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.
> > Can anybody provide an eloquent argument (maybe an
> > online article) for including definite articles in
> > procedures?
> >
>
> It's not eloquent, but here's something: writing came into existence
> for one reason only. That reason is the bedrock on which all writing
> must continue to stand.
>
> That is, writing represents *speech.* It stands for speech. Writing is
> not code, or shorthand, or a test of one's ingenuity. It is a
> substitute for human speech.
That argument is a double edged sword to say the least. Speech is
significantly less formal than writing. To argue that written communication
should follow speech is likely to lead to losing a lot of arguments in the
future, even if it wins this one, which is far from certain. A lot of
"connector" words get omitted in speech.
If anything, I would tend to suggest making exactly the opposite argument:
that written language is not speech, and that a greater degree of
consistency is customary. However, I don't really think this issue is worth
fighting about.
> Without article: "Remove lower bracket."
> With article: "Remove the lower bracket."
The former is not in anyway ambiguous and the argument that such a construct
could be ambiguous in some contexts is not compelling. Lots of constructs
could be ambiguous under certain circumstances. Avoiding them all would be
tedious at best, and probably lead to prose that was awkward and unnatural
(as the overzealous application of grammatical purity often does.) Formal
ambiguity abounds in English. It is both normal and correct to rely on
context to resolve it. The point is to avoid actual ambiguity in the present
case, not all possibility of ambiguity in the theoretical case.
The latter, however, is unlikely to slow anyone down significantly, if at
all. How long does it take to read "Remove the lower bracket" compared to
the time it takes to actually remove the lower bracket? The most compelling
argument (to an engineer) might be to point out that they are optimizing the
wrong part of the system.
Both forms are commonly seen (and heard). In short, it's a wash. My advice
to Scott is to save his ammunition for a more important fight.
----
Mark Baker
Analecta Communications
www.analecta.com
+1 613 614 5881
ROBOHELP X5 - ALL NEW VERSION. Now with Word 2003 support, Content
Management, Multi-Author support, PDF and XML support and much more!
Now is the best time to buy - special end of month promos, including:
$100 mail-in rebate; Free online orientation on content management
functionality; Huge savings on support and future product releases;
PLUS Great discounts on RoboHelp training. OFFER EXPIRES April 30th!
Call 1-800-358-9370 or visit: http://www.ehelp.com/techwr-l
---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as:
archiver -at- techwr-l -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.
