I am editing a tag in Martial Arts SE. This tag is called "etiquette". Here is what I have written for the "Usage guidance (excerpt)":

Use this tag for questions about expected behavior, the correct code of conduct for different styles of martial arts, and communication among martial artists and that between martial artists and non-martial artists.

As you can see, the last bit in bold is a mess. I think that the general meaning is clear, but the repetition of "martial artists" is quite annoying.

Is there a way I can say the same thing without having to repeat "martial artists"?

Just to make this clear, "communication" here refers to that

  • among practitioners (within the group)
  • between practitioners and general people (between groups)
  • Are you saying that communication is not allowed among people in general? That in order for any kind of discussion to be valid there must be at least one martial artists present in the conversation? Unless that is the case, which I find odd, I would simplify it to just … and communication about martial arts. Jun 22 '20 at 3:48
  • 1
    @JasonBassford It is for a tag called "etiquette" in Martial Arts SE. So, martial arts etiquette is concerned about practitioners (e.g., white belt BJJ practitioners should not ask black belts to roll with them; they must wait for black belts to invite them if black belts wish to do so). So the tag should say that it is about communication among artists, and between artists and general people, but not among general people. So yes, basically the tag is for when we have questions about communication where at least one of the speakers is a practitioner.
    – AIQ
    Jun 22 '20 at 4:03
  • 1
    First of all, that sounds awfully elitist. But, that aside, then just say …how to communicate with martial artists. Jun 22 '20 at 4:08
  • 1
    @JasonBassford I am afraid that I am not being able to clearly explain this to you. "... how to communicate with martial artists" does not work. Consider this example. John is a martial artist. John went to play basketball. Got into a scuffle over a hard foul. One player pushed John and started talking trash. Should John walk away? Talk trash? Choke him at will? Or should John knock him out? So basically this is about how John, who is a martial artist, should behave (or communicate) outside the dojo/gym with others who are not martial artists; the code of conduct for practitioners.
    – AIQ
    Jun 22 '20 at 4:18
  • 3
    Repetition is not always bad, sometimes it's the best wato eliminate ambiguity.
    – barbecue
    Jun 22 '20 at 16:53

My suggestion:

Use this tag for questions about expected behavior, the correct code of conduct for different styles of martial arts, and communication among martial artists and with others.

Why say "interpersonal"? Who but persons are communicating?

  • 1
    Jack, "with others" makes a lot of sense. And yes, I don't know why "interpersonal" was there; I will remove it.
    – AIQ
    Jun 22 '20 at 4:27
  • Communication among martial artists is fine. But the second half of the phrase parses to communication with others, which doesn't make much sense. (E.g., communication among martial artists and communication with others.) To be what you want it to be, it should read as martial artists communicating amongst themselves and with others. But that might still lack how a non–martial artist should initiate conversation with a martial artist … Jun 22 '20 at 5:14
  • @JasonBassford But we are not concerned with "how a non-martial artist should initiate conversation with a martial artist". We are concerned with *"how a martial artist should initiate or have a conversation with a non-martial artist".
    – AIQ
    Jun 22 '20 at 5:44
  • 2
    @JasonBassford I think the sense of the tag, in context, is "communications among us, and with others", where "us" is replaceable by martial artists. Jun 22 '20 at 5:49
  • 1
    @JasonBassford In that example, both are martial artists (white and black belts).
    – AIQ
    Jun 22 '20 at 16:54

How about

Use this tag for questions about expected behavior, the correct code of conduct for different styles of martial arts, and interpersonal communication not only among martial artists but also between them and non-martial artists.

That removes one of the instances of the phrase martial artists while maintaining the overall meaning (I hope).

  • This is a much better phrasing. It at least seems to capture everything that's been communicated so far. (Although you could replace non-martial artists with just others, and it would parse more appropriately than the other answer.) Jun 22 '20 at 20:56
  • Wouldn't "non-martial artists" imply "artists that are not martial"? What are the grammatical rules for this? Jun 23 '20 at 9:22
  • 1
    @RobinHeller that is indeed the implication. I suppose one could have non martial-artists which would mean everything which is not a martial artist and so would include the Eiffel tower, the planet Mercury, a sparrow, a bottle of milk, and me but I imagine that would be rarely needed and almost pathological.
    – mdewey
    Jun 23 '20 at 10:05

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.