atw: Re: Into Linguistic semantics. [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
- From: "Rod Stuart" <rod.stuart@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 10:19:20 +0900
With all due respect to your lecturer, I would like to recommend the book *The
Executive Memo: A Guide to Persuasive Business
Communications*<http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=764917190&searchurl=isbn%3D0471571717%26nsa%3D1>
(ISBN:
0471571717<http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=764917190&searchurl=isbn%3D0471571717%26nsa%3D1>)
*Sweetnam, Sherry* in which Ms. Sweetnam (the authority by which the grammar
rules in Word is derived) rails against 8-cylinder words where perfectly
good shorter words suffice i.e "utilise" instead of "use" or "orientated"
instead of "oriented".
On 01/03/07, Peter G Martin <peter.martin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Flavia:
On Thu, 1 Mar 2007 10:36:25 +1100, you wrote:
> I have to add my two cents worth here.. usually I'll stay out of all
these
> discussions but as a fairly new techwriter (2yrs 4mths) this reminded me
of
> something back at uni.
> In my functional grammar unit, I remember our lecturer saying that the
words
> 'put' and 'got' were an 'abuse of the English language' and anyone that
used
> them in an essay/report would automatically fail the assignment
That just means you were taught by a linguistic bigot -- just as many of
us were.
These words can hardly be an "abuse" of the English language.... they are
of Anglo-Saxon or Old English origin, which is more than English than most
of
the polysyllabic, Latinate or Frenchified weasel words people usually want
to use
in substitution.
Bigotry in language was developed to a height by the social divisions in
England after the Norman Conquest, when the rulers spoke Latin and French,
and
the "rude" ruled spoke Anglo Saxon. Which is why to this day you're
not supposed
to say or write some four letter words but can talk and write of coition,
intercourse,
faeces, pudenda, etc etc etc .. Snobbish nonsense. Unfortunately,
the bigotry
has lasted nearly 1000 years... with its major (or only) benefit these
days being the
way it allows us to detect pretty quickly who's writing bullshit and who
isn't.
"I write to you on a matter pertaining to .... " erk... but at least
you know
immediately they're coming from The Land of Minimal Communication....
> I write manuals for hardware and software, and I can't say we use the
word
> 'put' in anything. It's just too colloquial, and in my opinion it just
> doesn't sound good, and can have a lot of meanings.
It sounds fine. The problem is only in the (misled) listener.
Talk to your software engineers -- they use put and get operations all the
time.
Lots of words have multiple meanings. :-) Which is why we have context
as a major means of setting meaning.
As for complaints about it being "colloquial" (Latinate term that has
a confusing meaning because it has nothing really to do with an academic
colloquy) please keep in mind that like the rest of us, you learnt your
language
as a spoken language, not a written one. Spoken language learning
is generally ruled by simple words ("Mum can I acquire an ice cream ?"
doesn't exactly ring with dramatic truth, does it ?)
If you want to be understood, go for the simpler, shorter, Anglo-Saxon
origin
word whenever you can.
On the other hand, if you care about appearances, (silly though that may
be)
go for the weasel or Latinate alternative every time.
I'm with Don Watson -- it's time to get our language back.
--Peter M
**************************************************
To post a message to austechwriter, send the message to
austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe to austechwriter, send a message to
austechwriter-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with "subscribe" in the Subject field.
To unsubscribe, send a message to austechwriter-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
"unsubscribe" in the Subject field.
To search the austechwriter archives, go to
www.freelists.org/archives/austechwriter
To contact the list administrator, send a message to
austechwriter-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
**************************************************
--
Rod Stuart
1/19 Thrall Street
Innaloo, WA 6018, Australia
(08) 9204 2957
<rod.stuart@xxxxxxxxx>
(042) 813 5605
- Follow-Ups:
- atw: Re: Into Linguistic semantics. [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
- From: Chris Lofting
- References:
- atw: Re: Into Linguistic semantics. [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
- From: Soffici, Flavia
- atw: Re: Into Linguistic semantics. [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
- From: Peter G Martin
Other related posts:
- » atw: Re: Into Linguistic semantics. [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
- » atw: Re: Into Linguistic semantics. [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
- » atw: Re: Into Linguistic semantics. [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
- » atw: Re: Into Linguistic semantics. [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
- » atw: Re: Into Linguistic semantics. [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
- » atw: Re: Into Linguistic semantics. [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
- » atw: Re: Into Linguistic semantics. [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
- » atw: Re: Into Linguistic semantics. [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
- » atw: Re: Into Linguistic semantics. [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
- » atw: Re: Into Linguistic semantics. [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
- » atw: Re: Into Linguistic semantics. [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
- » atw: Re: Into Linguistic semantics. [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
- » atw: Re: Into Linguistic semantics. [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
- » atw: Re: Into Linguistic semantics. [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
- » atw: Re: Into Linguistic semantics. [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
- » atw: Re: Into Linguistic semantics. [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
- » atw: Re: Into Linguistic semantics. [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
- » atw: Re: Into Linguistic semantics. [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
- » atw: Re: Into Linguistic semantics. [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Flavia:
On Thu, 1 Mar 2007 10:36:25 +1100, you wrote:
> I have to add my two cents worth here.. usually I'll stay out of all
these
> discussions but as a fairly new techwriter (2yrs 4mths) this reminded me
of
> something back at uni.
> In my functional grammar unit, I remember our lecturer saying that the
words
> 'put' and 'got' were an 'abuse of the English language' and anyone that
used
> them in an essay/report would automatically fail the assignment
That just means you were taught by a linguistic bigot -- just as many of
us were.
These words can hardly be an "abuse" of the English language.... they are
of Anglo-Saxon or Old English origin, which is more than English than most
of
the polysyllabic, Latinate or Frenchified weasel words people usually want
to use
in substitution.
Bigotry in language was developed to a height by the social divisions in
England after the Norman Conquest, when the rulers spoke Latin and French,
and
the "rude" ruled spoke Anglo Saxon. Which is why to this day you're
not supposed
to say or write some four letter words but can talk and write of coition,
intercourse,
faeces, pudenda, etc etc etc .. Snobbish nonsense. Unfortunately,
the bigotry
has lasted nearly 1000 years... with its major (or only) benefit these
days being the
way it allows us to detect pretty quickly who's writing bullshit and who
isn't.
"I write to you on a matter pertaining to .... " erk... but at least
you know
immediately they're coming from The Land of Minimal Communication....
> I write manuals for hardware and software, and I can't say we use the
word
> 'put' in anything. It's just too colloquial, and in my opinion it just
> doesn't sound good, and can have a lot of meanings.
It sounds fine. The problem is only in the (misled) listener.
Talk to your software engineers -- they use put and get operations all the
time.
Lots of words have multiple meanings. :-) Which is why we have context
as a major means of setting meaning.
As for complaints about it being "colloquial" (Latinate term that has
a confusing meaning because it has nothing really to do with an academic
colloquy) please keep in mind that like the rest of us, you learnt your
language
as a spoken language, not a written one. Spoken language learning
is generally ruled by simple words ("Mum can I acquire an ice cream ?"
doesn't exactly ring with dramatic truth, does it ?)
If you want to be understood, go for the simpler, shorter, Anglo-Saxon
origin
word whenever you can.
On the other hand, if you care about appearances, (silly though that may
be)
go for the weasel or Latinate alternative every time.
I'm with Don Watson -- it's time to get our language back.
--Peter M
**************************************************
To post a message to austechwriter, send the message to
austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe to austechwriter, send a message to
austechwriter-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with "subscribe" in the Subject field.
To unsubscribe, send a message to austechwriter-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
"unsubscribe" in the Subject field.
To search the austechwriter archives, go to
www.freelists.org/archives/austechwriter
To contact the list administrator, send a message to
austechwriter-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
**************************************************
- atw: Re: Into Linguistic semantics. [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
- From: Chris Lofting
- atw: Re: Into Linguistic semantics. [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
- From: Soffici, Flavia
- atw: Re: Into Linguistic semantics. [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
- From: Peter G Martin