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.
Apple permits "then" to be used as a coord. conjunction in instructions? (take II)
Subject:Apple permits "then" to be used as a coord. conjunction in instructions? (take II) From:Geoff Hart <ghart -at- videotron -dot- ca> To:"TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com> Date:Tue, 12 Jul 2005 10:00:11 -0400
Tom Johnson replied to my original response: <<I happen to have a 1982
American Heritage Dictionary. Where did you find your explanation
referenced above? In the section in the beginning on grammar? If so,
under what heading?>>
I simply looked up the word "then" to confirm my suspicions; it's
listed as both an adverb and an adjective, and it's the adverbial usage
examples that follow the pattern of "and then". There is no explicit
statement that "and then" turns a coordinate conjunction plus adverb
into an implicit conjunction, but this happens in so many other forms
of English ellipsis that this seems to be a standard grammatical
pattern.
<<Can you also explain how "then click New" in the phrase "Click the
File menu, then click New" acts as an adverbial clause?>>
It doesn't. What I said is that when you replace "and then" (coordinate
plus adverb) with "then" (adverb alone), the "and" is implicit: the
conjunction is not visible, but its presence is clearly understood.
<<I'm okay with the ellipses, although it's not a common elliptical
construction. Much more common is, "He ate four pieces of pie; she,
none.">>
True, but "less common" doesn't mean "uncommon". It also pays to note
that in many sentences, such as your example, you can replace the
semicolon with "and". In this sense, semicolons play the role of
conjunctions, just as commas in serial lists (A, B, and C) play the
role of "and".
<<Actually, I find that "and then" is much clearer, particularly in
regards to performing steps. I like Microsoft's adoption of the "and
then" style because it emphasizes the distinctness of the steps.>>
This is a matter of style; I and many others have no difficulty
whatsoever with dropping the "and". I agree that making the "and"
explicit is clearer; I disagree that dropping the "and" is unclear.
Be wary about Microsoft's style advice. As Don Bush has repeatedly and
eloquently pointed out, much of their advice is nonsense: opinion
masquerading as fact and contradicting current usage. By no means is
Microsoft's guide useless; it does contain much practical advice. My
point is only that Microsoft has repeatedly demonstrated that they are
not an authority on grammar or style and that they are not always
willing to pay attention to recognized authorities. Use their advice
cautiously, and only if you understand the advice.
<<I assume you're excluding the split infinitive.>>
It's worth noting for those who haven't heard the news that there has
never been anything wrong with split infinitives in English. This
proscription resulted from a purely pedantic intellectual exercise (in
the 1800s?) to make English more respectable by modeling it on Latin
grammar. No reputable modern style guide insists on avoiding split
infinitives except in the rare case when you're writing for 19th
century prescriptive grammarians.
<<Overall I guess I have some investment in the "then" argument, having
marked it as an error on student papers for the last 5 years.>>
Nothing wrong with this: "and then" is definitely clearer, and for
students who are still learning the subtleties of their language, it's
better to err on the side of clarity. If you wanted to add "and then"
to your in-house style guide, it would be a perfectly reasonable
choice, with lots of support and precedent. But the key point is to
understand that "then" is not wrong, nor is it demonstrably inferior.
<<I don't see why the logic of accepting "then" as an ellipses in the
imperative mood does not also entail accepting it as an ellipses in the
descriptive mood. "Jack and Jill went up the hill, then they fetched a
pail of water." Couldn't this be an ellipses? Jack and Jill went up the
hill, [and] then they fetched a pail of water?>>
It is indeed an ellipsis, and it's also an acceptable one because
nobody would have any difficulty understanding the meaning.
<<How does this rule "describe some of the deeper workings of how we
speakers of a language parse that language's structure"?>>
The fact that someone who understands English well enough to understand
your examples proves that the approach conforms with the underlying
structure of the language: when it does not conform, confusion results.
<<My comments are not meant to be combative, just analytical.>>
Understood, and thanks for making this a discussion rather than a flame
war.
Bonnie Granat opined: <<It is an error, just as the singular "they" is
an error.>>
Neither is an error. The singular "they" has a long history going back
hundreds of years. It's clearly understood, perfectly idiomatic even
for educated speakers, and well supported by just about any modern
dictionary. The current American Heritage Dictonary's usage panel notes
that it's not the best choice when another option exists, but
contradicts their own opinion somewhat in accepting without quibble
singular uses such as "No one expects their advice to be universally
followed."
To me, the real touchstone is whether the usage is equivocal: if "they"
could misleadingly imply the plural, then it's a bad choice.
Now Shipping -- WebWorks ePublisher Pro for Word! Easily create online
Help. And online anything else. Redesigned interface with a new
project-based workflow. Try it today! http://www.webworks.com/techwr-l
Doc-To-Help 2005 now has RoboHelp Converter and HTML Source: Author
content and configure Help in MS Word or any HTML editor. No
proprietary editor! *August release. http://www.componentone.com/TECHWRL/DocToHelp2005
---
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- techwr-l -dot- com
Send administrative questions to lisa -at- techwr-l -dot- com -dot- Visit http://www.techwr-l.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.
