FORCAST Plus

By Nirmaldasan

(nirmaldasan@hotmail.com)

 “The FORCAST formula is very unusual in that it does not use a sentence-length measurement. This makes it a favorite, however, for use with short statements and the text in Web sites, applications, and forms,” writes readability expert William DuBay in Smart Language. He vouches for its accuracy from the 5^th to the 12^th grade.

FORCAST = 20 – (M/10). M is the number of monosyllables in a sample of 150 words. Fascinated by the formula’s simplicity, I wrote about it in ‘Fascinating Approaches To Readability’. However, if I may be allowed to cavil, the minus sign is a bit of a problem as it is more difficult to subtract than to add. How nice it would be if there was a plus instead!

I found an easy way to eliminate the minus sign. By a simple substitution process, I arrived at a formula with the plus sign. In a sample of 150 words, there are monosyllables (M) and non-monosyllables (N). These are mutually exclusive categories, yielding the equation M + N = 150. So, M = 150 – N. Now, FORCAST = 20 – (M/10) = 20 – [(150 – N)/10]. On simplification, we find that the minus sign disappears. And the new formula FORCAST Plus = (N/10) + 5.

Text difficulty increases as the number of non-monosyllables increases. One can easily guess, while choosing a sample of 150 words, whether the text has more monosyllables or non-monosyllables. One can also guess whether a text is meant for the lower or the higher grades. To subtract or to add: that is the question.

The FORCAST and the FORCAST Plus yield the same answers. Up to grade 12, non-monosyllables in a text are fewer than monosyllables; and so N is easier to count than M. But from grade 13 onwards, monosyllables are fewer than non-monosyllables; and so M is easier to count than N. If you count M, you will have to subtract something from 20. If you count N, you just have to add something to 5. To subtract or to add: that is the question. Since DuBay vouches for the formula’s accuracy from the 5^th to the 12^th grade, I recommend FORCAST Plus.

StyleWriter’s Bog Index

 By Nirmaldasan

(nirmaldasan@hotmail.com)

 “Editor Software’s plain English editing software, StyleWriter, has a new readability measure – the Bog index – so called because it measures how writing can bog down the reader,” writes Nick Wright, Director of Editor Software and co-designer of the StyleWriter editing software, in an article titled ‘Towards A Better Readability Measure  — The Bog Index’ in Pikestaff. It is available online at http://www.clearest.co.uk

 The computerized Bog Index has a graded 200,000-word dictionary and measures a number of variables. This formula is very unlike other formulae in that it adjusts its scores for 20 different writing tasks and three different audiences. Besides measuring sentence bog and word bog, it measures pep consisting of names, interest words, conversations and sentence variety. In short, Bog Index = Sentence Bog + Word Bog – Pep.

 Here follows Nirmaldasan’s (ND) interview with Nick Wright (NW):

 ND: What are the 20 writing tasks for which the Bog Index adjusts its scores?  

 NW:  General writing, academic paper, advertisement, fiction, instructions, legal document, letter, manual, memo, minutes, newsletter, newspaper, presentation, regulation, report, resume, speech, student essay, technical report and website.

 General writing is the default — but the formula adjusts for different writing styles by changing the weighting given to long sentences.  For example, the Bog Index gives more penalty for an advertisement or presentation written with the same average sentence length than a report or legal document.

 Just as important is the adjustment for audience where the user can select from: Public/inhouse/specialized.

 A public audience has no adjustment in the Index — but an in-house audience halves the penalty for using abbreviations and acronyms and a specialist audience halves the penalty for acronyms and abbreviations and technical words.

 ND: What is the scale of the Bog Index and how do we interpret the scores? 

 NW: The Bog Index changes depending on the audience and the writing task, but for general writing, the ratings are:

 0 to 20 = Excellent

21 to 40 = Good

41 to 70 = Average

71 to 100 = Poor

101 to 130 = Bad

131 to 1,000 = Dreadful

1000+ = Gobbledygook — Yes some legal writing consistently gets 1000+ scores.

 Just as important is the role of Pep — improving the readability of sentences.  There’s an explanation in the paper on readability.

 StyleWriter works out and displays the score and the rating for whatever audience or writing task chosen. 

 The best, most readable writing scores under 20.  Good magazines such as Time, Newsweek and the Economist score around 30.  Most business and government writing scores in the 60 to 100 range.

 ND: Don’t you think StyleWriter, with the help of the Bog Index, will compel people to write to a formula? 

 NW: No — the opposite. Most business and government writing uses a limited vocabulary and a predictable style of long sentences, passive verbs, nominalizations and wordy or clichéd phrases.  StyleWriter breaks these bad habits to allow clear English to flow through and the writer’s individual style to flourish.  If you put good authors through the StyleWriter program, it will highlight words, phrases and sentences to edit, but won’t change the underlying style.  J.K. Rowling still sounds like J.K. Rowling.

ND: Would like to know a bit about the members of your team who designed the Bog Index. 

NW: Our background is in research, journalism, plain English and editing.  I’ve run business writing courses for over 10,000 people.  Our programmer, Peter Stanton, who designed the mathematical formula is a former teacher and engineer. We’ve collectively over 60 years’ experience in writing and editing and software design.

Most of the analysis for the graded wordlist is easy and we have also used word frequency lists and sometimes even a Google search to see the familiarity of the word and graded them accordingly.  However, the proof of the index’s accuracy and usefulness is best measured by its use.  We’ve had several hundred users beta testing StyleWriter with the new Bog Index for the past five months.  Not one user has raised the issue of the way we have classified any words in our formula.

ND: Would StyleWriter incorporate other readability formulae such as the Fog Index?  

NW: Yes, it would be simple. But why? The Bog Index is so much more sophisticated than a simple word and syllable or character count.  Readability formulas are mostly 50 years old and are so basic as an editing tool as to be next to useless.  If they were any good, you could get them to highlight sentences above a certain level of complexity and suggest the writer edits them. Why has no one done this?  Because you would see at the sentence level just how poorly they analyze sentences. StyleWriter’s new Bog Index can do this and does — accurately picking out the ‘heavy’ sentences and showing how and where to edit them.

(For more details about StyleWriter and its Bog Index, check out http://www.editorsoftware.com or email info@editorsoftware.com)

The MIST Index

By Nirmaldasan

A new readability formula for Measuring Incomprehension of Sample Text — the MIST Index. I have based this formula, which grades texts on a scale of 1 to 17+, on two variables: the number of words in four sentences (W4) and the number of clauses in as many sentences (C4).

MIST Index = (W4/10) + C4 – 4.

Let us apply the formula on a sample from the Manifesto of the Communist Party:

A spectre is haunting Europe — the spectre of Communism. All the Powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre: Pope and Czar, Metternich and Guizot, French Radicals and German police spies.

Where is the party in opposition that has not been decried as Communistic by its opponents in power? Where is the Opposition that has not hurled back the branding reproach of Communism, against the more advanced opposition parties, as well as against its reactionary adversaries?

W4 = 82; C4 = 6. MIST Index = (82/10) + 6 – 4 = 10.2.

Harry McLaughlin’s SMOG Grading is based on the number of polysyllabic words in 30 sentences. Since there are 12 polysyllabic words in four sentences, it may be assumed that there are 90 polysyllabic words in 30 sentences. SMOG Grading = (square root of 90) + 3 = 12.48.

Robert Gunning’s Fog Index uses the average words per sentence (AWS) and the percentage of hard words (H%), which are polysyllabic words — excluding capitalized words, easy compound words and verbs made trisyllabic by adding ‘-es’ or ‘-ed’. In our sample AWS = 82/4 = 20.5; and H% = (6/82) x 100 = 7.31. Fog Index = 0.4 x (AWS + H%) = 0.4 x (20.5 + 7.31) = 0.4 x 27.81 = 11.12.

Clear writing is not foggy/smoggy/misty. Isn’t the MIST Index an easy formula for Measuring Incomprehension of Sample Text?

Corollaries To Flesch-Kincaid Index

 By Nirmaldasan

 The Flesch-Kincaid Index (FKI) = 0.39AWS + 11.8ASW – 15.59. Based on the average number of words per sentence (AWS) and the average number of syllables per word (ASW), this formula is a simplification of the Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) and predicts grade levels of 1 to 17+.

 Two corollaries to the FKI are what I would like to call the X Corollary and the P Corollary.

 X Corollary (XC): Excess syllables (X) are the number of syllables more than one per word in a passage. Davis Foulger simplified the FRE by incorporating the idea of the excess syllables in it. The FKI may be similarly simplified.

 Let W and S be the number of words and syllables in a passage respectively. S = W + X.  Now, 11.8ASW – 15.59 = 11.8 (S/W) – 15.59 =   11.8{(W + X) / W} – 15.59. On simplification, FKI (XC) = 0.39AWS + 11.8AXW – 3.79; AXW is the number of excess syllables per word. The advantage of this simplification is that it suffices to count only the excess syllables. The FKI (XC) yields the same answers as the FKI.

 P Corollary (PC): Harry McLaughlin, creator of SMOG Grading, discovered ‘a law relating the number of syllables in a passage to the percentage of polysyllabic words, defined as words of three or more syllables’. He writes: “For practical purposes, the total number of syllables per 100 words may be calculated by this rule of thumb: multiply the number of polysyllabic [P] words by 3 and add 112.” (SMOG Grading — A New Readability Formula, Journal Of Reading, May 1969)

 If we take a sample of 100 words, then FKI = 0.39AWS + 0.118S – 15.59. Applying McLaughlin’s rule of thumb, 0.118S – 15.59 = 0.118 (3P + 112) – 15.59. On simplification, FKI (PC) = 0.39AWS + 0.354P – 2.374. Since the McLaughlin law is not an exact equation but an approximation, the FKI (PC) may not yield the same answers as the FKI.

 Application: Let us take a sample of 100 words from the Ruskin Bond Omnibus. In the introduction, Ruskin Bond writes: “I grew up on a heady mixture of crime, mystery and detective fiction, but their influence was purely of a literary nature; I have yet to commit a major crime, just as the majority of readers are innocent of murder and mayhem. I cannot honestly say that I have never had the urge to commit one. The wish to put someone unpleasant out of the way (permanently) is strong in most of us; but commonsense and civilized norms prevail over our baser instincts, and we step back from committing that most terrible and unnatural of crimes — the murder of a …”

 Number of sentences = 3

Number of syllables (S) = 150

Number of excess syllables (X) = 50

Number of polysyllabic words (P) = 13

Average number of words per sentence (AWS) = 100/3 = 33.33…

 FKI = 0.39AWS + 0.118S – 15.59 = 0.39 (33.33) + 0.118 (150) – 15.59 = 13 + 17.7 – 15.59 = 15.11

 FKI (XC) = 0.39AWS + 0.118X – 3.79 = 13 + 0.118 (50) – 3.79 = 9.21 + 5.9 = 15.11

 FKI (PC) = 0.39AWS + 0.354P – 2.374 = 13 + 0.354 (13) – 2.374 = 10.626 + 4.602 = 15.228.

 Digression: I was tempted to test the Ruskin Bond passage with the Strain Index (S3/10; S3 is the number of syllables in 3 sentences). 150/10 = 15.

 

The Fog Factor

By Nirmaldasan

The fog factor is the average number of polysyllabic words (excluding personal names) per sentence in a sample of 200 words. I came across this simple formula in Jyoti Sanyal’s Indlish. Here is the scoring system in Sanyal’s own words:

Clear writing has a fog factor of between 2 & 3.

Below 2 may be childishly simple.

Above 3 may be rather FOGGY!

Though the formula is not pegged to a grade level, it helps in arriving at a quick estimate of the readability of a text. However, a quicker estimate is possible. All we need to do is choose, instead of 200 words, an equivalent sample of 10 sentences. Now, fog factor = P/10, where P is the number of polysyllabic words (excluding personal names) in 10 sentences.

First let us calculate the fog factor of some passages in Indlish and then compare the scores with those of Harry McLaughlin’s SMOG (simple measure of gobbledygook). Martin Cutts’ foreword to Indlish has a fog factor of 1.7; Ravindra Kumar’s introduction, 3.2; and Sanyal’s first chapter titled ‘See-sawing To Plain English’, 1.6.

The SMOG grades for these texts are 10.14 and 12.79 and 9.92 respectively. (The SMOG Grade = 3 + square root of P30, the number of polysyllabic words in 30 sentences.) Since we have taken a sample of only 10 sentences, the number of polysyllabic words may be multiplied by 3 to get P30.

Interestingly, the SMOG grades and the fog factor scores agree on the order of difficulty of the texts. But there is a strong discord on the interpretation of the grade/score. For example, the SMOG grade suggests that a person with 10 years of schooling can understand Cutts’ passage but the fog factor’s scoring system tells us that it ‘may be childishly simple’.  

I re-read the sample passages and found that the SMOG grades are a better measure of the texts than the fog factor. But the fog factor is so very simple that I wouldn’t want to jettison it. A better scoring system will make the fog factor a very useful readability tool.

Any suggestions?

The New Primary Grade Level

By Nirmaldasan

In May 2008, I proposed two conjectures: one for primary-grade texts; and the other for non-primary materials:

* Primary Grade Level (PGL) = W3/10 to W4/10

* Higher Grade Level (HGL) = W4/10 to W5/10

(W3, W4 and W5 are the number of words in 3, 4 and 5 sentences respectively.)

In the present article, I just wish to re-examine the PGL. I tested this word-count formula on several texts and found its performance satisfactory. But it had one drawback. Instead of showing a specific grade level, this word-count formula would show a range from one level (W3/10) to another (W4/10).

To get a specific result, I now propose the New Primary Grade Level (NPGL) = D4/10, based on the number of different words in four sentences (D4). Edward L. Thorndike, Bertha A. Lively, Sidney L. Pressey, Mabel Vogel, Carleton Washburne and other readability experts understood the importance of the number of different words or vocabulary range in determining the grade level of a text.  

Let us test the NPGL on some graded texts (picked up from the appendix in William Dubay’s ‘Working With Plain Language’, being samples drawn from Qualitative Assessment of Text Difficulty, A Practical Guide for Teachers and Writers by Jeanne S. Chall, Glenda L. Bissex, Sue S. Conard, and Susan Harris-Sharples) and compare it with the PGL, Strain Index (S3/10; S3 being the number of syllables in three sentences) and the Spache Readability Index, calculated using the OKAPI! readability tool available online at http://www.interventioncentral.org/htmdocs/tools/okapi/okapi.php

Grade 1

A train! A train! A train! A train!

Different words = 2

NPGL = 0.2

PGL = 0.6 to 0.8

Strain Index = 0.6

Spache = 1.12

Grade 2

Farley lived next door to Grover’s garden. He looked out his window and watched Grover planting seeds. Farley called out:

“Hi, Grover! Can I help you plant those seeds?”

“Why certainly, little Farley! Do not forget to wear a sweater,” said Grover.

Different words = 35

NPGL = 3.5

PGL = 2.9 to 4.2

Strain Index = 3.6

Spache = 3.11

Grade 3

Most amphibians lay their eggs in the spring. Most of them lay their eggs in the water.

The female frog lays lots of eggs. Each one has a ball of jelly around it.

Different words = 23

NPGL = 2.3

PGL = 2.4 to 3.3

Strain Index = 2.8

Spache: 2.78

The NPGL grades texts on a scale comprising 1, 2, 3 and 3+ grade levels. The ease of use may recommend this formula as a suitable alternative to the Spache Readability Index.

Broadcast Listening Factor

By Nirmaldasan

Tim Wulfemeyer, author of Beginning Radio-TV Newswriting, suggests that radio-TV news sentences should have on the average about 20 ‘nickel and dime’ words. He writes: “The big, impressive-sounding, multisyllabic, ‘10-dollar’ words don’t belong in radio-TV newswriting.” He discusses several principles that help listeners and half-listeners get the news.

A good broadcast copy will obey these principles such as ‘write the way you talk’, ‘place attribution before what was said’, ‘place titles before names’, ‘place ages before names’, ‘place time elements in sentences so they sound natural’, ‘round off numbers to make them more memorable’ and ‘match words with pictures, graphics and video’.

But how listenable is a good broadcast copy? In an earlier article ‘Measuring Listenability’, I suggested the use of two formulae: Modified Smog Listening Grade (MSLG) = 4 * (square root of P3), where P3 is the number of polysyllabic words in three sentences; and, Approximate Easy Listening Grade (AELG) = N + P, where N and P are the number of non-monosyllabic words and polysyllabic words in a sentence respectively.

My latest article proposes a simpler measure — the broadcast listening factor (BLF). It is the roughest of rough measures, simpler than the MSLG, and yet very useful for broadcast writers in a hurry. Here it is: BLF = P3.  This factor is not pegged to a grade and has a scale of 1 to 10+; the lower the score, the higher the listenability.

Let us apply the BLF on the following radio news item: “The Union Minister of State for Home Sriprakash Jaiswal has said that India may consider the status of Indo-Nepal extradition treaty in view of fast changing trans-border scenario. Talking to newsmen in Gorakhpur, he said that the treaty is very old and Nepal is very vulnerable for the elements intending to sabotage Indian security and integrity. He said if the need arises we might consider a new extradition treaty with Nepal.” There are three sentences and 17 polysyllabic words. Hence BLF = 10+.  

Here is my revision: “The Union Minister of State for Home Sriprakash Jaiswal has said that India may review the status of the extradition treaty between India and Nepal in view of fast changing scenario across the border. Talking to newsmen in Gorakhpur, he said that the treaty is very old and Nepal is vulnerable to saboteurs. He said that in case of need India might sign a new treaty with Nepal.” There are three sentences and seven polysyllabic words. Hence BLF = 7. 

For a better estimate, BLF = P30/10; P30 being the number of polysyllabic words in 30 sentences.

A Rhetoric Of Transitions

By Nirmaldasan
(nirmaldasan@hotmail.com)

Rhetoric is the art of effective speech and writing, meant to persuade others to a point of view. Figures of speech are rhetorical devices. A figure of speech, according to Wren & Martin, is a departure from the ordinary form of expression, or the ordinary course of ideas in order to produce a greater effect. Here is Wren & Martin’s classification of the figures of speech:

1. Those based on Resemblance, such as Simile, Metaphor, Personification and Apostrophe.
2. Those based on Contrast, such as Antithesis and Epigram.
3. Those based on Association, such as Metonymy and Synecdoche.
4. Those depending on Construction, such as Climax and Anticlimax.

Now what are transitions? According to Anne Heisenberg in `Guide To Technical Editing’: “Transitions are words, phrases or sentences that provide continuity between main ideas and the development of these ideas, between sentences in paragraphs, or between paragraphs in a longer document.” According to Melvin Mencher in `News Reporting And Writing’: “Transitions are used after the reporter has planned his piece by blocking out the major sections. Transitions link these blocks as well as the smaller units, the sentences. Transitions are the mortar that holds the story together so that the story is a single unit.”

Mencher identifies four major types of transitions. They are 1. Pronouns (refer to nouns in previous sentences) 2. Key words and ideas (repeat words and ideas in preceding sentences and paragraphs) 3. Transitional expressions (connecting words) and 4. Parallel structure (repetition of the sentence pattern).

Linguistic skills imply three things: 1. A rich vocabulary 2. A complete
understanding of sentence structures; and 2. The use of transitions to produce a seamless narrative. In `Rhetoric Of Everyday English Texts’, Michael P. Jordan writes: “Texts are written not just for specific purposes, but also for specific readers, and this again is reflected in the information presented and the way it is presented.”

Figures of speech are dependent on transitions, mostly within the sentence. A transition works like conjunctions showing similarity or contrast between two parts of a sentence. It also works like prepositions showing how a sentence is related to the preceding sentence. It works like a pronoun for economy and for elegant variation. A transition also repeats certain words or ideas in different sentences to make the paragraph appear as a single unit.

The most common transitions are those called transitional expressions. These may be classified under several heads: 1. Place (here, there) 2. Time (now, then) 3. Catalogue (first, last) 4. Contrast (but, instead) 5. Similarity (like, similarly) 6. Emphasis (surely, certainly) 7. Example (for instance, that is) 8. Consequence (hence, therefore); and so on.

Parallel structure is a subtle way of connecting sentences. This is done by respecting the sentence pattern. Here is Melvin Mencher’s example:

“No one dared speak in his classes. No one ventured to address him in any but the most formal manner. No one, for that matter, had the courage to ask questions in class. His lectures were non-stop monologues.”

Even within the sentence, parallel structure must be observed. Especially when correlative conjunctions (either/or, neither/nor, both/and) are used. Anne Heisenberg says: “In parallel construction, all the items joined in a series or comparison have the same grammatical form: adjectives are linked with adjectives, prepositional phrases with prepositional phrases, infinitives with infinitives …”

Here are some text structures, which throw more light on the nature and use of transitions: 1. Question-answer 2. Inverted pyramid 3. Topic-development-conclusion 4. Situation-problem-solution-evaluation 5. Theorem-proof-corollary; and 6. Experiment-observation-inference.

A useful exercise will be to first identify the format of a given text and then list out the different transitions found therein.

(presented at the Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan on April 25, 2005)

Asterix In English

By Nirmaldasan

The series of Asterix adventures, written in French by Rene Goscinny and illustrated by Albert Uderzo, has been a reader’s delight for decades. Translated into English by Anthea Bell and Derek Hockridge, the series has captured every charm in the original titles and seems to have lost nothing in translation.

What is it that makes Asterix a classic? First, the theme itself: the Roman conquest of Gaul is complete but for ‘one small village of indomitable Gauls’. Second, the exaggerated illustrations of a host of peculiar personae: a druid who brews a magic potion that gives superhuman strength; a puny Asterix who can beat the hell out of the Romans; a fatso Obelix, whose dog Dogmatix is so very small; a bard Cacofonix, whose performance is as good as his name; the chief of the tribe, Vitalstatistix, whose only fear is that the sky may fall upon his head. And third, the readability of the text.

In this article, I will examine just one text Asterix And The Big Fight; and that too only the utterances of the two key personae, Asterix and Obelix. First, a look at the average sentence length; and then, the percentage of different polysyllabic words.

Asterix uses 1025 words in 170 sentences. The average sentence length is just 6.03. He also uses 27 different polysyllabic words, proper nouns excluded. The percentage of different polysyllabic words is just 2.63.

Obelix uses 574 words in 91 sentences. The average sentence length is just 6.30. He also uses 13 different polysyllabic words, proper nouns excluded. The percentage of different polysyllabic words is just 2.26.

Though the mean of their utterances is about equal at six, Asterix and Obelix limit most of their sentences to not more than four words. Thus, the mode of their utterances is just 4. The longest of Asterix’s sentences has 20 words; and Obelix comes a close second with 19 words. Even the longest sentences follow the guideline of Martin Cutts: “Over the whole document, make the average sentence length 15-20 words.”

Robert Gunning’s Fog Index = (ASL + P%) * 0.4; ASL is the average sentence length and P the number of polysyllabic words, proper nouns excluded. Applying this formula, we find that Asterix’s utterances are pegged to a grade level of 3.464; and Obelix’s utterances, to a grade level of 3.424. Asterix And The Big Fight thus makes wonderful reading material from grade 3 onwards. The same may be true of the other adventures of Asterix.

Here is how Asterix And The Big Fight ends:

Obelix: If I’m not careful I shall be putting on weight … I must go on a diet … I shall eat just biscuits, with perhaps a little something on them …

Asterix: A little something? What sort of little something?

Obelix: A BOAR, BY TOUTATIS!

Poor Cacofonix, dangling from a tree and his mouth gagged, cannot join in the laughter of the Gauls. But we can: “HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!”

Literature In Plain English

By Nirmaldasan

Literary classics are abridged, adapted and retold in plain English to appeal to a graded audience. But it is very difficult to capture the brilliant hues and harmonies of the original texts in a retelling. Right from William Shakespeare’s works of the 16^th century to Rabindranath Tagore’s of the 20^th are available in simplified form. While some of these retellings are fine, others are hopelessly bad.

The literary function relates more with the aesthetic function and less with the communicative. The literary writer may be dealing with complex themes and mixed feelings that require figurative language and complex turn of phrases. This is not to say that the litterateur can afford to ignore the reader and compose his classics in an ivory tower. But it would be nice if the reader took some extra effort in understanding literary works. Reading a classic in the original may not be easy, but the effort is sure to be a rewarding experience.

But when the themes are plain and the feelings clear and deep, the great writers resort to a style that shapes literature in plain English, a composition that is its own retelling. One such writer is Kahlil Gibran, author of classics including ‘The Prophet’, ‘Spirits Rebellious’ and ‘Broken Wings’. Here is a short example titled ‘The Fox’:

A fox looked at his shadow at sunrise and said, “I will have a camel for lunch today.” And all morning he went about looking for camels. But at noon he saw his shadow again — and said, “A mouse will do.”    

Here follows a slightly longer example titled ‘Said A Sheet Of Snow-white Paper…’:

Said a sheet of snow-white paper, “Pure was I created, and pure will I remain for ever. I would rather be burnt and turn to white ashes than suffer darkness to touch me or the unclean to come near me.”

The ink-bottle heard what the paper was saying, and it laughed in its dark heart; but it never dared to approach her. And the multicoloured pencils heard her also, and they too never came near her.

And the snow-white sheet of paper did remain pure and chaste for ever — pure and chaste — and empty.

In the first example, Kahlil Gibran did not write ‘Said a fox…’, but in the second he uses poetic inversion. Readers must come to terms with at least some of the literary conventions, if they wish to fully appreciate a literary text. And when they are reading poems, they should understand the rhythmic flow of the lines. I end this article with the popular mnemonic nursery rhyme:

Thirty days hath September,

April, June and November.

February has twenty-eight alone,

All the rest of thirty-one,

Excepting Leap Year — that’s the time

When February’s days are twenty-nine.