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: Use of language From:Andrew Woodhouse <awoodhou -at- MPC-UK -dot- COM> Date:Tue, 19 Dec 1995 16:14:05 GMT
Wolf Lahti <wduby -at- techcenter -dot- paccar -dot- com> writes:
> A few subscribers are complaining about the discussion of language on this
> list, one saying that we are 'users' of language, not its definers.
> Everyone who uses language serves to define it. That's how language came to
> be in the first place and how it continues to exist and evolve.
> If you want to simply use language and don't care whether you use it well
> and with elegance--which is what I perceive these 'irrelevant' language
> discussions to be about--then why are you subscribed to a list about tech
> writing? What do you perceive a tech writing list to be about if not use of
> language?
> -------------------------------------------------
> "Those who take this seriously deserve to."
> -- Donna Barr
> -------------------------------------------------
It's one thing to use language well and with eloquence, but quite another to
spend hours pondering the use of words in a TECHNICAL DOCUMENT where:
a) most readers are impervious to nuances
b) the subject matter of *most* tech. documentation (with the possible exception
of creative/games packages) is not suited to rich, metaphoric language - which
is, necessarily, how language evolves (I can explain this further to people if
they want). It doesn't just make the documentation overtly ebulliant, it
actually *harms* its effectiveness.
Anyway, the above is redundant, since the discussions on language on this list
are *NOT* about using elegant language. For the most part they are pedantic
people discussing the "correct" ways to write. Paradoxically, such people are
attempting to standardise a very non-standardised thing!
Lastly, what do I perceive a technical writing list to be about?
documentation systems, electronic/online delivery, writing help text, document
structure...
PS: here's some serious playing with language (by Frank Stevenson
<t22001 -at- cc -dot- ntnu -dot- edu -dot- tw>) - hope he doesn't mind me quoting him!
saint klaus, nicklaus = niko-leos ("conqueror of the people") in greek
st. close (inner sanctum, instant sanka) = st. claws
plastered against sky on insect-antennaed rooftops across Am-ri-ka
pussy-footed fat honky in rubber boots descends smokeless chimneys
while tiny pink cocks poke forth timid heads from stocking tops
and high-voltage-pulsing green tree opens budding cones to infinity
Merry Christmas
Andrew Woodhouse
------------ Technical Writer ------------
U S WEST INTERNATIONAL SYSTEMS GROUP
------------------------------------------
email (work) : andrew -dot- woodhouse -at- isysg -dot- com
email (home) : awoodho -at- ibm -dot- net
------------------------------------------
D I S C L A I M E R
Nothing in this message represents the
views or opinions of U S WEST ISG.
-----------------------------------------