Plain Words (15 page)

But there is today a tendency to form phrasal verbs to express a meaning no different from that of the verb without the particle. To do this is to debase the language, not to enrich it.
Drown out
,
sound out
,
lose out
,
rest up
,
miss out on
,
meet up with
,
visit with
and
study up on
are all examples of phrasal verbs used in senses no different from the unadorned verb. By contrast, in the newcomer to
measure up to
, the added particles give the verb a new meaning, the sense of to ‘be adequate to an occasion'.

Note
. When Gowers wrote this he was under the false impression that all the ‘debasing' phrasal verbs in his list had originated in America, leading him to remark that they had ‘so far found little favour' in British English. Wherever they were from, British favour has been widely granted to them since, apart from
rest up
and
visit with
. The effect on Gowers of
study up on
for
study
or
drown out
for
drown
must have been comparable to the effect on a modern British ear of
imagine up
or
fall up short
(
US News & World Report
quotes an expert in benefits saying, ‘half the time you have enough for retirement and half the time you fall up short'). There are, however, plenty of redundant particles littered through British writing:

It is now the fourth time that the Taliban have used ‘secondary' devices in the town of Sangin in which they kill or maim with an initial bomb and then await for a stretcher party before detonating another to kill the rescuers. (Daily
Telegraph
)

Germany's staunch refusal to step up to the plate and take the responsibility of being Europe's paymaster is causing investor sentiment to erode away day by day. (
Guardian
)

Will finds it difficult to speak of that dreadful day, but is prepared to elucidate on how he has brought up his sons. (
The Times
)

Former Labour chairman will leave parliament … after repaying back almost £15,000 worth of expenses claims. (
Guardian
) ~

By this I mean a particular form of what the grammarians call
tautology
,
pleonasm
or
redundancy
. Possible varieties are infinite, but one of the commonest examples is writing ‘the reason for this is because …' instead of either ‘this is because' or ‘the reason for this is that …'.

The Ministry of Food say that the reason for the higher price of the biscuits is because the cost of chocolate has increased. (The reason … is that …)

Other versions of this error include:

The subject of the talk tonight will be about … (Either ‘the subject will be' or ‘the talk will be about'.)

The reason for the long delay appears to be due to the fact that the medical certificates went astray. (Either ‘the reason is that' or ‘the delay is due to the fact that'.)

By far the greater majority … (Either ‘by far the majority' or ‘by far the greater part'.)

He did not say that all actions for libel or slander were never properly brought. (Either ‘that all actions … were improperly brought' or ‘that actions … were never properly brought'.)

An attempt will be made this morning to try to avert the threatened strike. (Those who were going to do this might have attempted to do it or tried to do it. But merely to attempt to try seems rather half-hearted.)

The common fault of duplicating either the future or the past is another form of this error:

The most probable thing will be that they will be sold in a Government auction. (‘The most probable thing is that they will be sold …')

The Minister said he would have liked the Government of Eire to have offered us butter instead of cream. (He ‘would have liked the Government of Eire to offer …')

Note.
As well as using versions of
the reason why is because
, many modern writers find themselves lured into a needless repetition of terms from the cluster
both share the same equally in common
.
*
The
Independent
reports of two public figures: ‘Both share a passion for education …', but it is enough to say ‘both have a passion for', ‘they share a passion for', ‘they have a common passion for', ‘they are equally passionate about', or even ‘they have the same passion for'. Similarly, ‘Both suspects remain under armed guard in separate hospitals' should read, ‘The two suspects remain under armed guard in separate hospitals'. ~

Certain adjectives and adverbs cannot be properly qualified by such words as
more
,
less
,
very
and
rather
, because they do not admit of degrees.
Unique
is the standard example. When we
say a thing is ‘unique' we mean that there is nothing else of its kind in existence: ‘rather unique' is strictly meaningless. But we can of course say
almost unique
.

It is easy to slip into pedantry here, and to condemn qualification of words that are perhaps absolutes but are no longer treated as being so—
true
, for instance, and
empty
and
full
. We ought not to be exercised by ‘very true', or ‘the hall was even emptier today than yesterday' or ‘this cupboard is fuller than that one'. But the following quotation goes too far:

It may safely be said that the design of sanitary fittings has now reached a high degree of perfection.

Nor does the comparative seem happily chosen in ‘more virgin', which a correspondent tells me he has seen in an advertisement.
*

All forms of verbosity might be described as padding, and the topic overlaps others we shall come to in the chapters on choosing the familiar word and choosing the precise word. I use
padding
here as a label for the type of verbosity Sir Winston Churchill referred to in a memorandum entitled ‘Brevity' that he issued as Prime Minister on the 9th August 1940. He wrote:

Let us have an end of such phrases as these:

‘It
is also of importance to bear in mind the following considerations …' or ‘consideration should be given to the possibility of carrying into effect …' Most of these woolly phrases are mere padding, which can be left out altogether, or replaced by a single word. Let us not shrink from using the short expressive phrase, even if it is conversational.

‘Padding', in the sense in which Sir Winston used the word, consists of clumsy and obtrusive stitches on what ought to be a smooth fabric of consecutive thought. No doubt it comes partly from a feeling that wordiness is an ingredient of politeness, and that blunt statement is crude, even rude. There is an element of truth to this: an over-staccato style is as irritating as an over-sostenuto one. But it is a matter of degree, and official prose is of the sort that calls for plainness rather than elegance. Moreover the habit of ‘padding' springs partly from less meritorious notions—that the dignity of an official's calling demands a certain verbosity, and that naked truth is indecent and should be clothed in wrappings of woolly words.

Sir Winston gave two common examples based on the word
consideration
. He might equally well have chosen phrases based on
appreciate
. ‘It is appreciated that' (anticipating an objection that is to be met) and ‘it will be appreciated that' (introducing a reason for a decision that is to be given) are very prevalent. They can almost always be omitted without harm to the sense.
*

I have already referred, in
Chapter III
, to one way in which padding shows itself in official letters. Each paragraph is thought to need introductory words—
I am to add
;
I am further to observe
;
I am moreover to remark
;
Finally, I am to point out
; and so forth.
Here is the same phenomenon in a circular sending a form for a statistical return:

The words italicised in the first three paragraphs are padding. They are no more needed there than in paragraph (iv), where the writer has wisely done without them, perhaps fearing to run out of stock.

Other examples:

I am prepared to accept the discharge of this account by payment in instalments, but
it should be pointed out that
no further service can be allowed until the account is again in credit.

The opportunity is taken to mention that
it is understood …

I regret that the wrong form was forwarded.
In the circumstances
I am forwarding a superseding one.

It should be noted that
there is the possibility of a further sale.

This form of padding deserves a special mention because the temptation affects officials more than most people, and because it is comparatively easy to resist: it shows itself more plainly than other more subtle temptations to pad. For the rest, padding can be defined as the use of words, phrases and even sentences that contribute nothing to the reader's perception of the writer's meaning.
Some seem to be especially tempting to writers. I have mentioned
consideration
and
appreciate
; among other seductive phrases are
in this connection
and
for your information
. These have their proper uses, but are more often found as padding clichés. In none of the following examples do they serve any other purpose:

I am directed to refer to the travelling and subsistence allowances applicable to your Department, and in this connexion I am to say …

The Minister's views in general in this connexion and the nature and scope of the information which he felt would assist him in this connexion was indicated at a meeting …

For your information I should perhaps explain that there is still a shortage of materials.

For your information I would inform you that it will be necessary for you to approach the local Agricultural Executive Committee.

This last example, taken from a letter I received myself, shows up the futility of this curious cliché. It was not even true that I was being told this ‘for information': ‘for action' would have been more appropriate.

Of course
is another adverbial phrase that needs watching lest it should creep in as padding. In some contexts
of course
is used to impress readers by showing the writer's familiarity with an out-of-the-way piece of information. But the official who overworks the phrase is more likely to do so from genuine humility, putting it in so as not to seem didactic: ‘Don't think that I suppose you to be so stupid that you don't already know or infer what I am telling you, but I think I ought to mention it'. Sometimes
of course
is wisely used for this purpose—if, for instance, the writer has good reason to say something so obvious that any touchy
readers may feel that they are being treated like fools. It is much better in these circumstances to say ‘of course' than its pompous variant ‘as you are doubtless aware'.
Of course
might with advantage have been used in:

It may be stated with some confidence that though it is possible for a blister-gas bomb to fall in a crater previously made by an H.E. bomb, the probability of such an occurrence is small.

In this example, ‘It may be stated with some confidence that' is not only padding but also an absurdity. One might say with some confidence that this will not happen, or with complete confidence that it is improbable, but to feel only some confidence about its improbability is carrying intellectual timidity to almost imbecile lengths.

The following extracts, taken from two documents issued by the same Ministry at about the same time, are instructive. The first is:

I am to add that, doubtless, local authorities appreciate that it is a matter of prime importance that information about possible breaches of Defence Regulation … should reach the investigating officers of the Ministry … with the minimum of delay.

The second is:

After six years of war almost every building in this country needs work doing to it. The whole of the building labour force could be employed on nothing else but repairs and maintenance. Yet there are hundreds of thousands of families who urgently need homes of their own and will keep on suffering great hardship until houses can be provided for them.

The first of these is bad. It is the sort of thing that those who say civil servants write badly point to in support of their case. The
first eighteen of its thirty-eight words are padding, and the last five are a starchy paraphrase of ‘as soon as possible'. The second is excellent. It has no padding, and says what it has to say in brisk, businesslike English. Why this difference of style in the same department? We can only guess, but I do not think the guess is difficult. The first was written for the guidance of local government officials only. It was a routine matter and no trouble was taken over it. Its language is the sort that local authorities expect and understand. But the second was intended to impress the public, and the writer was at pains to use language in a way that would be grasped at once and that would carry conviction. This, I have no doubt, is the explanation, but it is not sufficient. Whatever the purpose, the first is bad and the second is good.