Re: (Slight) HUMOUR: Banned Words
I'm not (necessarily) a prescriptivist, but I think
that there is something to be said for precision in
language. After all, if we can't agree on what the
meaning of "is" is, how can we communicate?
This is a good abstract argument. In practice, however, the language never changes so fast that this becomes a problem. Even fundamental changes in structure happen so slowly that we absorb them without much effort.
Anyway, we do come to a broad agreement about what words mean by how we use them. If a usage is widely laughed at, such as "intensive purposes for "intents and purposes," then it's an error. When only a few experts recognize the error for what it is, it's well on its way to becoming accepted, no matter how ignorant it is. When nobody recognizes the error, it's become part of the language.
I don't say that this process is desirable, but I do think it's important to admit that it happens. For one thing, it means that you can only be sure of being precise at the time that you are writing. Clinging to a particular meaning just because it was the original one isn't much better for communication than making a sloppy word choice; it's apt to be misunderstood. For example, I almost never use "positive feedback" in the technical sense of the term, as originally intended by cybernetics, because I know that the majority of people will assume that I mean "criticism that praises." I regret the loss of a term for a concept that plays an important role in my thinking, but, if I cling to it, I'm only going to be misunderstood and have to explain my meaning.
In technical writing, you have to be especially careful, because, while the subject may require jargon to talk about it, the jargon may have an altogether different meaning for a general audience. You can define a term like "positive feedback" in its technical sense, but you have to consider whether the popular meaning is so widespread that the technical sense will be overshadowed. In fact, since positive feedback is typical of a system going out of control, in this case, you might be well advised to invent a synonym. Otherwise, an audience more attuned to the popular meaning might slip into thinking it's a good thing instead of a potential disaster.
--
Bruce Byfield 604.421.7177 bbyfield -at- axionet -dot- com
"The gates of hell are guarded by a pair of vicious dogs,
And Hannibal was thwarted by some flaming Roman hogs
Me, I was defeated by the ferry schedule
Now I'm standing on the dockside in twenty pounds of sopping wool."
-James Keelaghan, "Departure Bay"
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Be a published author! iUniverse gives you: a high-quality paperback, a
custom cover design, and distribution to 25,00 retailers. Join our almost
10,000 published authors today. http://www.iuniverse.com/media/techwr
Have you looked at the new content on TECHWR-L lately?
See http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ and check it out.
---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as: archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot- Visit http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.
References:
RE: (Slight) HUMOUR: Banned Words: From: Dan Hall
Previous by Author:
Re: (Slight) HUMOUR: Banned Words
Next by Author:
Re: (Slight) HUMOUR: Banned Words
Previous by Thread:
RE: (Slight) HUMOUR: Banned Words
Next by Thread:
RE: (Slight) HUMOUR: Banned Words
Search our Technical Writing Archives & Magazine
Visit TechWhirl's Other Sites
Sponsored Ads