توضیح دادن چیزی دشوارExplaining something difficult

The grammar of a good explanation

توضیح یک شکل دارد، و آن شکل عمدتاً گرامر است. از دانسته شروع کن: you know how X works? It is a bit like that, except… — قالبِ you know how…? کار مشخصی می‌کند، یعنی بررسی یک نقطهٔ شروع مشترک پیش از ساختن روی آن. قیاس بعد باید حدش بیان شود، وگرنه خودش برداشتِ نادرستِ تازه می‌شود: it is like a tap, except the water never runs out؛ the comparison holds up to a point, and the point is… پیش از استفاده تعریف کن، نه بعدش: نه «the aspect determines the reading»، بلکه «aspect — whether the action is finished or ongoing — determines the reading.» بدلِ میان‌خط‌تیره کارآمدترین ابزار تعریف در انگلیسی است و زبان‌آموزان به‌شدت کم‌استفاده‌اش می‌کنند. گام‌ها را با what happens is…، then…، and the result of that is…، which is why… به‌ترتیب بگذار — همین آخری، which is why، همان چیزی است که یک توالی را به توضیح تبدیل می‌کند، چون به پرسشی که پرسیده شده برمی‌گردد. بررسی کن، و با پرسش باز بررسی کن: what would happen if we changed X? نه does that make sense? که به‌طور قابل‌اتکایی از کسانی که هیچ نفهمیده‌اند «بله» می‌گیرد. و تشخیصِ مربی خودش ساختاری است که ارزش داشتن دارد: you cannot remember not knowing it. یعنی remember + not + ing، توصیفِ وضعیتی که دیگر به آن دسترسی نداری. دقیق‌ترین بیانِ کوتاهِ اینکه چرا متخصص‌ها بد توضیح می‌دهند همین است.

Explanation has a shape, and the shape is mostly grammar. START FROM THE KNOWN: you know how X works? It is a bit like that, except… — the frame you know how…? is doing a specific job, checking a shared starting point before building on it. The analogy then needs its limit stated, or it becomes a new misconception: it is like a tap, except the water never runs out; the comparison holds up to a point, and the point is… DEFINE BEFORE YOU USE, not after: not "the aspect determines the reading", but "aspect — whether the action is finished or ongoing — determines the reading." The em-dash apposition is the most efficient definition tool in English and learners under-use it badly. SEQUENCE THE STEPS with what happens is…, then…, and the result of that is…, which is why… — that last one, which is why, is what turns a sequence into an explanation, because it links back to the question that was asked. CHECK, and check with an open question: what would happen if we changed X? rather than does that make sense?, which reliably produces yes from people who have understood nothing. And the trainer's diagnosis is itself a construction worth having: you cannot remember not knowing it. Remember + not + -ing, describing a state you can no longer access. It is the most precise short statement of why experts explain badly.