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: Plain Language From:Sean Fitzpatrick <Sean -dot- Fitzpatrick -at- SMED -dot- COM> Date:Thu, 4 Dec 1997 19:13:10 -0500
A related movement is e' (e-prime). Their hobby horse is to avoid the use of
the verb "to be", even in speech. It is not clear to me why, exactly, though I
gather that practitioners believe that the copulative verb is too promiscuous
for clarity . Practitioners claim it makes language clearer. I'm not an
advocate, but I have tried it and found that it certainly forces you to think
about what you are saying.
Calling it e' is certainly appropriate, since it certainly isn't idiomatic
English.
Sorry, I do not have any references.
Sean Fitzpatrick
For E bloody G:
A related movement, e' (e-prime), avoids or eliminates the use of the verb "to
be", even in speech. I don't understand why, though I gather that
practitioners believe that promiscuous use of the copulative verb reduces
clarity and sometimes even fudges the truth. Practitioners claim it makes
language clearer. I do not advocate it, but I have tried it and found that it
certainly forces you to think about what you say.
