Re: Responsible use of Obviously

[Ken d'Albenas <kendal -at- AUTOTROL -dot- CUC -dot- AB -dot- CA>]

Obviously [sic], different people have their own pet peeves,
often caused by overexposure to the offending word or phrase.
One of the gurus of grammar - I forget who - once wrote
that his pet peeve was "basically," and if one more writer
used that word within the next week he was going to commit murder.

And I'll never forget the Grade 4 teacher who tried to drill into
us that the word "nice" DID NOT EXIST, regardless of what the
dictionary said.   :-@

Personally [sic again - that word is also on some people's
hit lists], I think most of these phrases add a conversational
touch to the prose.  You must decide whether you want your writing
to have that conversational tone, or whether you even want your
prose to have any humanity in it at all.  Of course  :-^)  if
the tone is condescending, not conversational, that's another
matter.

My favourite "verboten word" experience was about "simply."  One
of the first style guides I received at work said I must never
use the word "simply" in an instruction or description.  I choked
laughing at the irony.  Was the software we were documenting
so difficult to use, so riddled with Pretzel Logic, that
"simply" was simply [sic] not in the authorized vocabulary?

In every case, I think (MHO) the "Subject" line above says it all.
"Responsible" use of phrases - any phrases - is not a problem.
What is a problem is that people can slip into, like, thoughtless
overuse.  Ya know?



Cheers, eh?

Ken d'Albenas
(-::
Replies to: kendal -at- autotrol -dot- cuc -dot- ab -dot- ca
Flames to:  kendal@/dev/not

===================
Eschew obfuscation.
===================

*****************************