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:Setting manually? From:"Geoff Hart (by way of \"Eric J. Ray\" <ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com>)" <ght -at- MTL -dot- FERIC -dot- CA> Date:Tue, 27 Oct 1998 08:39:53 -0700
John Posada wondered about <<When the new XXX is manually set [is
set manually?], a single XXX must be taken out of service, then put
back in service to trigger ...>>
I don't think there's any actual difference in meaning whatsoever,
and though there are guidelines (not rules) in English on where to
place the modifier (the adverb "manually"), the only important rule
in most cases is to ensure that it's obvious which word is being
modified. Here, it's obvious, so go with whichever version "tastes"
better.
I do have some concern about the passive voice, though. If you really
want to camouflage the setter (or if it's not relevant), then I'd say
"has been manually set" (i.e., the condition exists, and we don't
care who did the setting). However, even if you use passive voice
there, I'd much prefer (speaking as reader, not editor) to know just
who must take the XX out of service. Perhaps: "When the new XXX has
been manually set, _you_ must.... and then..." or some similar
wording that provides the necessary missing info.?
--Geoff Hart @8^{)}
geoff-h -at- mtl -dot- feric -dot- ca
"By God, for a moment there it all made sense!"--Gahan Wilson
