Re. more on jargon

Subject: Re. more on jargon
From: Geoff Hart <geoff-h -at- MTL -dot- FERIC -dot- CA>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 1995 13:14:31 LCL

Paul Cheverie notes, correctly, that I used bad
jargon by not defining what I meant by jargon.
<grin> There are two broadly accepted meanings:

1. Terminology broadly understood within a field
or context, by members of a profession etc.
2. Words intended to confuse or sound
sophisticated, and not generally well understood
even within a field (let alone outside the field).

Jargon of type 1 is great: it's explicit, concise
and unlikely to offend anyone if your audience
comprises members of the profession. This is a
simple case of using the right word for the right
job. Jargon of type 2 is pedantic and confusing.
Avoid! So to summarize, I proposed that type 1
jargon is acceptable and perhaps even helpful.

--Geoff Hart @8^{)}
geoff-h -at- mtl -dot- feric -dot- ca

Disclaimer: If I didn't commit it in print in one of
our reports, it don't represent FERIC's opinion.


Previous by Author: Re. PageMaker vs. Word
Next by Author: STC Technical Pubs Competition Judging Guidelines
Previous by Thread: Re. PageMaker vs. Word
Next by Thread: Re: Re. more on jargon


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


Sponsored Ads