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.
>the example makes it clear that the subject in this usage is the
>displayer of graphic material, unlike the examples in question where
>the subject is the graphic material itself,
True. However, the intransitive usage extends beyond this example. Some
intransitive usage can dispense of the object (as in this example). Some
can't (as in the example I used). I'm not saying I like it, and I certainly
don't use it. However, it's common usage in many of the documents I've read.
We could argue that the people using it this way are simply ignorant. We
could also argue that it's part of the natural development of language and
that, in this environment, it's acceptable. In any respect, I find it
confusing, so I don't use it.
I tend to believe in Ambrose Bierce's maxim: writers who allow themselves the
latitude of distinction offered by a dictionary are, by defnition, bad
writers. Some usage may be grammatically acceptable but stylistically clumsy.
Oh, the online version of the American Heritage Dictionary isn't available
on the internet (but it IS available on our company network :-). I find that
it doesn't make as many prescriptive as descriptive judgements on definitions.
That feature can be both a boon and a bane.
Bill Burns *
Assm. Technical Writer/Editor * LIBERTY, n. One of imagination's most
Micron Technology, Inc. * precious possessions.
Boise, ID *
WBURNS -at- VAX -dot- MICRON -dot- COM * Ambrose Bierce
