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.
This is immensely helpful. Thanks. There is one point that I need to mention
though. Read on.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Though that's true in Latin, you're presumably writing in English, and that
changes all the rules. My Webster's New Collegiate has the following to say
about "minutia": a minute or minor detail, usually used in the plural. As is
the case with data, prevailing usage has changed to accept the use of
minutia either as singular or plural, with the context hopefully making the
meaning clear.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This makes sense, and probably explains, the, why I see the word "minutia"
referring to the singular as much as to the plural.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It seems to me that you don't have to use either "point" or "marker" in this
case. You'd simply write "this specific minutia" or "look for the following
minutiae as signs that the person is a technical writer".
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Not exactly. I don't proclaim to be a fingerprint examiner, but in the 2
years I have worked here, I hear them bandy about the term "minutiae point"
quite often. Latent prints (i.e., those found at crime scenes) are rarely
clear and neat; they are often cut off and messy. Often, the computer does
not find all of the points/minutiae it needs in order to find a match, and a
human has to go and mark the points to make it such that matches can be
located. This often happens in the case of latent fingerprints, which are
often unclear and cut off. A fingerprint examiner can often tell how a ridge
would continue, where the delta would be, or where the core would be, etc.
if the print were not cut off and/or blotchy. So in order to launch a search
to find matches, oftentimes they must manually place markers on the
fingerprint, over the minutiae - markers that the computer failed to place
because the print is cut off or bad quality. They indicate that they must
"plot minutia point # 7 here and minutia marker #28 there" etc. When they go
to court, they present what they call "Print Charting" - in which they speak
of specific minutia markers - either ones that they decided to place or ones
that the computer found. Strictly speaking, a minutia marker is not the same
thing as the minutiae itself. Needless to say, they must defend the minutia
markers they place on the print because there are legal ramifications to
doing so if it is their determination that a match exists.
So a minutia marker is not the same thing as minutiae itself. It is the
thing that points to the fact that something in the way of minutiae exists
there.
You bring up an interesting "point" though (pardon the pun). I am going to
look at the documentation again and see if I can get around it by referring
to it as simply a "marker." I have to look at all the contextual uses and
see what I come up with - maybe I can just circumvent the whole problem!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That's not a universal rule; consider, for example, "data extrapolation".
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You are right!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<g> But snide comments aside, I'd agree you should go with the singular as a
general rule, because that's the most common pattern.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Right you are. I am going to try that; failing that, I will probably try my
idea above.
Thanks much
Cheers
Barbara
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Are you using Doc-to-Help or ForeHelp? Switch to RoboHelp for Word for $249
or to RoboHelp Office for only $499. Get the PC Magazine five-star rated
Help authoring tool for less! Go to http://www.ehelp.com/techwr
Free copy of ARTS PDF Tools when you register for the PDF
Conference by April 30. Leading-Edge Practices for Enterprise
& Government, June 3-5, Bethesda,MD. www.PDFConference.com
---
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.
