RE: consistency in terminology?

Subject: RE: consistency in terminology?
From: Jim Shaeffer <jims -at- spsi -dot- com>
To: TECHWR-L <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com>
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 10:25:12 -0400

In _Intercom_ for Sept/Oct 1999, Don Bush's column "The Friendly Editor"
argues against too strict a consistency.

The column was prompted by a discussion in which technical communicators
agreed with a speaker who said, "It is better to be consistently wrong than
not to be consistent."

In the column, Don Bush set up two precepts of consistency:
1. Things should have one _name_ only.
2. Words should have one _meaning_ only.

Then he said, "We all know that nomenclature should not change in
midstream."

"But you can't apply Precept 1 widely without opening a major rift between
_technical_ writing and _good_ writing. Good writers learn to use verbal
variety, moving gracefully from _equipment_ to _device_ to _object_ to
_item_ to a simple _it_."

Mr. Bush also argued that localization concerns are better handled by good
editors and translators than by restrictions on good writing.

Jim Shaeffer
jims -at- spsi -dot- com

(Note: Obviously, my quotes are out of context. My online searches at the
STC site have failed to locate this article.)






Previous by Author: Re: Bilingualism in TW
Next by Author: RE: Take this engineer and shove it [Long]
Previous by Thread: RE: Solution to master/slave (humor, indeed)
Next by Thread: Copyright and the web


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:


Sponsored Ads