2

This is what I'm trying to express

[Foo] can be simplifiedly characterised as [bar].

However I am unable to find references for such as word as simplifiedly. What I want to say is that the following characterisation as [bar] is to be understood as being simplified for the sake of explaining [Foo] in the first place.

How would you phrase it? I would prefer if the structure of the sentence would remain unchanged. But if there is no such word maybe this can be restructured without being too verbose.

Edit: It's not a question of rhythm or aesthetics, it's a question of meaning. I'm not trying to say that the characterisation I'm making is simple to derive, I'm trying to say that I'm making a characterisation that is simplifying the matter of [Foo], which is in fact a bit more general/complicated than its representation as [bar] might suggest.

For me "simply" has the taste of what I'm not trying to say (according to the above paragraph). Regarding the suggested "more simply", I have no gut feeling and will have to trust you as experts.

Improve this question

10 Answers 10

Reset to default
3

Gnawme suggests simply, which is good, but means "in a simple manner", not "in a simplified (=made more simple than it was previously) manner". For that, I'd suggest more simply.

[Foo] can be more simply characterised as [bar].

Edit, in response to the edit to the question:

  1. I'm no expert.
  2. Perhaps can as an oversimplification be characterised or can in an oversimplification be characterised.
Improve this answer
3
  • Actually, MW defines simply as "in a straightforward manner," but I do like your suggestion. For the purpose of the OP's exposition, [foo] is being presented as a more simple conception of [bar].
    – Gnawme
    Dec 7, 2011 at 22:18
  • Would you kindly check the edit in my original question?
    – bitmask
    Dec 7, 2011 at 22:28
  • I'll drop the "over": "as a simplification" seems about right (even though it's not as catchy as my home-made word). Thanks :)
    – bitmask
    Dec 7, 2011 at 22:42
4

Simply would be the most immediate adverb. Others such as: Commonly, reductively, easily, naturally, straightforwardly, conveniently, efficiently, fluently, quickly, might also work. By the sound of it, you are looking for the adverb simply; however, for the sake of rhythm and aesthetics, you seem to be looking for a word with more syllables. Instead, this simple change seems to do the trick:

[Foo] can be more simply characterised as [bar].

Improve this answer
2
  • Would you kindly check the edit in my original question?
    – bitmask
    Dec 7, 2011 at 22:27
  • To simplify something can have either of the meanings make simpler or make simple (though the second sense always implies [in the strict mathematical sense] the first). DAWR's paraphrase is fine for the first sense; the second sense needs something like: 'Put simply: [Foo] can be characterised as [bar].' or 'In simple terms, [Foo] can be characterised as [bar].'
    – Edwin Ashworth
    Nov 21, 2012 at 21:59
3

Perhaps the word you're looking for is simplistically, if you're trying to suggest intentional oversimplification.

Improve this answer
6
  • That has a bitter after-taste of "oversimplified" which I'd like to avoid :)
    – bitmask
    Dec 7, 2011 at 22:29
  • @bitmask: Sure thing, it'd be great to see an actual example of the kind of content you're dealing with.
    – Stuart Allen
    Dec 7, 2011 at 22:42
  • I didn't want to obfuscate the matter with computer science gobbledygook, but if you ask for it: "[Foo]" expands to "The input model of non-distributed applications" and "[bar]" expands to "a Halting Turing Machine". Happy? :)
    – bitmask
    Dec 7, 2011 at 23:11
  • @bitmask, thanks, the context does help I think. (And I have a BE (Comp) so that's not entirely Greek to me.)
    – Stuart Allen
    Dec 7, 2011 at 23:23
  • 2
    @bitmask I would most definitely use effectively in this circumstance.
    – Evan
    Dec 8, 2011 at 2:02
3

While simply would be correct, it may be slightly misleading, because it can also mean something like "just", as in that is simply not correct. Simplifiedly sounds a bit unwieldy. You could simply say it like this:

The policy of the Roman Senate towards Carthage between the wars can be simplified as containment. In so doing, historians amplify the contrast with later policies.

Improve this answer
0
2

[I modified my answer after seeing your edit.]

To capture what you're after in your exposition, you need to modify "simplified:"

[Foo] can be conceptually simplified as [bar].

Improve this answer
2

For your example, I usually use the word effectively

[Foo] can be effectively characterised as [bar].

I don't think I'd generalize effectively as the adverb form of simplified, but I believe it works well in this case.

Improve this answer
1
  • +1. Given the specific example @bitmask gave in the comments, this is definitely how I'd say it.
    – Lynn
    Dec 8, 2011 at 2:13
2

The difficulty seems to be arising from at least two things here.

  1. Excessive modification from the root.

    simple -> simplify -> simplified -> ... [a derivation to far from the root for comfort (of the ordinary reader)]<

  2. The choice of the word simple itself, which is insufficient to express your intention in the given context.

[Edit-1 per OP's edit seen just now]

... can, in simple terms, be characterised as ...

would be a more direct way to express it according to OP's intentions.

Improve this answer
1
  • 3
    and to think all this is about simplification of something! :)
    – Kris
    Dec 8, 2011 at 6:24
1

I'd opt for a word like essentially or roughly, which imply that the answer is inexact but effective.

Improve this answer
1
  • Seems to me the question was seeking greater impact by greater - more punctilious - exactness. It's as if the adverb coinage choice was meant to transcend simplified's merely basic, rough, or effective meanings. Maybe.
    – lex
    Nov 21, 2012 at 21:34
0

The essence of [foo] is [bar]. [Foo] is essentially [bar]. [Foo] can be distilled as [bar]. In simplified terms [foo] is [bar]. [Foo] is really [bar].

Improve this answer
-1

Looking at your stated aim, it seems that juxtaposition of implied opposites, in the abstract so to speak--as in overstatement by understatement (or, depending on point of few, its converse)--might give the sentence your intended prosaic impact:

[Foo] can be simplifiedly characterised as [bar].

*

Simplistically speaking, [Foo] can (or could) be characterised as [bar].

*

The unspoken implication that way is that simply (or other mere undersimplifiedifications) is not quite enough, not quite sufficiently adroit, simplification.

Improve this answer

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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