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: Alternative way to say strongly? From:"Linda K. Sherman" <linsherm -at- GTE -dot- NET> Date:Tue, 18 Aug 1998 19:12:46 -0400
Scott Holstad wrote:
>
> At 04:51 PM 8/18/98 -0400, Linda K. Sherman wrote:
>
> I disagree, ever so slightly. I think that it's important to qualify our
> statements at times, for a variety of reasons, and therefore "should" is a
> necessary component of our literary tools.
I failed to make myself clear. I wasn't trying to suggest that we should
<g> never use "should" or "strongly recommend." I was just trying to
point out that these are often used in cases where more direct language
is called for. Reading between the lines, I couldn't belp but feel that
this might be one of those cases.
>
> Then again, I spent four years working for a law firm back in the mid-80s,
> so perhaps I've been biased by that, as well as years in academia as
> well.... ;)
That brings up another good point, which is that "should" gets used in
academic writing to avoid the imperative, e.g.: "The results should not
be interpreted..." instead of "Do not interpret the results..." Although
I still think "must" is better here.
"Should" is the conditional of "shall", of course, and I certainly have
no objection to it being used as such: "They should be there by then",
"This should work", etc.
