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.
The recent example given in the correct usage of terminology for lamps seemed,
by one or two people, as a waste of time. I'm sure that we all know that
correct terminology must be used at all times, just as the use of jargon
should be avoided, but I wonder if everyone stops to seriously consider the
reason why.
Coincidently, I have found an old style guide on my shelf that addresses the
subject precisely. I hope that it is of interest.
Lamps
The recommended terms for the states of a lamp are "lit" and
"extinguished". These should always be used in the passive, not the active
form, eg "Lamp ILP1 is lit".
The objections to other terms are easiest illustrated in somewhat
frivolous manner:
* The lamp lights. (A cigarette?)
* The lamp extinguishes. (A fire?)
* The lamp burns. (Fire!)
* The lamp goes out. (To lunch?)
The logic here is that a lamp is a passive component; it must be
activated by some outside agency. Its states are thus best described in a
passive form. The only active funtions of a lamp are to indicate or
illuminate.
Yes, aircraft have crashed (really) by the incorrect usage of terminology
(computers too, perhaps) which is why the subject is understood by most
"engineers", and I am sure that skilled editors can see why they, too, must be
careful (and given greater power, perhaps).
