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
**************************************************

Other related posts: