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: "Type" vs. "Enter" (take II) From:TechComm Dood <techcommdood -at- gmail -dot- com> To:"TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com> Date:Sun, 24 Oct 2004 02:38:49 -0400
Sorry Geoff. Your use of the specific example of "via" falls short.
"Via" translates literally to "way" in nearly every language out
there, despite the 1000 years of english language evolution you cite.
Just because a word is commonplace in English doesn't mean it's
correct for technical communications, especially when l10n or i18n is
involved. I ran this by several localizers and every single one of
them agreed that "via" as well as "e.g.", "i.e.", "etc." and any other
English adoption of latin phraseology should be avoided, as should any
other form of colloquialism, slang, or loose metaphor.
Modern english usage is not the same as correct modern meaning.
Time to think globally, folks.
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 16:01:16 -0400, Geoff Hart <ghart -at- videotron -dot- ca> wrote:
> This clearly illustrates yet another frequently heard complaint about
> MMOS: The authors demonstrate an appalling level of ignorance of modern
> usage, and seem unfamiliar with the concept of consulting a modern
> dictionary.
>
> Although "via" did indeed have a primarily geographical context in
> Roman times (the word literally means "way", so "via Appia" is the
> Appian Way = road), the word has been broadly accepted for the past
> 1000 years or so* to mean "way" in a less literal sense. Although some
> might argue, with some justification, that "via" is an informal and
> possibly sloppy way to say "by means of", the word is nonetheless
> broadly accepted in this sense.
>
> See the Random House Unabridged and American Heritage (4th edn.)
> dictionaries for support of this viewpoint. For that matter, see just
> about any dictionary other than MMOS, which seems to feel it is
> necessary to set their own standards for how words should be used,
> irrespective of whether anyone else agrees.
ROBOHELP X5: Featuring Word 2003 support, Content Management, Multi-Author
support, PDF and XML support and much more!
TRY IT TODAY at http://www.macromedia.com/go/techwrl
WEBWORKS FINALDRAFT: New! Document review system for Word and FrameMaker
authors. Automatic browser-based drafts with unlimited reviewers. Full
online discussions -- no Web server needed! http://www.webworks.com/techwr-l
---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as:
archiver -at- techwr-l -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
Send administrative questions to lisa -at- techwr-l -dot- com -dot- Visit http://www.techwr-l.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.
