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.
Subject:Have you ever felt the need to create a new word? From:Geoff Hart <ghart -at- videotron -dot- ca> To:TECHWR-L <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com>, Kathy Bowman <Kathy -dot- Bowman -at- saabsystems -dot- com -dot- au> Date:Mon, 24 Apr 2006 09:11:52 -0400
Kathy Bowman wondered: <<Have you ever felt the need to create a new
word? >>
Far less often than my author clients. I find that there's usually a
perfectly serviceable word or phrase that already exists in most cases.
However, as I work in the sciences, my authors occasionally come up
with something new enough that no word exists yet, and need to create a
new one or use one that's still rare. That's very cool to see happen.
(Examples escaping me right now... time for more coffee.)
I also find that authors try to coin a single word where two or three
existing words will do the job better. In these cases, I plead the
principle of parsimony and strongly encourage the authors to avoid
adding neologisms unnecessarily. "Necessary" is, of course, somewhat
subjective, but as I have a pretty good vocabulary, it's a tighter
constraint for me than for some of my authors.
<<For example, in a military sense a target can be 'engageable', ie it
is able to be engaged. This leads to the term 'Engageability' on a
screen, meaning that it is (or is not or will be) able to be engaged.
The screen could show "Ability to be engaged' or 'Able to be engaged'
but there is limited room and we are stuck with 'Engageability'.>>
It's important to understand that different "discourse communities"
develop their own unique jargons. Where those jargons are sufficiently
standardized that everyone knows the meaning, or will learn it during
the training that lets them become part of a given community, we should
not try to change the words. Our job is to use words in ways that the
audience understands, even if those words strike us as barbarous or
nonsensical. (Let's not talk about lawyers before the second cup of
coffee, please. <g>)
The same words work poorly for a different audience, and that's where
our job becomes that of translator. Much of the work I do is
"technology [knowledge] transfer", which means taking science and
presenting it in terms that potential users of the science can
understand.
<<My approach is to accept that English changes, and to use the new
words where necessary as if they are recognised and valid English
words... In the meantime, I have a trainer who won't use a 'made-up'
word and is doing back-flips to avoid using either 'engageable' or
'engageability' in his training documentation. >>
With the above caveats, your approach is sensible. The trainer's
approach is also sensible if the word is not yet standard jargon or if
better terms exist, but if the word is the preferred term for the
audience, the trainer needs to be reminded to speak the same language
as his students.
WebWorks ePublisher Pro for Word features support for every major Help
format plus PDF, HTML and more. Flexible, precise, and efficient content
delivery. Try it today!. http://www.webworks.com/techwr-l
Doc-To-Help includes a one-click RoboHelp project converter. It's that easy. Watch the demo at http://www.DocToHelp.com/TechwrlList
