[WikiEN-l] "Well-known"

[Charles Matthews]

Steve Bennett wrote:
> No, readability has much more to do with appropriate use of
> vocabulary, sentence length and phrase construction. Correct grammar
> that is unfamiliar to the audience decreases readability. Just like
> referring to the "spit and image" of someone would be less readable
> than the "spitting image".
>   
Clearly, though, this is a cultural matter. "Readability" in this sort 
of sense is conditioned by the expectation that the written language is 
very close to the spoken language, for example, which is something for 
which you can find widely varying types of cases if you go to different 
languages. (It is hard to imagine this thread going the same way with 
French speakers, in particular.) Judging by airport novels, short words 
sell more books than literary language, and stylistic considerations are 
roughly nowhere. But I don't see that encyclopedias need to be written 
as "page-turners".

On the topic, "most known" occurs frequently in enWP, rather than "best 
known". I would change that. And, sadly, "more known" also is common, 
rather than "better known". I think for the latter one can speak frankly 
of a grammatical error: "known" is a participle rather than an 
adjective, while "well-known" is certainly an adjective, with 
comparative and superlative forms.

Charles