Re: [Ghm-discuss] FSFE’s contribution to the “Ho rizon 2020” EU research program

[Reuben Thomas]

On 9 December 2011 17:12, Karsten Gerloff <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>> I'm sure papers from those
>> with different views will have been much better written and reviewed.
>
> I've seen quite a few of papers of this type (though not in this
> instance), and based on my experience, that's not the case.

Depressing for Europe, hopeful for the FSFE!

> In the EU institutions, most people are not native English
> speakers. Yet everyone needs to work in English. So there's an
> unspoken consensus not to pick on the linguistic details in a
> text (unless you're talking about laws or treaties, of course,
> where precision is everything), and get on with work.

I understand, but polished English will be (even if unconsciously)
preferred, not least because it communicates better. (I imagine this
works the same as the "grammatically written review" effect[1].)

[1] 
http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/05/23/how-to-ethically-improve-your-customer-reviews/

> So, could I take the liberty of contacting you when there's a
> document you've already invested into in some form (e.g. time,
> work, ideas) and checking whether you'd be interested in reviewing
> the language?

I'd be very happy to help at opportune moments, so do try me.

Given what you say about the general standard of English in Brussels,
writing better English (and more coherently: you may notice that I
pulled some of the material around to improve the flow) is an easy way
to improve how favourably our input is received.

-- 
http://rrt.sc3d.org