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:Re: A usage question From:Peter Cash <cash -at- CONVEX -dot- COM> Date:Tue, 4 May 1993 19:35:42 GMT
In article <199305031747 -dot- AA02995 -at- stevens -dot- unx -dot- sas -dot- com> Len Olszewski
<saslpo -at- unx -dot- sas -dot- com> writes:
>> > I have found also that educating people about the "behind-the-scenes"
>> > interactions of one software with another ...
>> I seem to be hearing this more and more, but I don't think I've seen it
>> written before this. I always use "software" as a collective noun or as
^^^^^^^^^^
>> an adjective. (I would never say, "I lost my self-control and bought
>I think this is idiomatic; usage here determines correctness.
>Technically, this is correct. If you ask a developer "What do you write
>all day?", she can correctly reply "Software". That means it is a noun.
Yes, but it's a _collective_ noun. Software is like lint: you may say that
you pick lint from your belly button, but you never pick _a_ lint from it;
lint may clump together to form dust bunnies, but one lint never sticks to
another. (Yes, _pieces_ of lint may occasionally be located...but that's
not the same thing. In the same way, you can speak of "a piece of
software".)
--
| Die Welt ist alles, was Zerfall ist. |
Peter Cash | (apologies to Ludwig Wittgenstein) |cash -at- convex -dot- com
