https://www.gov.uk/guidance/style-guide/a-to-z-of-gov-uk-sty...
The link to this style guide is provided at the end of the article. However the article does not link to the exact section "Words to avoid" which is almost at the bottom of the style guide. The above link is a direct link to that section in the style guide.
Can you guys shed some light?
Why is discussion better than dialogue? Work with better than collaborate? Concentrate on better than focus on?
Some of them are definitely debatable but that's the general trend.
What is the line between analogies and etymology?
Not really arguing with the specific choice, but considering words formed by analysis as harder to understand is a concept I've never seen before.
"Simpler and less flowery" is obviously not very well defined but it's also definitely a real spectrum. One of those things that needs taste and judgement.
For example, 'dialogue' to many people means a dialogue box on a computer screen. So that word is ambiguous. But a discussion has a primary meaning that is what the writer desires to use.
Particularly for non-native speakers, using secondary meanings of words can be confusing.
> The dialog box (also called dialogue box (non-U.S. English), ...
This is a British government website, so "dialogue box" might not be uncommon.
Some of us distinguish between program (software) and programme (a collection of projects)
In the same way, the instructions controlling a computer are a "program"; the TV drama with the dialogue is a "programme".
/me British English speaker (obv)
(This would also, if you squint a bit, serve as an example of "dialog" being short for dialog box.)
Another subtlety in English is that words with Germanic roots feel more direct and simple while those with Latin roots feel flowery and pretentious so the former are often preferred. E.g. ask/inquire, answer/response. It's not always true, and some words may still be out of date.
See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Germanic_and_Latinat...
The Plain English campaign - whose work has been excellent over the decades - and diversity in CS hiring, have hopefully broken the worst parts of the language barrier.
[1] - silly example: while most of the office-working world would write a "memo", in CS Jargonese it was a "minute". To this day I have no idea why the distinction was important.
Ooh, That might explain why it was hard for me to understand!
I'm a Spaniard, so latin-derived words are usually familiar. That's what's keeping me from perceiving them as literary, since their Spanish counterpart is in my 'common speech register', so to speak.
"Focus" is a metaphor.
"Work with" is at a considerably simpler level of English education than "collaborate".
A "dialog" was originally a literary work with people responding to each other, so it's a bit more pretentious.
Also, a dialog has a slightly more argumentative feel than a discussion - there is more of a sense of opposition.
"We had a quick discussion to make sure we were on the same page and then had lunch." Dialog would be weird here.
"We are trying to start a dialog between one side and the other."
Though I guess that used in an international context (say, between countries) discussion would sound stranger than dialogue, and there is usually some degree of opposition between countries.
Would a better substitute not be 'remove'? To drive out something is to get rid of it.
> facilitate, say something specific about how you’re helping - for example, use ‘run’ if talking about a workshop
“Facilitate” is one of those words of which useless people doing useless work in an organization are very fond. I think that when asked to describe what specific work they are doing, they will just implode.
When it's used in a vaguer way then that I tend to agree with you.
It also names those activities of some essential people without whom no work ever manages to get done.
Sorry... collaborate means to share focus, while work with is ambiguous. It may simply mean work at the same time.