Half an hour ago the FT journalist who was interviewed mixed the words ‘script’ and ‘creed’ to produce a new word: ‘screed’
Something that is a corporate, rather that a religious belief system i.e. a ‘creed’ that runs to several pages (six or more) i.e. script.
Result = Screed.
This kind of inventive, communicative English I applaud. In the context of the superfluous legalese we are meant to read and agree to before buying something online.
The kind of language I’ve been reading recently on e-learning I decry.
‘Elision can thus be viewed as an affordance of the tool, as well as a matter of individual approach. This affordance becomes more apparent as we move into the sphere of ‘dedicated’ e-learning tools, where LAA can continue even during LAR or LAR can be ‘rehearsed’ as part of LAA (as in LAMS’ Preview feature). The VLE project suggests that, as both design and delivery medium, VLEs invite this elision.’
This the verbatim response, I assume, to a questionnaire submitted by a tutor in Business Studies and quoted in chapter four of ‘Rethinking Pedagogy for E-learning’ Rhona Sharpe.
I tried this having looked up these acronyms or ‘initialisms’.
Does this make any more sense?
‘Where Learning Activity Authoring can continue during Learning Activity Realization or Learning Activity Realization can be ‘rehearsed’ as part of Learning Activity Authoring (as in Learning Activity Management Systems’ Preview feature). The Virtual Learning Environment project suggests that, as both design and delivery medium, Virtual Learning Environments invite this elision.’
If something is not communicated clearly I suspect the person talking doesn’t know what they are talking about. As learning becomes more open and utilises the internet via blogs, forums, Skype-like conferences and even text from Smartphones I suspect this language will become less formal and therefore easier to understand.