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: Common Errors in English From:"Michael West" <mbwest -at- bigpond -dot- com> To:techwr-l Date:Sun, 22 Feb 2004 13:45:31 +1100
David Locke wrote:
> So we should elect a prescriptivist of the week? Idiomatic expression
> isn't systematic, nor is it an error. Redundancy is what makes
> language work.
>
> Peccadillians are fun. Prescriptivists are not. We all be speaking in
> iambic pentameter if it were up to the prescriptivists. And, what
> about all those declensions we had to learn in Latin class. They were
> perfectly systematic.
>
> Another point here is the notion that a language should become a least
> common denominator facility. No thanks. Isn't English becoming easier
> all the time?
>
> David Locke
I don't think I understand what you're driving at,
but if I found "for all intensive purposes" in a technical
document, I'd stop reading it. Writers have a responsibility
to use language thoughtfully, and not to waste a reader's time
with gibberish.
--
Michael West
