h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Pattern-chaser, I looked at that Lucidity site you talked about. I don't think much of it. It says very little other than what you have quoted here. It is a rather confusing site with frequent references to unexplained phenomena, and is not a good example of "lucidity" at all!

I believe the complete opposite of what that site claims: I believe that repetition makes sentences confusing. I'll go along with the traditional view that variation makes sentences more readable. There is something in the human language interpreter that gets confused by repetition. In Alice Through the Looking Glass, the Red Queen says "What's one and one and one and one and one?" and when Alice admits that she has lost count, says "She can't do Addition". Stephen Pinker, in his book "The Language Instinct" comes up with sentences which are incomprehensible due to repetition. When the same sentence is phrased with variation, it is fairly obvious what it means. I haven't got the book with me, so I'll have to wait till later to give his examples.

My own example:

If, in the event that I am given some money, I go to the shops, I will buy a sausage.

Both "if" and "in the event that" are ways of saying the same thing. The principle of lucidity would say that we should use only one of these. So let's settle for "if". This sentence would then become:

If, if I am given some money, I go to the shops, I will buy a sausage.

This is just barely comprehensible. Extending the complexity to a three-level "if", we get total absurdity.

Pinker explains all this in terms of the function of the brain and the way in which it interprets language. The message is "variation good, repetition bad".

Pattern-chaser, I looked at that Lucidity site you talked about. I don't think much of it. It says very little other than what you have quoted here. It is a rather confusing site with frequent references to unexplained phenomena, and is not a good example of "lucidity" at all!

I believe the complete opposite of what that site claims: I believe that repetition makes sentences confusing. I'll go along with the traditional view that variation makes sentences more readable. There is something in the human language interpreter that gets confused by repetition. In Alice Through the Looking Glass, the Red Queen says "What's one and one and one and one and one?" and when Alice admits that she has lost count, says "She can't do Addition". Stephen Pinker, in his book "The Language Instinct" comes up with sentences which are incomprehensible due to repetition. When the same sentence is phrased with variation, it is fairly obvious what it means. I haven't got the book with me, so I'll have to wait till later to give his examples.

My own example:

If, in the event that I am given some money, I go to the shops, I will buy a sausage.

Both "if" and "in the event that" are ways of saying the same thing. The principle of lucidity would say that we should use only one of these. So let's settle for "if". This sentence would then become:

If, if I am given some money, I go to the shops, I will buy a sausage.

This is just barely comprehensible. Extending the complexity to a three-level "if", we get total absurdity.

Pinker explains all this in terms of the function of the brain and the way in which it interprets language. The message is "variation good, repetition bad".

Sorry about the double posting. Repetition bad! Bad Gnomon! Go to the corner!

The piece on Lucidity is a very interesting read. The motto 'write as clearly as possible' is useful everywhere, here on H2G2 no less than anywhere else. I have always thought that the myth about 'elegant variation' came about partly because of the inconsistency in spelling and grammar in English. It is almost as if English-speakers have a natural tendency to embrace what is confusing - examples in Britain include the shambles over telephone codes and counties.

Unfortunately, the example he uses is poor: 'We will be serious if you are serious.' The second 'serious' is completely superfluous!

Of course variation is needed logically in some cases, as with Gnomon's example above. The writer is arguing against gratuitous variation, which seems to me to be a fashion rather than a necessity.

The misuse of 'this', 'that', 'there' etc when referring back to previous nouns is probably the biggest barrier to clear writing - this is a much more important point that he could have developed more.

<>

Cheap debating trick. Bad Gnomon! To trash something with which you disagree: method 1.

First invent something wrong about it; it doesn't have to be true. Demonstrate that the thing you invented is wrong. Discredit the whole thing on this basis. This is a common method, whose operation is clear to all. Nevertheless, it works a treat!

In short: the principle of lucidity would say no such thing.

<>

Exactly, Jack.

Lucid repetition, as Prof. McIntyre defines it, can make a significant contribution to simply understood prose. If repetition does *not* contribute in this way, it isn't *lucid* repetition, and should be replaced with variation, in the traditional manner.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

So "lucid repetition" is a good thing, because it improves the readability of the sentence. If it doesn't, then it's not "lucid repetition", so it is a bad thing. Isn't this another common debating technique?

Putting two obvious homonyms close together (as in Six Sevens's examples @4181) is bound to cause confusion. This is also true for words and phrases of much closer meaning, e.g. 'You talk about time all the time.' This proximity confuses the eye (but not the ear - yes, it's a speech-writing thing) and tends to interrupt a reader's flow of thought. An alternative to 'all the time' would be 'constantly'.

However, repeating a word with the same meaning (with stress)can help to emphasise the point: 'You talk about time, and then about time...'

Or 'Education, education, education!'

I think the reasons against repetition can vary significantly between spoken and written English

One reason for avoiding repetition in writing is that it can make text much harder to read quickly, especially in the case where the same word or phrase appears in close horizontal proximity on two lines which are vertically close to one another. Sometimes judicious juggling of the text can avoid this problem while maintaining the repetition in cases where the repeat is necessary, but that's only really feasible if you know how the text will be formatted.

Of course, one has to keep some kind of balance, since too much deliberate variation can seem rather strained.

While repetition can be useful for emphasis, so can 'repeated variation'. "You absolute moron, you total numskull, you complete imbecile...", or "You're entirely beautiful, utterly gorgeous...."

So Gnomon's sentence can be rewritten as:

'If I go to the shops and if I am given some money, I will buy some sausages'

This still has repetition but here it serves to emphasise that the sausages will only be bought under certain circumstances. I think this was the original meaning but the example had that horrid nested bit in it that made it hard to read because the "if"s appeared next to each other.

Sorry if I'm butting in with nonsense, I haven't really been keeping up...

k

<>

Well, yes, it would be, if there were no circumstances where "lucid repetition" *does* improve readability. Like any technique, it must be applied using common sense, not blindly, but surely this applies universally?

Also, if I defined "lucid repetition" to guarantee a readability improvement under all circumstances, then I apologise. This would definitely be an unacceptable debating technique.

IME, there *are* circumstances where avoiding repetition leads to a situation where the meaning is unclear. *This* is what (AIUI) lucid repetition is intended to combat.

I agree without reservation that the criterion for applying "lucid repetition" (or any other technique) is whether it improves readability and understanding. If it doesn't, it's inappropriate, and probably counter-productive.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

I think Pattern-chaser has summed things up here. And Potholer, thank you for expanding on my original point

I think the intended target of lucid repetition is where it is important for the reader to grasp that the original phrase and the 'variation' clearly and unambiguously refer to the same thing. In this case, repetition is probably what you need to do, whether you call it "lucid repetition" or something else.

In programming C or C++, there is a shorthand for incrementing a variable that is expressed thus: "x += 1", and it means "x = x + 1". In this case, it actually obscures the meaning, but if it said "abd()->xyz()->s123(4, 5, 6).var = abd()->xyz()->s123(4, 5, 6).var + 1", you may have to go through the two long expressions a character at a time to see that they are really identical, and don't differ in (say) one character, but you didn't notice. In this case, *not* repeating is the clearest way to express what you want to say: "abd()->xyz()->s123(4, 5, 6).var += 1".

Clarity is the aim, and the achievement of clarity (note: a variation on "clarity" here might obscure the intended meaning! ) is therefore the only way to judge the success of any strategy.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

I have to say clarity is not everything in communication. It is always in conflict with concision (or economy). Using the give and take between these two will enable you to communicate effectively.

Hmmm, so am I right in saying that you consider there are cases where clarity would make the text too long, and perhaps dissuade the reader from reading it all? And is this *all* you meant, or just an example of what you meant?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

You can't always make things perfectly clear in writing, as my exercise in concision just proved.

I am assuming that, human nature being as it is, the thought behind every utterance is: 'What is the minimum number of words needed to convey the meaning?' You leave out what you can and hope the reader/hearer will understand. This goes back to the above discussion on anaphora (this, that, pronouns and the like) - you use them to save space, but, if it is unclear what is being referred to, you run the risk of losing your audience.

You have to find a compromise between e.g.
'Sid Johnstone irons his shirt on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday.'
and
'He does it every weekday.'

In other words, you need to maintain a course between the hopelessly obscure and the bleeding obvious.

I'll tell ya what's not bleeding obvious. Why would you go to more than one shop to buy a single item?

It seems to me a visit to the Butcher's is sufficient for the purchase of sausage, or many sausages. There is no need to patronise any other shops unless you intend to purchase (one) sausage from each shop.

But, not all shops are Butcher Shops, so buying sausages in other shops would not be possible ...in any event. Bloody English!


jwf

(Minor point) - In C/C++, you'd normally write x++ (or the subtly different ++x) to add one to x, with '+=' being the more general self-add operator which can be used to add anything to x.

Here's an example of repetition I quite like:

'I'm sick and tired of being sick, and tired of being sick and tired.'

Yeah, OK Potholer, I should've written XXXX = XXXX + 2, but the reason for mentioning it was a counter-example to what I was talking about, not a C/C++ tutorial. In this example, repetition can make for code which is not simply understood.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"