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: Are we WRITERS???? From:Bruce Byfield <bbyfield -at- axionet -dot- com> To:techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com Date:Fri, 24 Mar 2000 10:50:11 -0800
Barry Baldwin <barry -dot- baldwin -at- sanchez -dot- com> wrote:
>I can see why "irregardless" is technically incorrect, but I'm
curious why
>"prioritize" is technically incorrect.
While I realize that English changes, and wouldn't have it any
other way, I do try to choose the new words that I adopt
carefully. Some of the guides I use are:
1.) Does the word express a concept or a nuance that an existing
word doesn't cover?
2.) Is it a short or a pithy word that I could use in ordinary
conversation without sounding as if I was trying to show-off?
3.) Is the word used by everyone from my goldfish to my
accountant?
4.) Is the word ugly?
5.) Does the word obscure?
If I answer the first two questions with a "yes" and the last
three with a "no," then I will use the word.
For example, I discard "irregardless" on the basis of the first
four questions. "Prioritize," on the other hand, is a border-line
case. I think it passes the last question, but fails the other
three. Whether it passes the first question, I'm not sure; I
could use "order," but the meaning's not exact, and the word
would sound odd. On the whole, however, I tend not to use it.
Of course, I don't imagine that my choices makes more than a
minute difference to how the English language develops. Still, I
like to do what I can for a language that I'm in love with.
Besides, I find that these rules that I develop for myself are a
reasonable guide to whether a new word becomes part of the
language or not. Words that don't convey a new concept, or become
over-used don't, as a whole, enter the language. At the most,
they become a clue to a speaker's generation and culture.
>English: The original open-source code.
Like your tag line! Only, who's the maintainer? :-)
--
Bruce Byfield, Outlaw Communications
Vancouver, BC, Canada
bbyfield -at- axionet -dot- com (604.421.7189)
"Truth loving Persians do not dwell upon
The trivial expedition of the Marathon..."
- Robert Graves, "The Persian Version"
