Writing for understanding

While browsing through some old posts I made on a discussion forum, I found this attempt at humour I had written a couple of years ago – in response to someone’s use of latin in their writing:

Greetings and good dies Michael et al.

I must say that I do take issue when people insist on the use of foreign terms exempli gratia, latin, french, et cetera in their writings.

Now there are those who would argue that such terms are in common usage in the English language, however I do disagree somewhat.

There are still others who prefer to use them as a suggestion of how learned and indeed, how superior they are to others who may be incapable of such eloquence.

Further more, there would be those who suggest that we should not lose the roots of our languages, and endeavour to re-introduce words ab origine back into our common communication.

If you suggest that they are actually doing themselves a disservice ipso facto of their arrogance, such people will argue their point with you ad finem that you are merely proving their own point about how superior they are to you who refuses to communicate at their level.

Per contra, I believe that the onus is on the communicator to ensure that the communicatee of the information is entirely able to understand what is being communicated.

Now prima facie it would seem that I may be a little pedantic in my desire to have clear and comprehendible communication, but isn’t such the raison detre of communicating ?

“If a tree in a forest spoke the entire works of Shakespeare and no-one was there to hear it, then did it really speak ?”

Now if we en masse use such language in quantum sufficiat, perhaps even quoque alternis die, then I would consider that it would be acceptable that people are readily exposed to such terminology and in toto we can communicate effectively.

Personally, my modus operandi is to ensure that the broadest audience can understand the intention of my communication. For surely, this is sine qua non to ensuring that I am not merely wasting my breath ?

At the risk of upsetting the status quo or indeed becoming persona non grata, I will cease to continue ad nauseam. However, nota bene that non sequitur you must understand verbatim et literatim, but would it not be preferable that you at least get your damned point across ?

Yours in vacuo,

Simon