Re: Word Choices

["Walker, Arlen P" <Arlen -dot- P -dot- Walker -at- JCI -dot- COM>]

      Word choices are not only our stock in trade but our responsibility
      as writers (technical or otherwise). If the terminology of an
      industry needs to be changed, why shouldn't we try?

Because we're only there to make sure the ideas go from one person to
another, not mold their psyches? Because if we insist on using non-standard
terminology, we'll be unemployed and unemployable?

      Many computer terms, coined by folks whose personal literature
      perhaps consisted of comic books and the Sunday funnies, are hardly
      user- friendly.

Oh, yes, I can where you're such a caring, respectful and sensitive person
that your word choices *must* be superior. (Sorry, but by making such a
snide remark you completely invalidate your credentials as arbiter of
verbal
sensitivity.)

      I suppose that if they had had an inkling of how widespread usage of
      these terms would be, they might have given it more thought.

Probably not. In fact, it might be they searched the dictionary and found
that the best description of a processor that always carried out every
instruction passed to it by another processor and never went looking for
work of its own to do was "slave processor."

      Maybe there's some esoteric etymology of which I'm not aware, but for
      example, why would *anyone* want to "finger" anyone else to see who
      they are online?

I don't think it's very esoteric. To "finger" someone is to make their
presence known, to identify them to someone who is looking for them. At
least here in the US it's a quite common usage. (Definition 3 in the
Webster's Ninth I have here.)

      Mark Twain: "The difference between the right word and the wrong word
      is the difference between lightning and lightning bug."

Ol' Sam Clemens had it right again. (Even if you don't. It's wonderfully
ironic that your quote is "almost right," because what he actually wrote
was "...between the right word and the almost right word...") And when an
industry has decided on its terminology, those are by definition the right
words, and any rephrasing of them becomes "almost right."

      I've been battling developers for weeks now about the choice of words
      to describe related documents in one of our products. They want to
      call them "root", "child" and "sibling". Our user base consists of
      middle-aged people with moderate computer skills who are "largely
      distrustful of technology". Do I think they'll be comfortable with
      root, child and sibling documents? Unh-unh. It's become an "over my
      dead body" issue. And I will win.

In this case, you're right. And not because of any unfortunate construction
in the phrasing (though I suspect some of our down-under readers may be
rolling on the floor at the juxtaposition of those three words -- Root,
Child, and Sibling). The problem is the developers are wanting to take
common terms from one arena and use them in another. It's actually the
reverse of the "master/slave" topic, in which some folks are trying to
carry over the unfortunate constructions from one arena into another.

      The power of words is widely acknowledged.

And vastly overrated by most who would proscribe things like
"master/slave." Words exist for no other reason than to give expression to
concepts and activities that exist in reality. If we waved a magic wand and
eliminated all occurrances of master/slave in the language, are any of you
so misguided as to believe that would be enough to end humanity's quest for
power over others? No, all that would happen is other words would be
pressed into service to cover that territory.

      As techwriters, these are the trenches in which we fight. I think
      it's worth it.

All for the Glory of The Cause, eh?. I'm not here to fight with my
audience; I'm here to communicate with them.


Have fun,
Arlen
Chief Managing Director In Charge, Department of Redundancy Department
DNRC 224

Arlen -dot- P -dot- Walker -at- JCI -dot- Com
----------------------------------------------
In God we trust; all others must provide data.
----------------------------------------------
Opinions expressed are mine and mine alone.
If JCI had an opinion on this, they'd hire someone else to deliver it.

 TECHWR-L (Technical Communication) List Information: To send a message
to 2500+ readers, e-mail to TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU -dot-  Send commands
   to LISTSERV -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU (e.g. HELP or SIGNOFF TECHWR-L).
  Search the archives at http://www.documentation.com/  or search and
browse the archives at http://listserv.okstate.edu/archives/techwr-l.html