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.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gordon McLean [mailto:gordon -dot- mclean -at- ciboodle -dot- com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 4:28 AM
> To: 'Bonnie Granat'; techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
> Subject: RE: "and then," or simply "then"?
>
> Define semi-literate?
I am not the one who used the term with reference to the present subject, so
I don't think my defining it is germane to our discussion.
>
> The ability to read and write to a level that allows you to
> communicate with the rest of the world is not, I believe,
> something someone who was intellectually deficient would be
> able to do.
>
I tend toward the hyperbolic, Gordon, particularly at four in the morning.
> As for the "argument from authority" line, I'd suggest you
> check Professor Pullum's credentials,
That's precisely what I'm talking about! His credentials make him an
authority; not just his credentials, but his history.
and he needs feed me no
> line (and he'd say so himself I'm sure).
I suppose I'm still reeling from the six months I spent revising
documentation written by writers who insisted on the usage that this thread
has been dealing with -- the incorrect use of "then" as a conjunction.
I was merely using a
> quick example from him as his recent talk was very insightful
> and refreshingly non-academic in approach (the undertones
> were "lighten up").
>
> "One either participates responsibly in the use of a language
> like an adult, or one stubbornly sticks to one's guns for
> infantile reasons."
>
> Some would say the same holds true for those who cling dearly
> to the most arcane and incorrect rules of grammar.
>
The part of speech of the word "then" is fixed. It's not up for debate.
> "Something's very wrong in the mind of a person who can kiss
> off grammatical rules so cavalierly and demand that people
> not notice."
>
> I see no demands being made, only a gentle reaffirming that
> our shared language is a complex beast which many of us are
> still learning to control.
I'm in that group, too.
> Perhaps if you explained your reasonings in more detail I'd
> be more inclined to agree with them or, do you prefer to
> state your own grammatical rules and demand that people take notice.
>
This thread was about a specific error, and that's what I'm talking about,
but my argument can extend to all grammatical rules that one might consider
elementary, like the part of speech of a word (which isn't really grammar,
per se, but semantics). I follow the rules of the language, and I expect any
writer or editor to do the same. That's all.
> "In the end, literate people shake their heads and lament
> that universities are producing such blockheads."
>
> And here I step back from this conversation, from this
> snobbish, elitist and stunningly academic approach to what
> was a simple email response to a simple question. I fear I
> see where such discussions lead and I'm happy to let you continue.
>
I knew what I sounded like when I wrote it, and believe me, it felt very
good to righteously step up and say that I'm sick and tired of cleaning up
after people who really cannot write their way out of a paper bag. Not a
personal attack; actually, I think you are not in that group simply by
reading your e-mails.
> Bonnie, this is not a personal attack. I firmly believe that
> good writing is the most important tool I possess, and I'm
> always willing to learn. That said, I've yet to have a reader
> complain about the grammar of my writing, only that it
> doesn't contain the information they require (a different
> problem altogether!).
>
Many readers won't notice, and nobody is going to complain about bad grammar
in a technical manual. But we learn how to use the language predominately by
experiencing it in use, so why perpetuate sloppiness and error in one's
writing? I'm not accusing you, but I am responding to your contention
earlier that doing so is all right because Pullum blesses it.
Meanwhile, I'm reading _Founding Brothers_ (Ellis) and just came upon that
wrong usage of "then" as a conjunction, so the error is not made only by
technical writers. Even editors are somehow ignorant of this particular
issue.
If it weren't an issue that actually trips me up when I encounter it, I
would not be going on so.
Anyway, we editors are a compulsive lot, so please write off any
infelicities of my mode of expression to that, if you would be so kind. <g>
ComponentOne Doc-To-Help gives you everything you need to author and
publish quality Help, Web, and print content. Perfect for technical
authors, developers, and policy writers. Download a FREE trial. http://www.componentone.com/DocToHelp/
True single source, conditional content, PDF export, modular help.
Help & Manual is the most powerful authoring tool for technical
documentation. Boost your productivity! http://www.helpandmanual.com
---
You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as archive -at- web -dot- techwr-l -dot- com -dot-
