Functionality (#699979)

["Higgins, Lisa R." <eilrh -at- EXCHANGE -dot- WCC -dot- ATT -dot- COM>]

>>My position stands.  I don't know about this.  I know it's in Webster's
>10th.  Still, it seems like something that evolved into the language, but I
>feel that it only muddies the language, and that we should still try to use
>function, functions, or capability.  Functionality--Webster's or not--is
>technospeak.<

Linguistically, this stance has no foundation.  The suffix *-ity* can be
added
to many words to create terms that simply haven't existed.  It simply
changes an
adjective into a noun that pertains to a quality relating to the term's
root.
*Specific* becomes *specificity*.  *Tenacious* loses its *-ious* to
become
*tenacity*, or it retains its adjectival suffix and adds *-ness* to
become a
noun that means the same thing.  The language has syntactic rules for
dictating
how suffixes may be used.  Whether or not this term appears in a popular
dictionary is beside the point if it follows these rules.

***

Function=noun
Functional=adjective
Functionality=noun

The question, as I see it, is "Is there a difference between the word
'function' and the word 'functionality,' or is it just another pompous
long-cut for windbags who don't have anything weighty enough to say that
it doesn't require $6 words to maintain some perception of heft?"

And the ANSWER, IMO, is: The windbag thing.

And to clear up a couple of other points:

1. Dictionaries do not dictate language.

2. Syntactic rules do not dictate how suffices are used. Never have,
never will.

3. A native speaker CANNOT unknowingly violate a grammatical rule.
(Except in rare cases of head injury, yadda yadda yadda...)

If you say it as a word, it is a word. If I call you a horkmonkey,
'horkmonkey' is a word just as valid and respectable a word as
'cheeseburger,' 'desk,' or 'doppelganger.'

SO... "Is this a word?" is not a valid question.

"Is this word an elegant and effective way to communicate what I want to
communicate?" is the real question.

Consider accuracy and clarity foremost, and it's not a bad idea to
occasionally make a concession to the constipated proscriptivist types
in your audience whose brains explode when you split an infinitive.

If your audience really really wants the word, for whatever reason--it's
pompous and absurd, and makes them feel like big important grownups; it
really has some distinct meaning that 'function' doesn't accurately
convey; they really like the letter 'y' because it makes them think
about girls--use it. If they don't need or really want it, use something
shorter and clearer.

***
I use a few approaches when I write to lessen the chance that I increase
the
readability levels.  First, I avoid using terms of French or Latin
derivation
when a simple Anglo-Saxon derivative is available.  Second, I use
embedded
clauses sparingly.  Third, when I use a technical term that a reader may
not
understand, I define it in context or use it in a way that most users
can define
it in context on their own.  And fourth, I look at the number of
syllables.  A
word with a lot of affixes may complicate communication.  Based on these
points,
I determine how to get the cumulative effect I desire.

***
Yeah. I think that it's unreasonable of us to expect our users to have
assimilated this new French lexicon a scant 930 years after the Norman
invasion.

If only you guys all knew how to write effective user manuals like my
recent "Dog, Log, and Pig: An Order Entry Guide." I think the caesura
and eye-rhyme really added to the retention factor.

Yrs &c.,
Lisa Higgins
eilrh -at- ei -dot- att -dot- com

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post Message:	TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU
Get Commands:	LISTSERV -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU with "help" in body.
Unsubscribe:	LISTSERV -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU with "signoff TECHWR-L"
Listowner:	ejray -at- ionet -dot- net