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.
"See" and "Utilize," That Is, and For Example (doggerel)
Subject:"See" and "Utilize," That Is, and For Example (doggerel) From:Melissa Hunter-Kilmer <mhunterk -at- BNA -dot- COM> Date:Wed, 21 Feb 1996 10:13:07 EST
On Tue, 20 Feb 1996, Bill Sullivan <bsullivan -at- SMTPLINK -dot- DELTECPOWER -dot- COM> wrote:
Kent Newton opines: Since our job is to make our subject matter
understandable to the reader, I can't imagine using this form [v. for
vide, or see]. I think I'll stick to "see" and "refer to."
Bill Sullivan chimes: Yes, and make it "that is," not i.e., and "for
example," not e.g. But use PCT, DNA, UPS, and any and all
abbreviations applicable to your discipline or trade, with impunity,
ad nauseam. Does this make sense?
I rhyme:
Exempli gratia, id est, vide,
Q.E.D. and bona fide --
Nobody gets 'em. Why should we
Preserve the ambiguity?
Sure, use PCT and other
Helpful shorts; don't ask your mother.
Possibly explain them first
In the intro, if you durst.
Okay, whirlers, flame away.
I know that you love to play.
Rhyming's not my specialty.
I'll lurk now, ASAP.
Melissa Hunter-Kilmer
mhunterk -at- bna -dot- com
(standard disclaimer)
