Hey writers...what could one use as an alternative to the term "simply put" ?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

any help would be greatly appreciated.

― kornrulez6969 (TCBeing), Wednesday, 1 February 2006 21:25 (twenty years ago)

to be concise

in a word

in a nutsack

― M. White (Miguelito), Wednesday, 1 February 2006 21:30 (twenty years ago)

basically,
essentially,

― truck-patch pixel farmer (my crop froze in the field) (Rock Hardy), Wednesday, 1 February 2006 21:36 (twenty years ago)

in short
listen, bitch

― W i l l (common_person), Wednesday, 1 February 2006 21:39 (twenty years ago)

to express myself in short, plain words that any fool could understand

― Aimless (Aimless), Wednesday, 1 February 2006 21:41 (twenty years ago)

"so, duh..."

― Soda, Wednesday, 1 February 2006 21:44 (twenty years ago)

"put simply"

― ailsa (ailsa), Wednesday, 1 February 2006 21:46 (twenty years ago)

in layman's terms
simply speaking

― Vintage Latin (dog latin), Wednesday, 1 February 2006 21:46 (twenty years ago)

if it's simply put, you don't need the phrase.

― james van der beek (dubplatestyle), Wednesday, 1 February 2006 21:47 (twenty years ago)

not to put too fine a point on it

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 1 February 2006 21:48 (twenty years ago)

to dumb this down for you

― Aimless (Aimless), Wednesday, 1 February 2006 21:52 (twenty years ago)

hahaha, "in a nutsack"... I'm going to nonchalantly drop that one in conversation soon.

Colloquial, long-winded internet-writing equivalent: "So, what I'm saying is it's pretty much like this, okay:"

― rrrobyn (rrrobyn), Wednesday, 1 February 2006 21:54 (twenty years ago)

Let us know when so we can say 'rrobyn's balls have finally dropped.'

― M. White (Miguelito), Wednesday, 1 February 2006 22:23 (twenty years ago)

haha! ew.

― rrrobyn (rrrobyn), Wednesday, 1 February 2006 22:27 (twenty years ago)

Sorry. Couldn't resist.

― M. White (Miguelito), Wednesday, 1 February 2006 22:28 (twenty years ago)

"Nutshelled:"

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 1 February 2006 22:57 (twenty years ago)

In French, 'bref' - as in 'bref, je suis content'. What an elegant way to put it.

― Cracks (Crackity), Thursday, 2 February 2006 00:26 (twenty years ago)

if it's simply put, you don't need the phrase.

-- james van der beek (wt...), February 1st, 2006.

OTM -- the best substitute would be blank space.

― Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 2 February 2006 01:45 (twenty years ago)

"In brief."

The practical use of these phrases is to signal to readers that the following sentence will be a summation of previous arguments, in contrast to further development, and reinforces the argument. These phrases, in short, anchors the reader to the point.

― c(''c) (Leee), Thursday, 2 February 2006 04:11 (twenty years ago)

hence?.... or is that too archaic?

― pepektheassassin (pepektheassassin), Thursday, 2 February 2006 04:52 (twenty years ago)

"Hence" implies causation, which is quite distinct from the summary nature of "simply put."

― c(''c) (Leee), Thursday, 2 February 2006 04:53 (twenty years ago)

I would just use a semi-colon, because what you put after it can eludicate what's before it without the patronizing suggestion that you're talking down to the reader.

― Momus (Momus), Thursday, 2 February 2006 04:56 (twenty years ago)

simply,

― LeCoq (LeCoq), Thursday, 2 February 2006 05:04 (twenty years ago)

I would just use a semi-colon, because what you put after it can eludicate what's before it without the patronizing suggestion that you're talking down to the reader.

semi-colons are definitely the most pretensious form of punctuation, i don't know if I've seen it other than abused in an academic setting.

― elmo, patron saint of nausea (allocryptic), Thursday, 2 February 2006 06:07 (twenty years ago)

I have a golden rule; never pay attention to people who can't spell "pretentious".

― Momus (Momus), Thursday, 2 February 2006 06:32 (twenty years ago)

oh snap -- served by momus

fuck off, i'm drunk

― elmo, patron saint of nausea (allocryptic), Thursday, 2 February 2006 06:35 (twenty years ago)

In the simplest terms, in the most convenient definitions...

― J-rock (Julien Sandiford), Thursday, 2 February 2006 06:55 (twenty years ago)

actualleh

― mark grout (mark grout), Thursday, 2 February 2006 08:45 (twenty years ago)

A well placed semi-colon is a marvel, say I! I like to use them. They give nice structure, and Momus gives an example why quite well, I think. I don't get the pretention accusation I often see about their use.

― Trayce (trayce), Thursday, 2 February 2006 08:51 (twenty years ago)

Trayce, I say that only because the semicolon is way too often used where other punctuation would be much more appropriate. That, and I tend to associate their use with overblown writers who can't or won't write simple declarative sentences.

For example, in Momus' post above, he should have used a colon, in my opinion, because the second full sentence states the rule mentioned in the first.

I have a golden rule; never pay attention to people who can't spell "pretentious".

versus

I have a golden rule: never pay attention to people who can't spell "pretentious".

― elmo, patron saint of nausea (allocryptic), Thursday, 2 February 2006 14:00 (twenty years ago)

tersely
down to the nitty gritty

― LoneNut, Thursday, 2 February 2006 14:04 (twenty years ago)

Last Line of the Review

― Raymond Cummings (Raymond Cummings), Thursday, 2 February 2006 16:49 (twenty years ago)

pimply soot

― Beth Parker (Beth Parker), Friday, 3 February 2006 15:02 (twenty years ago)

For the purpose of simplification...

― Bob Six (bobbysix), Friday, 3 February 2006 15:15 (twenty years ago)

haha .. people, if you're not going to follow jess' advice, which should be followed, it's hard to see how you can best "in a nutsack." i mean really now.

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Friday, 3 February 2006 15:22 (twenty years ago)

That advice

if it's simply put, you don't need the phrase.

is not alway true, as you may want to make it clear to readers that you are making a simplification. That is, you are letting them know that you are trading the loss of some subtleties by simplifying the description for the purpose of increasing understanding of the concept overall.

― Bob Six (bobbysix), Friday, 3 February 2006 15:41 (twenty years ago)

to wit

― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Friday, 3 February 2006 15:49 (twenty years ago)

I don't get the pretention accusation I often see about their use.

The use of the semi-colon is hotly debated, and different style manuals say different things. Which makes them, in my opinion, even more subtle, ambiguous and discreet as a way of explaining things without hammering people on the head.

By the way, you also mis-spell "pretension", I'm afraid, Trayce. I know it's perverse, but it goes:

pretension
pretentious

Only pretentious people seem to know this, though.

― Momus (Momus), Friday, 3 February 2006 15:55 (twenty years ago)

"to wit" is like "i.e." - it means a specific example is to follow, not a simplified explanation of the phenomenon

That is, you are letting them know that you are trading the loss of some subtleties by simplifying the description for the purpose of increasing understanding of the concept overall.

i can almost buy this, but isn't this what all writing is, all the time?

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Friday, 3 February 2006 17:08 (twenty years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.