Tips? How to tell the English they are barbarian?

Well, ok, you might be talking about political analyses or something, but I'm just speaking in general.

I'd scrap engineering from that list as there's a tantrum of complex mechanics involved in engineering. Over here at least. It's not necessarily that the things are too simple so they need to thicken the text, it's more like Red Ant put it.

<Z>

 

Speaking as an ex-scientist and doctor, the technical language we used was essential for proper communication between ourselves. Having said that American textbooks were usually twice the thickness of the English equivalent for the same content. As a student I considered the extra verbiage of the US versions pretentious but later when I had more time discovered they were probably more readable as a result. Speaking personally, I find if something is readable I remember it. (Off topic I found the Da Vinci Code unreadable as it was so badly written).

We then arrive at the knotty problem of communicating our knowledge to the general public. The 'simple' words and diagrams we use gives just a precis of the 'problem' but is usually sufficient for it's needs. An unfortunate side-effect of this, in Britain at least, is that as a result of this simplicity an awful lot of the population believe they know as much as the expert and can argue on equal terms. Not surprising I suppose, since little or no knowledge is now required to get good exam grades!

I think that the above can be applied to other areas of expertise.

 

Technical language is good indeed, but there's technical, and there's overtechnical. There's this Dutch saying "Overkill hurts", I strongly agree with it (in Dutch it rhymes and maybe has a slightly different nuance - what the saying is about: overdoing something will have a negative effect). If a certain term requires an adjective, or if one needs to be exact and he adds an adjective to further define, that's ok, but if he's just out to impress his audience then that's overdoing it. Sometimes the usage of overly complex constructions and phrases is meant to cloud the author's lack of knowledge on the subject.

As for American textbooks being thicker, yes and no. In the case of my textbooks this most of the times is because these books are used throughout the whole year rather than a single semester. The American books are very comprehensive though, this is also because they intend to appeal to the layman as well. They usually start from a different level in education, which requires a more thorough explanation in some subject. For example, I had Linear Algebra last semester, we started from sub-zero because that's where the American high-school system stopped. On the other hand though, the textbooks published by my professors usually only cover one semester. This doesn't mean they're not extensive or thorough (far from actually) it just means they'll try to send huge ammounts of stuff to us in a relatively short period of time (in this case, a semester). So, for example, instead of one big book on Analysis, I get 3 books. True, the books slightly differ in nature and subject, but you can just as well publish it in one big book.

I agree that if something is well written it hangs around. Sadly enough, in some cases the adjectives do really matter, and it's easy to forget one crucial adjective and get a whole different meaning

Hmmm, that doesn't really seem to be the case in my specific area of expertise. I don't think we can expect John or Jane Doe to solve a system of differential equations, or expect them to explain the meaning of a Van der Waals isotherm. But thats because most of those things don't really appeal to John and Jane Doe. E.R. on the other hand, Ally McBeal or God knows what other hospital or courtroom drama they come up with next, results in people watching the series starting to think they really know the subject through and through.

<Z>

 

So poorly written.

 

Semantics. Assuming you were commenting on my use of the word? Though, maybe, he was poorly when he wrote it?

badly - without skill or in a displeasing manner; "she writes badly"; "I think he paints very badly"

 

what science are you, pitz?
BTW I find western maths textbooks quite more difficult to read (english and american, german authors seem ok). They tend to give the more illustrative exposition picking on specifics and practical examples, rather than clearly formulating the fundamental relations of what is true and what - not.

Dunno if this is better or worse. I probably find it difficult because the approach is different from the one in which I have been trained for the past 4 years.
Or maybe because I moved to a more applied area (equations) which is more of a pain with actual problems than general theorems. (even what they call "applied maths" in the soviet school might be very very theoretic!)

 

I don't know where you learned to speak english, but if I wrote the word "badly" in an essay at my University I'd be made an example of in front of the class and given one less letter grade on my score.

 

Atheists are people who don't need invisible means of support. 'nuff said.