Re: Contractions

["Susan W. Gallagher" <sgallagher -at- EXPERSOFT -dot- COM>]

At 10:25 AM 3/7/96 EST, Tara Barber wrote:
>Michal Lastman asked:

>> What are the reasons for and against using contractions in technical
>> writing?

>Well, as with most things, it depends on your writing style and your audience.
>But the bottom line is the same as for most things in technical writing.  Use
>it if it adds to comprehension and "flow", and don't if it doesn't.


I agree, totally. Many will caution against contractions if a work is
to be translated. But, if it isn't headed overseas and is informal in
tone, contractions are appropriate.


>In practical terms, however, not all contractions are created equal.  We're
>much more likely to use some contractions (can't, won't, shouldn't, it's) then
>others (you'll, you've, should've, etc.)  Hummm.  Seems like we use more
>negative contractions than positive.  Something Freudian, perhaps?


I, OTOH, am more apt to use positive contractions than negative -- most
commonly: you'll, you're, you've, it's... Somewhere in my deepest darkest
distantest ;-) past, I heard a caution about contracting a negative
because the reader might miss the "n't" and take the statement positively.

In general, if the writing is less that *absolutely* formal and if the
contracted expression is not likely to be misunderstood, go for it.

-Sue Gallagher
sgallagher -at- expersoft -dot- com