Fwd: Importance of grammar?

[Anthony Markatos <tonymar -at- HOTMAIL -dot- COM>]

>Greets!
>
>Hope this helps! Please forward to techwr-l for additional
>commentary; I can't post directly. Thanks!
>--Geoff
>*********
>Tony Markatos reported reading that "numerous studies have shown
>there is no correlation at all between effective technical
>communication and grammar". Poppycock! The red flag in any such
>statement is always the phrase "numerous studies have shown", since
>the phrase is almost never accompanied by literature citations that
>would let you verify the author's assumptions. Usually, the phrase
>simply means that someone is flogging a personal opinion, unsupported
>by any fact.

(Geoff - See my comments at the end of yours   Tony Markatos)

Someone else on this list serve "dug-up" the book.  See the other
postings on this subject.

Note:  That same person said that I took the quote "out of context" -
that after making the mentioned statement, the authors went on to make a
significant case for grammar.  Not true.  They did go on to give some
simple rules of grammar that should be followed (like use imperative
voice and use punctuation consistently).  But the made the point that,
in writing procedures, only a small sub-set of the rules of grammar come
into play.

>At best, this is sloppy writing. It's certainly true that technically
>inaccurate writing that follows a confusing, counterintuitive
>structure and that ignores any of the rules of chunking and
>sequence can undermine even a grammatically correct document. It's
>also true that only editors notice such things as split infinitives
>and ending sentences with prepositions, but that's not at all what
>grammar's about. Grammar is about using the same rules of English
>that everyone else has agreed to use, consciously or otherwise:
>nouns and verbs must be in accord, pronouns must have clear noun
>counterparts, punctuation must follow the accepted norms, and
>sentences must have both a noun and a verb (and usually a few other
>features, but not necessarily). Bad grammar involves ignoring these
>rules, and doing can seriously damage comprehension because you're
>using syntax that nobody else understands.

-- Geoff Hart

Geoff:

Someone else on this listserv "dug-up" the book.  See the other postings
on this thread.

That same person said that I took the quote "out-of-context" - that
after making the mentioned statement, the authors went on to make a
significant case for grammar.  Not true.  They did go on to give some
SIMPLE rules of grammar that should be followed in procedure writing.
But they made the point that, in procedures writing, only a small
sub-set of the rules of grammar are employed.

Lets "get real" on this grammar issue.  Anyone who has written a lot of
procedures knows that only a small sub-set of the rules of grammar are
employed.  And with grammar checkers and administrative assistants ,
grammar is no big deal.

   Tony Markatos



>geoff-h -at- mtl -dot- feric -dot- ca
>
>Hart's corollary to Murphy's law: "Occasionally, things really do work
right."
>


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com