[Python-ideas] Off topic: 'strike a balance' - second language English

[Steve Barnes]

On 18/08/2018 10:34, Jonathan Fine wrote:
> Summary: I look at the phrase 'strike a balance' in different languages, 
> and rewrite some wikipedia text on accessibility.
> 
> I found in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jargon#Accessibility_issues
> ===
> There is a balance to be struck, as excessive removal of technical 
> terminology from a document leads to an equally undesirable 
> outcome—dumbing down.
> ===
> 
> Aside: Found while 
> writinghttps://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/2018-August/052819.html.
> 
> I wondered how the phrase 'strike a balance' would translate into other 
> languages (which is an accessibility issue).
> 
> Using google translate I did round-tripping and other loops. (Simply 
> curiosity driven, no agenda.)
> ===
> en: strike a balance
> fr: trouver un équilibre
> en: find a balance
> de: finde ein Gleichgewicht
> arabic: العثور على التوازن
> en: Find balance
> fi: Etsi tasapaino
> en: Find the balance
> de: Finde das Gleichgewicht
> ===
> en: strike a balance
> al: të krijojë një ekuilibër
> en: create a balance
> basque: oreka sortu
> en: create balance
> ===
> 
>  From this I found that 'balance' was the key to the phrase. And that 
> the verb could variously be 'strike', 'find' or 'create'. There may be 
> other verbs. The work 'strike' by itself often means 'stoppage' or 
> 'industrial action'. Is this a hazard?
> 
> So what's good, when English is the reader's second (or third) language? 
> Surely, here, it's best not to use the word 'strike'. (In English 
> 'strike out' means 'remove', not 'find'.)
> 
> To try this out, let's rewrite:
> ===
> There is a balance to be struck, as excessive removal of technical 
> terminology from a document leads to an equally undesirable 
> outcome—dumbing down.
> ==
> 
> How about
> ===
> There is a balance to be found [or made] ...
> ===
> 
> Or we could use 'balance' as a verb (rather than as a noun).
> ===
> It can be hard to balance removal of technical terminology against 
> retaining essential meaning.
> ===
> 
> Or even not use the word 'balance'
> ===
> Harmony between removal of technical terminology and retaining essential 
> meaning can be hard.
> ===
> 
> Which is the best way to write the sentence, for a second-language 
> English speaker? English is my first (and by far best) language. So I 
> lack the experience, to make a good judgement.
> 
> However, as an English speaker, I prefer the last
>  > Harmony between removal of technical terminology and retaining 
> essential meaning can be hard.
> 
> By the way: the rewriting has changed the meaning. For this, how about
>  > Removal of technical terminology may also remove essential meaning.
> 
> -- 
> Jonathan
> 
Jonathan,

It is interesting that you picked up on "strike a balance" which has 
been a standard English phrase for a very long time rather than the much 
more resent, (and itself a form of jargon), "dumbing down".

The other point is that the use of Jargon is often as a form of 
shorthand so as to avoid excessive verbosity, (or long windedness).

So I would be tempted to go with something like:

"The removal of technical terminology needs to be moderated to account 
for the risk of loss of the essential meaning or the meaning being lost 
due to excessive length. Where such terminology is widely accepted 
within a given specialisation it should be considered acceptable but 
should, ideally, be defined on first usage or with a cross reference to 
a definition."

-- 
Steve (Gadget) Barnes
Any opinions in this message are my personal opinions and do not reflect 
those of my employer.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com