Using simpler language ?

Mr.Blue

Senior Member
Australia / English
My teacher corrected this paragraph of my report ( formal report ) and she made some notes on my paper, one of them is to use a simpler language ( words ) but I couldn't understand why ? here is the paragraph , the words in dark are the ones which should be simpler ? Could anyone explain why to me ?

5 in 7 from Australian women are assiduous in their jobs. Over 70% of them are athirst( use eager )to have promotions attempting to show their capacity in adequate jobs.
However, biological specificities cannot be easily dismissed from consideration, particularly in blue-collar and manual jobs. Extreme job demands may be incompatible with the physical dimensions and capacities of most women.
The alternative to adapting jobs may be risks to women's health and employment possibilities. In other words, it is only biological differences that assort women from men in possessing jobs.

Note : ( please correct any more mistakes you can find , I will appreciate it )
 
  • panjandrum

    Lapsed Moderator
    English-Ireland (top end)
    5 in 7 from Australian women are assiduous in their jobs.
    The from is strange. Do you mean: Five in seven Australian women ...?
    Five Australian women in seven ...
    Five in seven women from Australia ...

    In a formal report I would never start a sentence with a figure. It just doesn't look right. Also, it is normal (for me:) ) to spell out the numbers one to ten when they are in text.

    I am not very sure what you mean by assiduous.
    Conscientious? Ambitious? Diligent?
    Assiduous doesn't quite fit in the context.

    Over More than 70% of them are athirst( use eager )to have promotions attempting for promotion to show their capacity in adequate jobs.
    I agree with your teacher here. Athirst is a very literary/poetic word. It would be very strange to find it in a normal business report.

    However, biological specificities cannot be easily dismissed from consideration, particularly in blue-collar and manual jobs. Extreme job demands may be incompatible with the physical dimensions and capacities of most women.
    The alternative to adapting jobs may be risks to women's health and employment possibilities. In other words, it is only biological differences that assort distinguish women from men in possessing jobs.
    I think I would use characteristics rather than specificities.


    There are come comments for you to consider:D
     

    Mr.Blue

    Senior Member
    Australia / English
    First of all , I think I mean "Five in seven women from Australia ..." so does it sound wrong to say "Five in seven from Australian women" ? or it's wrong ?! :confused: Secondly, I mean by saying assiduous ( hard-working ) which also means diligent :p . Finally , about the rest comments and changes I think I agree with you ( I got your point of view ). :thumbsup:
     

    CAMullen

    Senior Member
    US, English
    Yes, "Five in seven from Australian women" does sound wrong. If my mother were Australian, I would not think of her as a "from Australian woman," but as a "woman from Australia."

    "Assiduous" is not wrong - just a little harder for the mind to "climb over" than "hard-working" or even "diligent."

    I think the general point your teacher is trying to make is that your writing is trying to clear a path for your reader to allow him (her? them?) to reach an understanding of your point. In using unnecessarily large or unusual words, you are, in a sense, putting little mental sawhorses and barrels in their path. Nothing they can't get around, mind you - just little impediments that make them wish they took a different path (i.e., read another writer).

    As they say, Keep it simple, Senhor!
     

    wilsocn1

    Senior Member
    United States - English
    Having to pull out a dictionary to read an article or report is never fun. I assume thats why she asked you to use different vocabulary.
     

    nycphotography

    Senior Member
    American English
    Just some suggestions:

    5 in of 7 from Australian women are diligent assiduous in their jobs. Over 70% of them are thirsty for athirst to have promotions, and are attempting to show their adequate capacity in their adequate jobs.

    However, biological factors specificitiescannot be easily dismissed from consideration, particularly in blue-collar and manual jobs. Extreme job demands may be incompatible with the physical dimensions and (capacity includes dimension as a cause) capacities of most women. (however I have no idea what point this sentence is it trying to make??)

    The alternative to adapting jobs (to what or how? you adapt TO something or IN some way) may be risks to women's health and employment possibilities. (this is another sentence that parses, but means nothing?? are employemtn possibilities at risk? or are they an alternative? This should probably be 2 or 3 sentences, and should fill in the missing assumptions.) In other words, it is only biological differences that sort assort women from men in possessing different types of jobs.



    There are a few assertions made that completely lack explanation or support.
     

    suzi br

    Senior Member
    English / England
    Mr.Blue said:
    5 in 7 from Australian women are assiduous in their jobs. Over 70% of them are athirst( use eager )to have promotions attempting to show their capacity in adequate jobs.

    I totally agree with your teacher that athirst sounds most strange .. but I would also query your use of assiduous here.

    I think assiduous means carefull, diligent, professional. You simply cannot measure such qualities with statistics. Furthermore, none of these qualities automatically implies the desire for promotion, which is what you seem to be getting around to. If you've asked women if they want promotion, just say one thing, like: "surveys show that nearly 70% of women would welcome promotion."

    and I'm not sure what you mean by the other 1/2 of this, about "show their capacity in adequate jobs"?

    In fact the whole thing is overly elaborate and clouds your exact meaning, as nycphoto. has observed. You need to start from getting clear exactly what ideas you are trying to communicate and then choose the most ordinary terms you can to do that!
     

    fenixpollo

    moderator
    American English
    Many teachers look for a "natural" style of expression, one that would be expected from a literate, well-spoken native speaker of your age. When you use vocabulary that is more "advanced" or complex than what the teacher expects, it seems strange. While "assiduous" and "athirst" might have been the exact words that fit the meaning you wanted to communicate, they are so advanced and/or rare that even the teacher might need a dictionary to understand them. As wilsocn1 said, that's not fun when you're the teacher.
     

    suzi br

    Senior Member
    English / England
    with respect fenixpollo - that isnt quite the point. Many teachers would know what those words mean, but the question is - are they the best words in this context? People have explained why athirst is just NOT a good choice and I've tried to say why assiduous is wrong in this context.

    Getting a sense of the best register to use in writing is hard enough for native speakers, and learners have got to accept that trawling for the "hardest" or most obscure word is not, actually, a road to successful writing.
     

    fenixpollo

    moderator
    American English
    Well said, suzi. The point is that the teacher is trying to help the students develop the skill of finding the most appropriate (not the biggest) word for the context.

    My statement about the teacher needing a dictionary was more flippant than honest. I suppose that as an ex-teacher, I was simply whining. :rolleyes:
     

    suzi br

    Senior Member
    English / England
    hi there fenixpollo - well that's good -so we are very satisifed with our advice, here in the staff room -and where is the scholar!
     
    Top