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.
-----Original Message-----
From: Melanie Shook [mailto:mshook -at- COM2001 -dot- COM]
Sent: Friday, August 27, 1999 2:54 PM
To: TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU
Subject: Re: Use v. utilize (was Re: Simple Verbiage Question)
As a linguist, I feel compelled to point out that the "rules of grammar"
are
dynamic. As much as we wordsmiths appreciate the finer distinctions of
the
language, the spoken word constantly changes and eventually the written
word
will follow.
Nonetheless, I HATE it when people use "less" instead of "fewer,"
especially
in writing. O At least we can still use
"fewer" and be understood.
-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Murrell [mailto:tmurrell -at- COLUMBUS -dot- RR -dot- COM]
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 1999 7:36 PM
To: TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU
Subject: Re: Use v. utilize (was Re: Simple Verbiage Question)
I have to admit that I laughed out loud at the notion of stumbling
across a
section of iambic pentameter in a technical document. If I could ever
find
a place where it would be appropriate to the audience and the subject
matter...
Seriously, I tend to think of good writing, particularly good technical
writing as that writing which does not call attention to itself. It is
like
a good umpire in a baseball game; the best umpired games are those in
which
you cannot remember who umpired the game. Good technical writing
doesn't
seem to be there at all.
That said, I still think it is important that we always use words
precisely
and properly, that we not overuse the trite or the technical, that we be
masters of grammar and rhetoric rather than slaves to grammar and
rhetoric.
I started out lamenting not the incorrect use of "consequently" vs.
"subsequently." Not that I don't think they are important. I am rather
more concerned these days that writers in newspapers and on television
and
radio have completely abandoned "fewer" for "less." (There are less
tourists on the beaches than last year. He has less RBI than he had at
this
time last year. These are the sorts of errors that apparently are no
longer
important to newspapers and other media. Yet I think it is a useful
distinction to attempt to carry out in writing.
There may be less sand at the beach this year, owing to erosion, but
there
are fewer tourists. Perhaps there is a good trade-off here somewhere.
Tom Murrell
Defender of the Faith & Yadda, Yadda, Yadda
----------
>From: LDurway -at- pav -dot- com
>To: tmurrell -at- COLUMBUS -dot- RR -dot- COM, TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU
>Subject: RE: Use v. utilize (was Re: Simple Verbiage Question)
>Date: Thu, Aug 26, 1999, 7:04 PM
>
> I have no problem with excellent writing in technical manuals. I sometimes
> knowingly write beyond the sensitivity of my audience simply because I
feel
> like it. I think the problem arises when you use some subtle linguistic
> distinction to carry important technical data that is not also present in
a
> more accessible form. The best example I can come up with immediately is
> this:
>
> The words "consequently" and "subsequently" might pass for synonyms among
> the uninitiated, but we know better. So would you use "subsequently" in a
> context where the uninitiated reader, thinking you mean "consequently,"
> could make a serious mistake? No--you're a nice writer & know better than
> to lead your reader into such folly. You could supply redundant text
> clarifying the "subsequent" idea, but then you negate the whole thing.
> Consider a slightly different situation: you use the word "subsequent"
> appropriately but in a context where confusion with "consequent" won't
cause
> any problems. This situation is better because you don't have to
introduce
> clarifying redundancies; nevertheless, the distinction between "sub~" and
> "con~" becomes irrelevant, leaving you with the artless employment of an
> oddball word that you didn't really need in the first place.
>
> I read somewhere that Twain said that if you find you've written a
> particularly brilliant sentence, you should strike it immediately;
> otherwise, you end up writing all your other sentences to accommodate it,
> and it ruins the whole piece.
>
> I've occasionally allowed clever writing to remain--tidbits kind of like
the
> Easter eggs that programmers sometimes hide in their code.
>
> Gee, did I really cover tunable kernel parameters completely in iambic
> pentameter?
>
> Lindsey
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> "What good are nuances if the reader doesn't appreciate them?" I think
>> doing the right thing need not depend on who is watching. If, as I hope,
>> we
>> have all had some training in the language, I can hope also that we have
>> each developed some appreciation for both its subtleties and its nuances.
>>
>> I guess to simplify what could become a long self-righteous rant, I would
>> say that it's important because, as writers, we help define the correct
>> use
>> of language. And because we're professionals, we should uphold some
>> professional standards. We are as responsible for the care and feeding
of
>> the language as crusty English professors and editors of dictionaries.
>>
>> Tom Murrell
>> Senior Grammatical Protector & Defender Of The Faith
>>
