<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for Macmillan</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.macmillandictionaryblog.com/comments/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.macmillandictionaryblog.com</link>
	<description>Global English and language change</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 03:05:11 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Trending now! by Jill Robbins</title>
		<link>http://www.macmillandictionaryblog.com/trending-now/comment-page-1#comment-41363</link>
		<dc:creator>Jill Robbins</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 03:05:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.macmillandictionaryblog.com/?p=22299#comment-41363</guid>
		<description>I heard what I think you&#039;d call a collocation the other day on Prairie Home Companion. Garrison Keiller said that Lake Woebegon had &#039;designer snow&#039; last week - some tasteful sprinkles of snow here and there. I love that expression, and think it&#039;s perfect for this winter&#039;s paltry snowfalls in the Northeast.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I heard what I think you&#8217;d call a collocation the other day on Prairie Home Companion. Garrison Keiller said that Lake Woebegon had &#8216;designer snow&#8217; last week &#8211; some tasteful sprinkles of snow here and there. I love that expression, and think it&#8217;s perfect for this winter&#8217;s paltry snowfalls in the Northeast.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Critical learnings, going forward by Translate &#34;Suboptimal Productivity Drivers&#34; and Win a Dictionary &#171; &#8230;And Read All Over</title>
		<link>http://www.macmillandictionaryblog.com/critical-learnings-going-forward/comment-page-1#comment-41279</link>
		<dc:creator>Translate &#34;Suboptimal Productivity Drivers&#34; and Win a Dictionary &#171; &#8230;And Read All Over</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 09:28:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.macmillandictionaryblog.com/?p=15164#comment-41279</guid>
		<description>[...] Carey of Sentence First and Macmillan Dictionary Blog fame has set up a challenge at the Macmillan Dictionary Blog. He has written a letter in &#8220;business-speak&#8221; and tasked readers to translate it. One [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Carey of Sentence First and Macmillan Dictionary Blog fame has set up a challenge at the Macmillan Dictionary Blog. He has written a letter in &#8220;business-speak&#8221; and tasked readers to translate it. One [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on The fun of new words by Stan</title>
		<link>http://www.macmillandictionaryblog.com/the-fun-of-new-words/comment-page-1#comment-41277</link>
		<dc:creator>Stan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 09:26:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.macmillandictionaryblog.com/?p=22663#comment-41277</guid>
		<description>Mwncïod: It had the same effect on me: Michael&#039;s post last week was my first encounter with the verb, but it made complete and immediate sense. Thanks for explaining the insurance ads. I don&#039;t think I want to look them up on YouTube!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mwncïod: It had the same effect on me: Michael&#8217;s post last week was my first encounter with the verb, but it made complete and immediate sense. Thanks for explaining the insurance ads. I don&#8217;t think I want to look them up on YouTube!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on &#8216;Which&#8217; or &#8216;that&#8217; &#8211; or neither? by [Updated] Rise Up! Free-form Grammar to Break Your Language Bonds &#171; &#8230;And Read All Over</title>
		<link>http://www.macmillandictionaryblog.com/which-or-that-or-neither/comment-page-1#comment-41271</link>
		<dc:creator>[Updated] Rise Up! Free-form Grammar to Break Your Language Bonds &#171; &#8230;And Read All Over</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 08:57:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.macmillandictionaryblog.com/?p=15834#comment-41271</guid>
		<description>[...] long have we been held in the chains of grammar. Too long have our oppressors, the so-called language mavens, told us what we can and cannot say! Too [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] long have we been held in the chains of grammar. Too long have our oppressors, the so-called language mavens, told us what we can and cannot say! Too [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on The fun of new words by Mwncïod</title>
		<link>http://www.macmillandictionaryblog.com/the-fun-of-new-words/comment-page-1#comment-41170</link>
		<dc:creator>Mwncïod</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 16:05:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.macmillandictionaryblog.com/?p=22663#comment-41170</guid>
		<description>Funny, I&#039;ve never heard of &quot;meercatted&quot; until now but I instantly know what it means. 
To non-UKers the  humorous-cum-tedious TV commercials are predicated on the punning of the insurance website&#039;s name &#039;comparetheMARKET.com&#039; with &#039;comparetheMEERKAT.com&#039; cue an overly long series of cartoon anthropomorphised meerkat-based nonsense and spin-off promotional merchandise ...meh?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Funny, I&#8217;ve never heard of &#8220;meercatted&#8221; until now but I instantly know what it means.<br />
To non-UKers the  humorous-cum-tedious TV commercials are predicated on the punning of the insurance website&#8217;s name &#8216;comparetheMARKET.com&#8217; with &#8216;comparetheMEERKAT.com&#8217; cue an overly long series of cartoon anthropomorphised meerkat-based nonsense and spin-off promotional merchandise &#8230;meh?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on The plain English truth about speechwriting and rhetoric by Martin Shovel</title>
		<link>http://www.macmillandictionaryblog.com/the-plain-english-truth-about-speechwriting-and-rhetoric/comment-page-1#comment-41165</link>
		<dc:creator>Martin Shovel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 15:00:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.macmillandictionaryblog.com/?p=22612#comment-41165</guid>
		<description>Thanks for your comment Simon. I totally agree with you that there’s no conflict between plain English and rhetoric; hence, my conclusion that plain English is a just style choice, among many possible style choices. And I think we would both agree that skilled rhetoricians/speechwriters use a wide variety of styles to get their messages across – i.e. they use the right tool, or tools, for the job in hand.

The problem arises when advocates of plain English imply that their ‘style’ of expression reveals something deeper, and truer, about the way language and meaning work. 

P.S. I would happily recommend your book on speechwriting to anyone with an interest in the subject!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for your comment Simon. I totally agree with you that there’s no conflict between plain English and rhetoric; hence, my conclusion that plain English is a just style choice, among many possible style choices. And I think we would both agree that skilled rhetoricians/speechwriters use a wide variety of styles to get their messages across – i.e. they use the right tool, or tools, for the job in hand.</p>
<p>The problem arises when advocates of plain English imply that their ‘style’ of expression reveals something deeper, and truer, about the way language and meaning work. </p>
<p>P.S. I would happily recommend your book on speechwriting to anyone with an interest in the subject!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Think before you write by The Real Reason Short Words Are Best &#171; &#8230;And Read All Over</title>
		<link>http://www.macmillandictionaryblog.com/think-before-you-write/comment-page-1#comment-41160</link>
		<dc:creator>The Real Reason Short Words Are Best &#171; &#8230;And Read All Over</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 13:06:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.macmillandictionaryblog.com/?p=22444#comment-41160</guid>
		<description>[...] the opening of a recent Macmillan Dictionary Blog post, Robert Lane Greene quotes the editor of the Economist&#8217;s style guide, who in turn quotes [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] the opening of a recent Macmillan Dictionary Blog post, Robert Lane Greene quotes the editor of the Economist&#8217;s style guide, who in turn quotes [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on The plain English truth about speechwriting and rhetoric by Simon Lancaster</title>
		<link>http://www.macmillandictionaryblog.com/the-plain-english-truth-about-speechwriting-and-rhetoric/comment-page-1#comment-41159</link>
		<dc:creator>Simon Lancaster</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 12:27:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.macmillandictionaryblog.com/?p=22612#comment-41159</guid>
		<description>Hi Martin. Interesting post. But there&#039;s not a conflict between plain English and rhetoric: plain English is itself a rhetorical device. It conveys the unconscious message, &#039;it&#039;s simple&#039; - even if it isn&#039;t. Obama&#039;s &#039;Yes we can&#039;, Clinton&#039;s &#039;It&#039;s the economy, stupid&#039;, Bush&#039;s &#039;read my lips&#039; and so on and so on. Cameron always ends any speech, statement or interview comment with a plain English summary of his message, e.g. &#039;we get it.&#039;

The Ancient rhetoricians - Aristotle, Demetrius et al - all distinguished between a plain style and a stately style in rhetoric. I cover this in my book - Speechwriting: The Expert Guide (published by Robert Hale) - forgive the plug. The Ancient Greeks had fine advice, e.g. &#039;For the sake of lucidity we must often repeat ourselves. What conciseness gains by being attractive it loses by being obscure. As men running past us often pass unrecognised, so language, too, is not taken in if its movement is rapid.&#039;

The true battle lies not between rhetoricians and plain speakers but between pedants and plain speakers. A pedant would never have stood for Obama&#039;s &#039;Yes we can.&#039; They would probably have recommended instead, &#039;It is perhaps true to say that certain collections of American people are capable of achieving certain things together in certain circumstances, but it is by no means true all of the time, as recent events have proved.&#039; It was the brevity and simplicity of &#039;Yes we can&#039; that gave it its rhetorical force. 

Cheers,

Simon</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Martin. Interesting post. But there&#8217;s not a conflict between plain English and rhetoric: plain English is itself a rhetorical device. It conveys the unconscious message, &#8216;it&#8217;s simple&#8217; &#8211; even if it isn&#8217;t. Obama&#8217;s &#8216;Yes we can&#8217;, Clinton&#8217;s &#8216;It&#8217;s the economy, stupid&#8217;, Bush&#8217;s &#8216;read my lips&#8217; and so on and so on. Cameron always ends any speech, statement or interview comment with a plain English summary of his message, e.g. &#8216;we get it.&#8217;</p>
<p>The Ancient rhetoricians &#8211; Aristotle, Demetrius et al &#8211; all distinguished between a plain style and a stately style in rhetoric. I cover this in my book &#8211; Speechwriting: The Expert Guide (published by Robert Hale) &#8211; forgive the plug. The Ancient Greeks had fine advice, e.g. &#8216;For the sake of lucidity we must often repeat ourselves. What conciseness gains by being attractive it loses by being obscure. As men running past us often pass unrecognised, so language, too, is not taken in if its movement is rapid.&#8217;</p>
<p>The true battle lies not between rhetoricians and plain speakers but between pedants and plain speakers. A pedant would never have stood for Obama&#8217;s &#8216;Yes we can.&#8217; They would probably have recommended instead, &#8216;It is perhaps true to say that certain collections of American people are capable of achieving certain things together in certain circumstances, but it is by no means true all of the time, as recent events have proved.&#8217; It was the brevity and simplicity of &#8216;Yes we can&#8217; that gave it its rhetorical force. </p>
<p>Cheers,</p>
<p>Simon</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on The fun of new words by Stan</title>
		<link>http://www.macmillandictionaryblog.com/the-fun-of-new-words/comment-page-1#comment-41152</link>
		<dc:creator>Stan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 11:22:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.macmillandictionaryblog.com/?p=22663#comment-41152</guid>
		<description>Liz: That&#039;s true. I don&#039;t know the ads you mention but I&#039;ve become familiar with meerkats through nature documentaries, and not everyone would know what they are. Those who do, I suspect, would generally picture them in their characteristic meerkatting-to-attention stance!

Julie: Sadly, that seems to be the case for some people. It&#039;s not enough for them that language is taken seriously in serious contexts, but any hint of &#039;improper&#039; play with words is to be frowned and harrumphed upon. What are we, children!?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Liz: That&#8217;s true. I don&#8217;t know the ads you mention but I&#8217;ve become familiar with meerkats through nature documentaries, and not everyone would know what they are. Those who do, I suspect, would generally picture them in their characteristic meerkatting-to-attention stance!</p>
<p>Julie: Sadly, that seems to be the case for some people. It&#8217;s not enough for them that language is taken seriously in serious contexts, but any hint of &#8216;improper&#8217; play with words is to be frowned and harrumphed upon. What are we, children!?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on The plain English truth about speechwriting and rhetoric by Martin Shovel</title>
		<link>http://www.macmillandictionaryblog.com/the-plain-english-truth-about-speechwriting-and-rhetoric/comment-page-1#comment-41149</link>
		<dc:creator>Martin Shovel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 10:41:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.macmillandictionaryblog.com/?p=22612#comment-41149</guid>
		<description>Many thanks for your comment Tim.

Winston Churchill said that &quot;short words are best and the old words when short are best of all”, and the famous passage you refer to is a good example of this philosophy in action. 

But the passage is highly rhetorical and would be ridiculed by advocates of plain English if it appeared in a public service announcement. It is a brilliant example of anaphora: a rhetorical term in which a word or phrase is repeated at the beginning of successive sentences or phrases. Churchill builds towards a powerful emotional climax by repeating the phrase “we shall fight”.

“We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills …”

Using short, easily understood words is not the same as using plain English. If you look at many of the greatest examples of oratory – especially from the 20th century – you’ll find they are full of short, old – i.e. Anglo-Saxon – words.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Many thanks for your comment Tim.</p>
<p>Winston Churchill said that &#8220;short words are best and the old words when short are best of all”, and the famous passage you refer to is a good example of this philosophy in action. </p>
<p>But the passage is highly rhetorical and would be ridiculed by advocates of plain English if it appeared in a public service announcement. It is a brilliant example of anaphora: a rhetorical term in which a word or phrase is repeated at the beginning of successive sentences or phrases. Churchill builds towards a powerful emotional climax by repeating the phrase “we shall fight”.</p>
<p>“We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills …”</p>
<p>Using short, easily understood words is not the same as using plain English. If you look at many of the greatest examples of oratory – especially from the 20th century – you’ll find they are full of short, old – i.e. Anglo-Saxon – words.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

