TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
I notice that David Locke, in defending "parallelize", uses the term "to make
parallel" to explain it.
If the writer had written "make parallel" in the first place all of this
fire-breathing would be unnecessary. "Make parallel" need no explanation.
"Parallelize" -- a legitimate but seldom-used word -- does.
Mr Locke also writes, "Rest assured they (SMEs) know what the words they
wrote mean." Wrong. The meaning resides in their minds, not in the words.
They know what *they* mean. As for whether the *words* they choose are the
best words to communicate what they mean -- that's for other people,
including communications experts, to judge.
