Re: Future tense/using "you"

[chuck mccaffrey <cmccaffrey -at- SPYGLASS -dot- COM>]

In article <199507291436 -dot- KAA13485 -at- postoffice3 -dot- mail -dot- cornell -dot- edu>, Joanna
Sheldon <cjs10 -at- cornell -dot- edu> wrote:

> In response to:
> >
> >     The yellow indicator light flashes to let you know printing
> >     is about to begin. If the print job cannot complete, an
> >     error messages appears in the indicator window on the front
> >     of the printer.

> Karen wrote:
> >
> >     I am about to nit-pick here, but I see this a lot and it bugs me to no
> end:
> >      the use of the verb
> >     "complete" as an intransitive verb. AAAAACK! According to every
dictionary
> >     I've ever looked in,
> >     "complete" is a transitive verb, meaning it requires a direct object. To
> >     say a "print job cannot
> >     complete" is incorrect use of the word. And while I dislike
passive voice
> >     as much as the
> >     next writer, a print job "is completed!"
> >
> >     Any thoughts, arguments, flames, whatever?


> I agree with you in principle.  In this case though, we don't need the
> passive voice.  We could also shorten the sentence just a tad.

> The job is not actually completing itself -- it's the printer doing the work
> --  so we could say, "If the printer cannot complete the job, an error
> message appears in its indicator window" (one would already have pointed out
> that the indicator window is on the front of the printer).  Or keep the
> second half of the sentence as P. has it, and don't worry about the fact
> that "printer" gets two mentions in one sentence.  Whatever's clearer...

> ~Joanna

Is it the "printer" doing the work or the program controlling the
printer?  Is it worth making the distinction?  Isn't this a case where
knowing a bit more about the technical aspects of what's happening is at
least as important as the writing that describes it?

Why in the world would you worry that "printer" gets two (or more) uses in
a single sentence?  With all respect, it doesn't matter how many times a
word is mentioned in a sentence, a paragraph, whatever.  A fellow grad
student teaching rhetoric many years ago insisted that a noun could be
used only once in a sentence or a paragraph, demanding that students come
up with another word meaning the same thing to expand their useful
vocabularies and to add some variety to their writing.  He graded them
poorly if they used X more than once in a sentence or a paragraph.
Rubbish.

If X is the best noun to use, use it. The spirit of your closing is more
useful, that is, "whatever is clearer" is what we should use.  Rules such
as "Don't use a word more than once in a sentence" are a waste of effort
and lugubriously pedantic.