words Duh Vinci A paper I edited recently for AAPG regularly used the wrong words. For example, High density sources have been interpreted as Miocene reefs, amplified by underlying Oligocene intrusives. (In the interests of not too blatantly fingering the <strong>au</strong>thor, I have modified this and other examples slightly from the original, retaining the errors but changing the setting.) Are the high-density bodies properly described as ‘sources’? The context is that they are the ‘source’ of the positive Bouguer Gravity anomalies. Underlying dense intrusive material was interpreted as also contributing to the gravity highs. So, it was the gravity highs that were amplified, not the Miocene reefs. I do sense an increase in this type of error in the geological papers I’ve edited over the past few years. Is this the geoscientific <strong>com</strong>munity’s drift into Amglish, the ‘language’ I discussed last month, with its dumbing-down loss of precision and a lack of any care at the loss; indeed, a cheering at the freedom of close-enough will do, and appl<strong>au</strong>ding this as far more politically correct for our times than the elitist notion of speaking properly. I hope not. By co-incidence, I was browsing through past items in a favourite blog, Language Log, when I came across posts by Geoffrey K. Pullum criticising the writing in Dan Brown’s novel The Da Vinci Code. One of his posts offered an excellent example of imprecision. (May 1, 2004, The Dan Brown Code) Pullum quoted from the first page of the novel, as terrified Louvre curator Jacques S<strong>au</strong>nière flees from his attacker. A voice spoke, chillingly close. "Do not move." On his hands and knees, the curator froze, turning his head slowly. Only fifteen feet away, outside the sealed gate, the mountainous silhouette of his attacker stared through the iron bars. He was broad and tall, with ghost-pale skin and thinning white hair. His irises were pink with dark red pupils. Pullum then listed the errors and imprecisions – what he, being precise, called infelicities and I quote him almost directly below. 1. A voice doesn't speak — a person speaks; a voice is what a person speaks with. 2. ‘Chillingly close’ would be right in your ear, whereas this voice is fifteen feet away behind the thundering gate. 3. It was the fall of the gate that made a thunderlike noise; the gate itself wasn’t thundering. 4. The curator cannot slowly turn his head if he has frozen; freezing (as a voluntary human action) means temporarily ceasing all muscular movements. 5. A silhouette does not stare! A silhouette is a shadow. 6. If the curator can see the man's pale sk in, thinning hair, iris colour, and red pupils (all at fifteen feet), the man cannot possibly be in silhouette. Perhaps we can call such errors duhvincis. It is important for <strong>au</strong>thors to read closely what they have written. This is especially true for younger <strong>au</strong>thors, many of whose schooling had a less rigorous approach, shall we say, to grammar and writing than was the case for older Pesapersons. I have touched before on this need for very careful reading of what has been written before it is passed onto editors or managers and the like. It is a point that needs regular restating. It is too easy to simply glance across the words and sit back with a Nobel-winners smile, confident that the words say exactly what was meant. Consider these sentences from recent papers: •• ‘When lake level rose and spilled into an adjacent basin …’ •• ‘The overfilled lake model occurs when the rate of supply of sediment and water exceeds the potential ac<strong>com</strong>modation.’ •• ‘The top surface of the lower unit reflects the thickness changes of this sequence.’ •• ‘The main objective was to interpret basement structure within the data.’ •• ‘The contract deadline was not achieved bec<strong>au</strong>se of the timely negotiations necessitated by the contractor.’ The meaning is clear enough in most cases but the words do not say what the writer meant to be saying. •• Lake levels can’t spill. ‘When lake levels rise and the water spills into …’ •• Models don’t occur, in the real-world sense used here. (Plus I have always had a struggle ac<strong>com</strong>modating ‘ac<strong>com</strong>modation space’ as a necessary term – though several geologist friends I admire greatly, and whose skills exceed mine, are enthusiastic supporters and users of the term; so it might be me. But, in this case, is it the potential ac<strong>com</strong>modation that is being exceeded? Or is it the actual ac<strong>com</strong>modation? And, while I’m being picky, shouldn’t it be ‘ac<strong>com</strong>modation space’.) •• The isopach reflects (shows?) the changing thickness of the sequence; the top (upper?) surface does not. (I can hear the ho wls that, given a smooth lower surface for the sequence, the top surface would reflect the thickness changes. Fair enough. If that was the case, the sentence is acceptable. But it has to be read in context and that decision made by the writer.) •• There is no ‘basement structure within the data’; …from the data? …using the data. Maybe … use the data to interpret … •• The negotiations weren’t timely; they were time-consuming. ‘Required’ by the contractor would be better. As several of these examples show, a <strong>com</strong>mon problem is the imprecise use of a term in relation to the action being discussed; the lake level ‘spilling’ or the model ‘occurring’. Sometimes it is just poor expression and needs more work. Confronted by these confused sentences, an experienced editor or manager will begin to look very closely at the technical details. If a writer can’t put down what he means in a simple and clear way, it might be revealing that he doesn’t have a clear and simple understanding of what he (or she) is saying. I have cited Hemingway many times in this column, most <strong>com</strong>monly his declaration that when you know something well (as opposed to knowing about it – a distinction one of my mentors was very fond of ), you know what you can leave out and still get the message thr ough clearly. When you don’t know well enough what you’re writing about, it shows. On which note, let me remind younger Pesapersons that the Papa in my August column, A Reminder from Papa, was not me being all fatherly. That was Hemingway's popular nickname, given him, not surprisingly, by his children, and adopted quite widely by his friends and admirers later in his life and after his death. All the best for the New Year. Enjoy the Christmas season. If it all gets too much, read the first few pages of The Da Vinci Code and have a bloody good l<strong>au</strong>gh. Try not to think too much about the money he made writing that badly about something so ridiculous. And let’s have less duhvincis in our writing in 2013. Peter Purcell 56 | PESA News Resources | December 2012 / January 2013
NEW NORTH WEST SHELF... ...NON-EXCLUSIVE 3D SEISMIC SURVEYS Fugro has over 24,000 km 2 of recently acquired 3D data and over 42,000 km 2 of new 3D reprocessed data on the North West Shelf. The data library is continually expanding with another ~8,100 km 2 currently being acquired. The North West Shelf is one of the most prospective areas in the world and the extensive high quality 3D data coverage enables excellent evaluation of the region. Fugro Multi Client Services Owen Dyer Mob: +61 413 607 363 Email: o.dyer@fugro.<strong>com</strong> www.fugromulticlient.<strong>com</strong>
Change language