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: techwr-l-bounces+syed -dot- hosain=aeris -dot- net -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com <techwr-l-bounces+syed -dot- hosain=aeris -dot- net -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com> On Behalf Of Peter Neilson
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2020 8:07 AM
To: techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
Subject: A governmental blunder that probably won't hurt us. Much.
In that document I noticed FIVE uses of a strange word "inpidual" where "individual" would have been expected. "New piece of governmentese," I thought. Further research showed that other government documents have similar problems. For example, where "division" might be expected, "pision" appears. The problem seems to go back as far as 2014 at least.
E.g.: https://www.dol.gov/owcp/dlhwc/dbaallemployer9-30-13.htm
I doubt there is any way to make money correcting this blunder, which must have been caused by a well-meaning person's wholesale replacement of <div> with <p>, or rather div with p, in many documents. If there were, it would already have happened. Maybe I should send it on to Scott Adams, who might find some use for it.
Who writes this stuff?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Visit TechWhirl for the latest on content technology, content strategy and content development | https://techwhirl.com