of suspicion
just because of
what they look like.
The infamous singular
"they" error.
Captain Kirk of Star Trek,
the five-year mission
of the Starship
Enterprise, "to boldly go
where no man has gone before."
Split infinitive.
The Beatles, "you think
you lost your love.
Well, I saw her yesterday.
It's you she's thinking of,
and she told me what to say."
Anyone?
Sentence with a
preposition at the end.
Preposition at the
end of a sentence.
And then I doubt many people
will recognise this American
icon.
This is Dick Cavett,
who was the host
of our short-lived and
much-missed urbane,
witty, intelligent talk show.
And in an Op Ed in which he
was talking about a college

English: 
Another Democratic
President, Barack Obama,
said no American should live
under a cloud of suspicion
just because of
what they look like.
The infamous singular
"they" error.
Captain Kirk of Star Trek,
the five-year mission
of the Starship
Enterprise, "to boldly go
where no man has gone before."
Split infinitive.
The Beatles, "you think
you lost your love.
Well, I saw her yesterday.
It's you she's thinking of,
and she told me what to say."
Anyone?
Sentence with a
preposition at the end.
Preposition at the
end of a sentence.
And then I doubt many people
will recognise this American
icon.
This is Dick Cavett,
who was the host
of our short-lived and
much-missed urbane,
witty, intelligent talk show.
And in an Op Ed in which he
was talking about a college

English: 
reunion, he wrote
"checking into the hotel,
it was nice to see a few of my
old classmates in the lobby."
Anyone?
[INTERPOSING VOICES]
Anyone go to school
before the 1960s?
Yes.
It's a dangling participle.
Well, what do we do with these
more contested usage errors?
They have given rise to
what journalists sometimes
called the language war.
On the one side, there
are the prescriptivists
who prescribe how people
ought to speak and write.
They are also known as the
purists, sticklers, pedants,
peevers, snobs, snoots,
nitpickers, traditionalists,
language police, usage nannies,
grammar Nazis, and the gotcha
gang, according to whom rules of
usage are objectively correct.
To obey them is to uphold
standards of excellence.
To flout them is to dumb
down literate culture,
degrade the language, and hasten
the decline of civilization.
Now, according to the scenario,
on the other hand side,
we have the descriptivists,
who describe
how people do speak
and write, according

Spanish: 
universidad, escribió "registrarse en el hotel,
fue bonito ver unos pocos de mis antiguos compañeros en la sala."
¿Alguien?
[VOCES INTERPUESTAS]
¿Alguien fue a la escuela antes de los 1960s?
Si.
Es un participio colgante.
Bueno, ¿qué hacemos con éstos errores de uso más contendidos?
Ellos han dado lugar a lo que reporteros a veces
llaman la guerra del lenguaje.
Por otro lado, están los prescriptivistas
quienes prescriben como las personas deberían hablar y escribir.
También conocidos como puristas, rigurosos, pedantes,
mal humorados, snobs, narizones, quisquillosos, tradicionalistas,
policía del lenguaje, abuelitas del uso, nazis gramaticales, y la pandilla de te
atrapé, de acuerdo a quienes las reglas de uso son objetivamente correctas.
Obedecerlos es mantener los estándares de excelencia.
Omitirlos es embrutecer la cultura alfabetizada,
degradar el lenguaje y acelerar el declive de la civilización.
Ahora, de acuerdo con el escenario, por otro lado
tenemos a los descriptivistas, quienes describen
como las personas hablan y escriben, de acuerdo

English: 
reunion, he wrote
"checking into the hotel,
it was nice to see a few of my
old classmates in the lobby."
Anyone?
[INTERPOSING VOICES]
Anyone go to school
before the 1960s?
Yes.
It's a dangling participle.
Well, what do we do with these
more contested usage errors?
They have given rise to
what journalists sometimes
called the language war.
On the one side, there
are the prescriptivists
who prescribe how people
ought to speak and write.
They are also known as the
purists, sticklers, pedants,
peevers, snobs, snoots,
nitpickers, traditionalists,
language police, usage nannies,
grammar Nazis, and the gotcha
gang, according to whom rules of
usage are objectively correct.
To obey them is to uphold
standards of excellence.
To flout them is to dumb
down literate culture,
degrade the language, and hasten
the decline of civilization.
Now, according to the scenario,
on the other hand side,
we have the descriptivists,
who describe
how people do speak
and write, according

Spanish: 
a quienes las reglas de uso son tan solo el saludo secreto
de la clase gobernante, y las personas
deberían ser liberadas para escribir como les plazca.
Ahora, pienso que hay razones para creer que la guerra de
lenguaje, tan amado es de ciertas revistas
es una pseudo - controversia.
Si fuera en verdad real, entonces los prescriptivistas
tendrían que insistir que la letra de la famosa canción de
Los Beatles debería ser, eres tu en quien ella está pensando.
Y los descriptivistas tendrían
que afirmar que no hay nada malo con yo
puedo tiene emparedado, en cuyo caso
ellos no podrían entender la broma del lolcat.
Pienso que necesitamos una manera más sofisticada
de pensar sobre el uso.
Así que ¿cuáles son las reglas del uso?
¿De dónde vienen?
No son ciertamente  una verdad lógica
que podrías probar en cálculo proposicional,
ni son oficialmente regulados por diccionarios.
Y hablo con algo de autoridad
aquí, porque soy el Presidente del Panel de Uso del Diccionario de
Herencia Americana, y cuando me uní al panel,
Le pregunté al editor en jefe, entonces ¿cómo

English: 
to whom rules of usage are
just the secret handshake
of the ruling class,
and the people
should be liberated to
write however they please.
Now, I think there are reasons
to believe that the language
war, however beloved it
is of certain magazines,
is a pseudo-controversy.
If it were really true,
then the prescriptivists
would have to insist that the
lyrics to the famous Beatles
song should be, it's you
of whom she's thinking.
And the descriptivists
would have
to claim that there is
nothing wrong with I
can has cheezburger,
in which case
they could not get the
joke of the lolcat.
I think we need a
more sophisticated way
of thinking about usage.
So what are rules of usage?
Where do they come from?
They're certainly
not logical truth
that you could prove in
the propositional calculus,
nor are they officially
regulated by dictionaries.
And I can speak
with some authority
here, because I am the Chair of
the Usage Panel of the American
Heritage Dictionary, and
when I joined the panel,
I asked the editor
in chief, so how

English: 
to whom rules of usage are
just the secret handshake
of the ruling class,
and the people
should be liberated to
write however they please.
Now, I think there are reasons
to believe that the language
war, however beloved it
is of certain magazines,
is a pseudo-controversy.
If it were really true,
then the prescriptivists
would have to insist that the
lyrics to the famous Beatles
song should be, it's you
of whom she's thinking.
And the descriptivists
would have
to claim that there is
nothing wrong with I
can has cheezburger,
in which case
they could not get the
joke of the lolcat.
I think we need a
more sophisticated way
of thinking about usage.
So what are rules of usage?
Where do they come from?
They're certainly
not logical truth
that you could prove in
the propositional calculus,
nor are they officially
regulated by dictionaries.
And I can speak
with some authority
here, because I am the Chair of
the Usage Panel of the American
Heritage Dictionary, and
when I joined the panel,
I asked the editor
in chief, so how

Spanish: 
ustedes deciden que poner en el diccionario?
Y su respuesta fue, "prestamos atención
a la manera en que personas usan palabras."
Es decir, cuando a exactitud se refiere,
no hay nadie a cargo.
Los lunáticos manejan el asilo.
[RISAS]
Entonces una forma de entender las reglas de uso
es que son convenciones tácitas, evolutivas.
Una convención es una manera de hacer cosas
que no tiene ventaja particular otra que el hecho
de que todos los demás lo hacen.
El papel moneda es un ejemplo.
Un pedazo de papel con la imagen de la reina
no tiene valor inherente otro que le hecho
de que todos esperan que todos los demás lo traten
como si tuviera valor.
No hay razón particular para conducir en el lado derecho en contraste
a conducir a la izquierda.
No hay nada siniestro sobre conducir en la izquierda o gauche
o socialista.
[RISAS]
Pero hay una razón excelente para conducir
en la izquierda en éste lado del Atlántico,
a saber, que es lo que todos hacen.

English: 
do you guys decide what
to put in the dictionary?
And his answer was,
"we pay attention
to the way people use words."
That is, when it
comes to correctness,
there's no one in charge.
The lunatics are
running the asylum.
[LAUGHTER]
So a way to make sense
of rules of usage
is that they are tacit,
evolving conventions.
A convention is a
way of doing things
that has no particular
advantages other than the fact
that everyone else is doing it.
Paper currency is an example.
A piece of paper with
a picture of the queen
has no inherent value
other than the fact
that everyone expects
everyone else to treat it
as having value.
There's no particular reason to
drive on the right as opposed
to driving on the left.
There's nothing sinister about
driving in the left or gauche
or socialist.
[LAUGHTER]
But there's an excellent
reason to drive
on the left on this
side of the Atlantic,
namely that's what
everyone else does.

English: 
do you guys decide what
to put in the dictionary?
And his answer was,
"we pay attention
to the way people use words."
That is, when it
comes to correctness,
there's no one in charge.
The lunatics are
running the asylum.
[LAUGHTER]
So a way to make sense
of rules of usage
is that they are tacit,
evolving conventions.
A convention is a
way of doing things
that has no particular
advantages other than the fact
that everyone else is doing it.
Paper currency is an example.
A piece of paper with
a picture of the queen
has no inherent value
other than the fact
that everyone expects
everyone else to treat it
as having value.
There's no particular reason to
drive on the right as opposed
to driving on the left.
There's nothing sinister about
driving in the left or gauche
or socialist.
[LAUGHTER]
But there's an excellent
reason to drive
on the left on this
side of the Atlantic,
namely that's what
everyone else does.

Spanish: 
Diferente a las reglas de tráfico o leyes autorizando moneda,
sin embargo, las reglas del lenguaje son tácitas.
Emergen como un tosco consenso dentro de una comunidad
de escritores cuidadosos sin deliberación explícita,
acuerdo, o legislación.
Y las convenciones evolucionan, como mencioné en el caso
de "finalizar y contactar", éstas cambian orgánicamente a través
del tiempo.
Entonces ¿deberían los escritores seguir las reglas?
Y la respuesta es, depende.
Algunas reglas solo extienden la lógica de gramática diaria
a casos más complicados.
Así que tomemos ¿está nuestros niños aprendiendo?, que no sólo George
W. Bush, sino el corrector de gramática de
Microsoft Word señala como un error con la famosa contoneante línea verde.
"¿Está nuestros niños aprendiendo?"  es equivalente a "nuestros niños
está aprendiendo."
Todos pueden ver que "nuestros niños está aprendiendo"
no es gramatical, y por lo tanto "¿está nuestros niños aprendiendo?"
tampoco es gramatical.
O un caso ligeramente más complicado, el impacto de los cortes aún

English: 
Unlike the rules of traffic
or laws authorising currency,
though, the rules of
language are tacit.
They emerge as a rough
consensus within a community
of careful writers without
explicit deliberation,
agreement, or legislation.
And the conventions evolve,
as I mentioned in the case
of "to finalise and to contact,"
they organically change over
time.
So should writers
follow the rules?
And the answer is, it depends.
Some rules just extend the
logic of everyday grammar
to more complicated cases.
So let's take is our children
learning, which not only George
W. Bush but the
Microsoft Word grammar
checker flags as an error with
the famous wiggly green line.
"Is our children learning" is
equivalent to "our children
is learning."
Everyone can see that
"our children is learning"
is ungrammatical, and therefore
"is our children learning"
is also ungrammatical.
Or a slightly more complicated
case, the impact of the cuts

English: 
Unlike the rules of traffic
or laws authorising currency,
though, the rules of
language are tacit.
They emerge as a rough
consensus within a community
of careful writers without
explicit deliberation,
agreement, or legislation.
And the conventions evolve,
as I mentioned in the case
of "to finalise and to contact,"
they organically change over
time.
So should writers
follow the rules?
And the answer is, it depends.
Some rules just extend the
logic of everyday grammar
to more complicated cases.
So let's take is our children
learning, which not only George
W. Bush but the
Microsoft Word grammar
checker flags as an error with
the famous wiggly green line.
"Is our children learning" is
equivalent to "our children
is learning."
Everyone can see that
"our children is learning"
is ungrammatical, and therefore
"is our children learning"
is also ungrammatical.
Or a slightly more complicated
case, the impact of the cuts

English: 
have not been felt yet.
Why did Microsoft Word put
a wiggly line under that?
Well, when you think
about it, that sentence is
"the impact have not been felt."
If you delete the
optional "of the cuts,"
that just jumps off the
page as ungrammatical.
Of course, it's "impact
has not been felt,"
and so it's "the impact of
the cuts has not been felt."
The writer was just
distracted by the plural
cuts that happened to be cheek
by jowl with the verb have.
Also, there are some
rules of word choice
that make important
semantic distinctions.
Fulsome is not a fancy-schmancy
synonym for full.
Fulsome means
excessive or insincere.
And so one ought
not to thank someone
for their fulsome
compliment, that is,
that if someone gives you a
fulsome compliment, that's
a bad thing, not a good thing.
Likewise, you should
not compliment
someone's elegant theory
by calling it simplistic.

English: 
have not been felt yet.
Why did Microsoft Word put
a wiggly line under that?
Well, when you think
about it, that sentence is
"the impact have not been felt."
If you delete the
optional "of the cuts,"
that just jumps off the
page as ungrammatical.
Of course, it's "impact
has not been felt,"
and so it's "the impact of
the cuts has not been felt."
The writer was just
distracted by the plural
cuts that happened to be cheek
by jowl with the verb have.
Also, there are some
rules of word choice
that make important
semantic distinctions.
Fulsome is not a fancy-schmancy
synonym for full.
Fulsome means
excessive or insincere.
And so one ought
not to thank someone
for their fulsome
compliment, that is,
that if someone gives you a
fulsome compliment, that's
a bad thing, not a good thing.
Likewise, you should
not compliment
someone's elegant theory
by calling it simplistic.

Spanish: 
no han sido sentidos.
¿Por qué Microsoft Word puso una línea contorneante verde bajo eso?
Bien, cuando lo piensas, la oración es
"el impacto aún no se ha sentido."
Si borras el opcional "de los cortes,"
eso salta la página como no gramatical.
Por supuesto, es "impacto no ha sido sentido",
y también es "el impacto de los cortes no ha sido sentido."
El escritor solo fue distraído por el plural
cortes que resultó estar codo con codo con el verbo tener.
También, hay algunas reglas para la selección de palabras
para hacer distinciones semánticas importantes.
"Fulsome" no es un sinónimo elegante para "full". (lleno)
"Fulsome" significa excesivo o insincero.
Así uno no debería agradecer a alguien
por su elogio insincero (fulsome), es decir,
que si alguien te dice un cumplido insincero, es
algo malo, no algo bueno.
Igualmente, no deberías elogiar
la teoría elegante de alguien llamándola simplista.

Spanish: 
Simplista significa demasiado simple o infantil
o incorrectamente simple.
Tampoco si piensas que algo es meritorio deberías
llamarlo "meretricious" (rimbombante)
Si no sabes por qué, puedes ir a casa y buscarlo
en el diccionario.
En general, uno debería evitar usar una palabra presumida
para reemplazar un sinónimo más humilde.
Si lo haces, podrías provocar la reacción
de Inigo Montoya en La Princesa Prometida
cuando otro personaje seguía usando
la palabra inconcebible para referirse a cosas que acababan de pasar.
Dijo, sigues usando esa palabra.
No creo que significa lo que crees que significa.
Por otro lado, no cada pedazo de molestia
del folklore o lección débilmente
recordada de la clase de la señorita Thistlebottom
es una regla de uso legítima.
Y muchas reglas supuestas de uso resultan

English: 
Simplistic means overly
simple or childlike
or incorrectly simple.
Nor if you think that
something is meritorious should
you call it meretricious.
If you don't know why, you
can go home and look it up
in the dictionary.
In general, one should avoid
reaching for a hoity-toity word
to replace a humbler synonym.
If you do, you might
elicit the reaction
of Inigo Montoya in
The Princess Bride
when another
character kept using
the word inconceivable to refer
to things that just happened.
He said, you keep
using that word.
I do not think it means
what you think it means.
On the other hand, not
every pet peeve bit
of grammatical folklore
or dimly remembered
lesson from Miss
Thistlebottom's classroom
is a legitimate rule of usage.
And many supposed
rules of usage turn out

English: 
Simplistic means overly
simple or childlike
or incorrectly simple.
Nor if you think that
something is meritorious should
you call it meretricious.
If you don't know why, you
can go home and look it up
in the dictionary.
In general, one should avoid
reaching for a hoity-toity word
to replace a humbler synonym.
If you do, you might
elicit the reaction
of Inigo Montoya in
The Princess Bride
when another
character kept using
the word inconceivable to refer
to things that just happened.
He said, you keep
using that word.
I do not think it means
what you think it means.
On the other hand, not
every pet peeve bit
of grammatical folklore
or dimly remembered
lesson from Miss
Thistlebottom's classroom
is a legitimate rule of usage.
And many supposed
rules of usage turn out

English: 
to violate the grammatical
logic of English,
turn out to be routinely
flouted by the best writers,
and often have always been
flouted by the best writers,
singular they being
an excellent example.
A recent article in a
conservative opinion magazine
in the United States
argued that singular
they was a feminist plot
that had been forced down
our throats by angry women's
liberationists in search
of a gender neutral
means of expression
and that we should resist
this linguistic engineering
and go back to the crystalline
prose of Jane Austin.
Whoops.
Turns out that Jane
Austin used singular they
87 times in her novels,
as in "everybody
began to have their vexation."
Likewise, if you've
got a problem
with sentence final
preposition, maybe you
should go back and
edit Shakespeare,
when he wrote "we are such
stuff as dreams are made on."
And the same is true
of split infinitives,

Spanish: 
violar la lógica gramatical del inglés,
resultan ser burladas rutinariamente por los mejores escritores,
y a menudo siempre han sido burladas por los mejores escritores,
el singular they (3º persona de género neutral) siendo un excelente ejemplo.
Un artículo reciente en una revista de opinión conservadora
en los Estados Unidos argumentaba que el singular
they era un complot feminista que había sido forzada
en nuestra garganta por mujeres liberacionistas en búsqueda
de medios de expresión neutrales al género
y que deberíamos resistir la ingeniería lingüística
y volver a la prosa cristalina de Jane Austin.
Whoops.
Resulta que Jane Austin usó el singular they
87 veces en sus novelas, como en "todos
comenzaron a tener their (su) vejación."
Igualmente, si tienes un problema
con la preposición al final de la oración, tal vez
debas regresar atrás y editar a Shakespeare,
cuando escribió "somos cosa tal como los sueños hechos están"
Y lo mismo es verdad para infinitivos divididos,

English: 
to violate the grammatical
logic of English,
turn out to be routinely
flouted by the best writers,
and often have always been
flouted by the best writers,
singular they being
an excellent example.
A recent article in a
conservative opinion magazine
in the United States
argued that singular
they was a feminist plot
that had been forced down
our throats by angry women's
liberationists in search
of a gender neutral
means of expression
and that we should resist
this linguistic engineering
and go back to the crystalline
prose of Jane Austin.
Whoops.
Turns out that Jane
Austin used singular they
87 times in her novels,
as in "everybody
began to have their vexation."
Likewise, if you've
got a problem
with sentence final
preposition, maybe you
should go back and
edit Shakespeare,
when he wrote "we are such
stuff as dreams are made on."
And the same is true
of split infinitives,

English: 
dangling participles,
between you
and I, and many
other pseudo-rules.
In fact, not only is obeying
bogus rules unnecessary,
it can often make prose worse.
Here is a sentence
from a communication
that I got from my own
employer, Harvard University,
in one of its
boastful newsletters.
"David Rockefeller has
pledged $100 million
to increase dramatically
learning opportunities
for Harvard undergraduates."
Now, this writer twisted
himself into such a pretzel
to avoid a split infinitive
that he churned out a sentence
that, as far as I
can tell, does not
belong to the English language.
[LAUGHTER]
In fact, obeying bogus
rules can literally
lead to a crisis in
governance-- literally.
In 2009, Chief
Justice John Roberts,
who was a famous
grammatical stickler,
was charged with administering
the oath of office
to Barack Obama.
And the wording of
the oath of office,

English: 
dangling participles,
between you
and I, and many
other pseudo-rules.
In fact, not only is obeying
bogus rules unnecessary,
it can often make prose worse.
Here is a sentence
from a communication
that I got from my own
employer, Harvard University,
in one of its
boastful newsletters.
"David Rockefeller has
pledged $100 million
to increase dramatically
learning opportunities
for Harvard undergraduates."
Now, this writer twisted
himself into such a pretzel
to avoid a split infinitive
that he churned out a sentence
that, as far as I
can tell, does not
belong to the English language.
[LAUGHTER]
In fact, obeying bogus
rules can literally
lead to a crisis in
governance-- literally.
In 2009, Chief
Justice John Roberts,
who was a famous
grammatical stickler,
was charged with administering
the oath of office
to Barack Obama.
And the wording of
the oath of office,

Spanish: 
participios colgantes, entre tu
y yo, y muchas otras pseudo-reglas.
De hecho, no solo es innecesario obedecer reglas fraudulentas,
a menudo puede empeorar la prosa.
Aquí una oración de una comunicación
que recibí de mi propio empleador, Harvard University
en uno de sus boletines de noticias jactanciosos.
"David Rockefeller ha prometido $ 100 millones
para incrementar dramáticamente oportunidades de aprendizaje
para estudiantes de Harvard."
Ahora, este escritor se retorció en tal pretzel
para evitar dividir un infinitivo que generó una oración
que, en lo que puedo decir, no
pertenece al lenguaje inglés.
[RISA]
De hecho, obedecer reglas fraudulentas puede literalmente
conducir a una crisis gubernamental - literalmente.
En 2009, Presidente del Tribunal John Roberts,
quien era un famoso fanático gramatical,
fue acusado de administrar el juramento del cargo
para Barack Obama.
Y la redacción del juramento del cargo,

Spanish: 
como se estipula en la Constitución de los EE. UU. sería "Yo,
Barack Obama, juro solemnemente que fielmente
ejecutaré la oficina de Presidente de los Estados Unidos ".
Pero el presidente del Tribunal Roberts detectó un verbo dividido
en ese juramento, y entonces le dijo a Obama: "Yo, Barack Obama,
juro solemnemente que ejecutaré la oficina del presidente
de los Estados Unidos fielmente ", que no solo
no es una mejora estilística, sino que
cuestiona la legitimidad de la transición
de poder.
Y entonces tuvieron que repetir el juramento de la oficina
en una ceremonia privada en la Casa Blanca
luego esa tarde.
Entonces, ¿cómo debe un escritor cuidadoso distinguir las reglas legítimas
de uso de las fraudulentas?
Bueno, la respuesta es increíblemente simple.
Búscalas.
Si recurres a un diccionario, por ejemplo el Merriam-Webster, y buscas
infinitivo dividido, dirá, "está
bien dividir un infinitivo con el interés de claridad
puesto que la claridad es la razón usual para dividirlo

English: 
as stipulated in the US
Constitution would be "I,
Barack Obama, do solemnly
swear that I will faithfully
execute the office of President
of the United States."
But Chief Justice Roberts
spotted a split verb
in that oath, and so he had
Obama say "I, Barack Obama,
do solemnly swear that I will
execute the office of President
of the United States
faithfully," which not only is
not a stylistic
improvement, but it
calls the legitimacy of
the transition of power
into question.
And so they had to
repeat the oath of office
in a private ceremony
in the White House
later that afternoon.
So how should a careful writer
distinguish legitimate rules
of usage from bogus ones?
Well, the answer is
unbelievably simple.
Look them up.
If you turn to a dictionary, say
Merriam-Webster's, and look up
split infinitive,
it will say, "it's
all right to split an infinitive
in the interest of clarity
since clarity is the
usual reason for splitting

English: 
as stipulated in the US
Constitution would be "I,
Barack Obama, do solemnly
swear that I will faithfully
execute the office of President
of the United States."
But Chief Justice Roberts
spotted a split verb
in that oath, and so he had
Obama say "I, Barack Obama,
do solemnly swear that I will
execute the office of President
of the United States
faithfully," which not only is
not a stylistic
improvement, but it
calls the legitimacy of
the transition of power
into question.
And so they had to
repeat the oath of office
in a private ceremony
in the White House
later that afternoon.
So how should a careful writer
distinguish legitimate rules
of usage from bogus ones?
Well, the answer is
unbelievably simple.
Look them up.
If you turn to a dictionary, say
Merriam-Webster's, and look up
split infinitive,
it will say, "it's
all right to split an infinitive
in the interest of clarity
since clarity is the
usual reason for splitting

English: 
this advice means merely
that you can split them
whenever you want to."
Encarta World
English Dictionary,
"there is no grammatical
basis for rejecting
split infinitives."
American Heritage Dictionary,
Random House Dictionary,
none of the dictionaries
say that there's anything
wrong with a split infinitive.
So modern dictionaries
and style manuals
do not ratify pet peeves,
grammatical folklore,
or bogus rules.
And that's because
they base their advice
on evidence, on the practises
of contemporary good writers,
on the practises of the
best writers in the past,
in some cases on polling
data from a panel of writers
in contested cases,
on effects on clarity,
and on consistency with the
grammatical logic of English.
Also, we should keep correct
usage in perspective.
Now, I do think that
it is a good idea
to respect the legitimate rules.
But in fact, they're the least
important part of good writing.
They pale in significance
behind maintaining

English: 
this advice means merely
that you can split them
whenever you want to."
Encarta World
English Dictionary,
"there is no grammatical
basis for rejecting
split infinitives."
American Heritage Dictionary,
Random House Dictionary,
none of the dictionaries
say that there's anything
wrong with a split infinitive.
So modern dictionaries
and style manuals
do not ratify pet peeves,
grammatical folklore,
or bogus rules.
And that's because
they base their advice
on evidence, on the practises
of contemporary good writers,
on the practises of the
best writers in the past,
in some cases on polling
data from a panel of writers
in contested cases,
on effects on clarity,
and on consistency with the
grammatical logic of English.
Also, we should keep correct
usage in perspective.
Now, I do think that
it is a good idea
to respect the legitimate rules.
But in fact, they're the least
important part of good writing.
They pale in significance
behind maintaining

Spanish: 
éste consejo meramente significa que puede dividirlos
cuando prefiera."
El Diccionario del Mundo Inglés de Encarta,
"no hay una base gramatical para rechazar
dividir infinitivos."
Diccionario de Herencia Americana, Random House Dictionary,
ninguno de los diccionarios dice que hay algo
malo con dividir un infinitivo.
Así que los diccionarios modernos y manuales de estilo
no ratifican molestias, folklore gramatical,
y reglas fraudulentas.
Y eso es porque basan su consejo
en evidencia, en la práctica de buenos escritores contemporáneos,
en la práctica de los mejores escritores del pasado,
en algunos casos en datos de encuestas a un panel de escritores
en casos controvertidos, en efectos de claridad,
y en consistencia con la lógica de la gramática inglesa.
También, debemos mantener el uso correcto en perspectiva.
Ahora, pienso que es una buena idea
respetar las reglas legítimas.
Pero de hecho, son las partes menos importantes de buena escritura.
Palidecen en significación tras mantener

Spanish: 
el estilo clásico, orden coherente de ideas,
superar la maldición del conocimiento,
y por decir nada de la diligencia factual y
argumentación razonable.
Y también, incluso cuando nos ponemos gruñones
sobre un error gramatical inequívoco,
debemos mantener en mente que no son signos
del declive del lenguaje.
Y ésto se captura bien en el cómic web XKCD
de Randall Munroe, en el cual muestra un purista quien
es perseguido por una visión de lo que vendrá,
por un fantasma en el medio de la noche,
y dice "traigo una visión aleccionadora de lo que vendrá".
Este es el futuro
Y este es el futuro si renuncias a la lucha por la palabra
literalmente."
[RISA]
Y sí, son exactamente lo mismo.
Para resumir, he sugerido que la lingüística moderna
y la ciencia cognitiva proporciona mejores formas de mejorar
nuestra escritura, un modelo de comunicación en prosa,
a saber, el estilo clásico, en el cual el idioma

English: 
classic style, coherent
ordering of ideas,
overcoming the
curse of knowledge,
to say nothing of factual
diligence and sound
argumentation.
And also, even
when we get grumpy
about some undoubtedly
grammatical error,
we should keep in mind
that they are not signs
of the decline of language.
And this is nicely captured
in an XKCD webcomic
by Randall Munroe, in
which he shows a purist who
is haunted by a vision
of things to come,
by a ghost in the
middle of the night,
and says "I bring a cautionary
vision of things to come.
This is the future.
And this is the future if you
give up the fight over the word
literally."
[LAUGHTER]
And yes, they are
exactly the same.
So to sum up, I've suggested
that modern linguistics
and cognitive science provide
better ways of enhancing
our writing, a model
of prose communication,
namely classic style,
in which language

English: 
classic style, coherent
ordering of ideas,
overcoming the
curse of knowledge,
to say nothing of factual
diligence and sound
argumentation.
And also, even
when we get grumpy
about some undoubtedly
grammatical error,
we should keep in mind
that they are not signs
of the decline of language.
And this is nicely captured
in an XKCD webcomic
by Randall Munroe, in
which he shows a purist who
is haunted by a vision
of things to come,
by a ghost in the
middle of the night,
and says "I bring a cautionary
vision of things to come.
This is the future.
And this is the future if you
give up the fight over the word
literally."
[LAUGHTER]
And yes, they are
exactly the same.
So to sum up, I've suggested
that modern linguistics
and cognitive science provide
better ways of enhancing
our writing, a model
of prose communication,
namely classic style,
in which language

Spanish: 
es una ventana al mundo; una comprensión de la forma en que
el lenguaje funciona, es decir, como una forma de convertir una red de pensamientos
en una cadena de palabras; un diagnóstico de por qué buena prosa
es tan difícil de escribir, a saber la maldición del conocimiento;
y una forma de dar sentido a las reglas de uso correcto, es decir,
convenciones tácitas y en evolución.
Gracias.
[APLAUSOS]
Pareciera como si la manera en que adquirimos palabras
está aumentando definitivamente por la tecnología digital.
Y me preguntaba si piensa que lo mismo estaba pasando
con el uso y la gramática.
¿Estamos viendo un incremento en el paso
en el que las cosas están cambiando?

English: 
is a window on the world;
an understanding of the way
language works, namely as a way
of converting a web of thoughts
into a string of words; a
diagnosis of why good prose is
so hard to write, namely
the curse of knowledge;
and a way to make sense of rules
of correct usage, namely tacit,
evolving conventions.
Thank you.
[APPLAUSE]
It seems as thought the way
in which we're acquiring words
is definitely speeding up
because of digital technology.
And I was wondering if you
thought the same was happening
with usage and grammar.
Are we seeing an
increase in the pace
at which things are changing?

English: 
is a window on the world;
an understanding of the way
language works, namely as a way
of converting a web of thoughts
into a string of words; a
diagnosis of why good prose is
so hard to write, namely
the curse of knowledge;
and a way to make sense of rules
of correct usage, namely tacit,
evolving conventions.
Thank you.
[APPLAUSE]
It seems as thought the way
in which we're acquiring words
is definitely speeding up
because of digital technology.
And I was wondering if you
thought the same was happening
with usage and grammar.
Are we seeing an
increase in the pace
at which things are changing?
