A scrupulous writer in every sentence that he writes will ask himself. . . What am I trying to say?

What words will express it?...And he probably asks himself. . . Could I put it more shortly? But you
are not obliged to go to all this trouble. You can shirk it by simply throwing open your mind and
letting the ready-made phrases come crowding in. They will construct your sentences for you—
even think your thoughts for you to a certain extent—and at need they will perform the important
service of partially concealing your meaning even from yourself. —George Orwell in Horizon, April,
1947.

If the word is the right one, do not be ashamed of it: if it is the wrong one, do not use it. The same implied apology
is often made in conversation by interposing "you know" or by ending every sentence with phrases such as "or
something" or "sort of thing". Officials cannot do that, but in them the same phenomenon is reflected in an
unwillingness to venture outside a small vocabulary of shapeless bundles of uncertain content—words like
position, arise, involve, in connexion with, issue, consideration and factor—a disposition, for instance, to "admit
with regret the position which has arisen in connexion with" rather than to make the effort to tell the reader
specifically what is admitted with regret. Clear thinking is hard work, but loose thinking is bound to produce loose
writing. And clear thinking takes time, but time that has to be given to a job to avoid making a mess of it cannot be
time wasted and may in the end be time saved.

Drafting is a science, not an art; it lies in the province of mathematics rather than of literature, and its practice
needs long apprenticeship. It is prudently left to a specialised legal branch of the Service. The only concern of the
ordinary official is to learn to understand it, to act as interpreter of it to ordinary people, and to be careful not to
let his own style of writing be tainted by it. Legal ambiguities are caused more often by over-simplicity of diction
than by overelaboration. The official has therefore two good defences against a charge of failing to draft a law in
literary English: one that he did not draft it, and the other that if it had been so drafted it would not have served its
purpose.

There is one golden rule to hear in mind always: that we should try to put ourselves in the position
of our correspondent, to imagine his feelings as he writes his letters, and to gauge his reaction as he
receives ours. If we put ourselves in the other man's shoes we shall speedily detect how
unconvincing our letters can seem, or how much we may be taking for granted.

Avoid a formal framework, if you can. This is a difficult subject and those who supervise correspondence of this
kind are still groping for a satisfactory standard practice. How are we to "get away from the chilly formalities of
the old style"? There are two difficulties. One is how to start. The other is to whom to attribute the sentiments,
opinions and decisions that the letter contains. As to the first, everyone's inclination is to follow tradition at least to
the point of beginning all replies "In reply to (or 'with reference to') your letter of. . . ". That brings us to our first
difficulty. If we are forbidden to follow our natural inclination to continue "I am directed", as we have seen we
must be, how are we to go on?

In detail the possibilities are infinite, but the main forms are few. "I have (or 'I am') to inform you" used to be—
perhaps still is—the most common. But it is unsatisfactory, not to say silly, with its mysterious suggestion of some
compulsion working undisclosed in the background. "I would inform you" is another popular variant. It is
passable, but not to be commended, for its archaic use of would in the sense of "I should like to" makes it stiff, as
though one were to say "I would have you know". "I should inform you", in the sense of" it is my duty to inform
you" is also tolerable and sometimes useful. But it will not do always; it is less suitable for beginning than for
picking up something at the end ("I should add", "I should explain however"). "I beg to inform you" will not do. "I
regret to inform you" and "I am glad to inform you" will do nicely when there is anything to be glad or sorry about
but that is not always. "In reply to your letter . . . I wish to inform you" (which I have seen) is crushingly stiff; this
also is almost like saying "I would have you know". The passive ("you are informed") has an aloofness that ought to
rule it out. There remains the device of plunging straight into saying what you have to say without any
introductory words. But this will not do as a continuation of "In reply to your letter". What is in reply to the letter
is not the information but the giving of it. It is nonsense to say "In reply to your letter of. . . the Income Tax Law on
personal allowances has been changed".

This must be done with discretion; some attempts are unfortunate. For instance:

With reference to your claim. I have to advise you that before same is dealt .....

There is no need to start with an ejaculatory and verbless clause. All that was needed was to begin: "Before I can
deal with your claim". Or again:

Your letter is acknowledged, and the following would appear to be the position. Receipt of your
letter is acknowledged. It is pointed out......

Here again is the inhuman third person. A better way of saying what these two were trying to say is "Thank you
for your letter.

There are however many possible ways of turning "with reference to your letter" into a complete sentence without
getting ourselves into trouble.

I have received your letter of......

Thank you for your letter of.........
I am writing to you in reply to your letter of..
You wrote to me on such-and-such a subject.
I have looked into the question of. . . about which you wrote to me..

If two words convey your meaning equally well, choose the common one rather than the less common. Here again
official tendency is in the opposite direction, and you must be on your guard. Do not prefer regarding, respecting
or concerning to about, or say advert for refer, or state, inform or acquaint when you might use the word say or
tell. Inform is a useful word, but it seems to attract adverbs as prim as itself sometimes almost menacing. In kindly
inform me the politeness rings hollow; all it does is to put a frigid and magisterial tone into your request. Perhaps
you will inform me means generally that you have got to inform me, and no "perhaps" about it, and I suspect the
consequences may be serious for you. Furthermore is a prosy word used too often. It may be difficult to avoid it in
cumulative argument (moreover. . . in addition . . . too ... also.. again . . . furthermore) but prefer one of the simpler
words if they have not all been used up. Do not say hereto, herein, hereof, herewith, hereunder , or similar
compounds with there unless, like therefore, they have become part of everyday language. Most of them put a
flavour of legalism into any document in which they are used. Use a preposition and pronoun instead. For
instance:

With reference to the second paragraph thereof. (With reference to its second paragraph.)
I have received your letter and thank you for the information contained therein. (contained in it.)
I am to ask you to explain the circumstances in which the gift was made and to forward any
correspondence relative thereto. (. . . any correspondence about it.)
The Choice Of Words

 Use no more words than are necessary to express your meaning, for if you use more you are likely to obscure it
and to tire your reader. In particular do not use superfluous adjectives and adverbs and do not use roundabout
phrases where single words would serve.

 Use familiar words rather than the far-fetched, if they express your meaning equally well; for the familiar are
more likely to be readily understood.

 Use words with a precise meaning rather than those that are vague, for they will obviously serve better to make
your meaning clear; and in particular prefer concrete words to abstract, for they are more likely to have a precise
meaning.

Avoiding The Superfluous Word

As some adjectives seem to attract unnecessary adverbs, so do some nouns unnecessary adjectives.

The special needs of children under 5 require as much consideration as those of the children aged 5
—7, and there is a serious danger that they will be overlooked in these large schools.. . There is a
real danger . . . that the development of the children would be unduly forced.

Here we have serious, real and unduly all used superfluously. Serious is prompted by a feeling that danger always
needs adjectival support, and real is presumably what grammarians call "elegant variation" to avoid repeating the
same word. Unduly is superfluous because the word forced itself contains the idea of undue. Real danger should
be reserved for contrast with imaginary danger, as, for instance, "Some people fear so-and-so but the real danger
is so-and-so". These things may seem trivial, but nothing is negligible that is a symptom of loose thinking.

Verbosity In Prepositions

A firm timetable in relation to the works to be undertaken should be drawn up (for).

It has been necessary to cause many dwellings to be disinfested of vermin, particularly in respect of the common bed-
bug (of).
The Authority are fully conscious of their responsibilities in regard to the preservation of amenities (for).
It will be necessary to decide the priority which should be given to nursery provision in relation to other forms of
education provision (over).
The rates vary in relation to the age of the child (with).
Coupons without restrictions as to how you should spend (on).
There may be difficulties with regard to the provision of suitable staff (in).
Similar considerations apply with regard to application for a certificate (to).
The best possible estimate will be made at the conference as to the total number of houses which can be completed in
each district during the year (of).