atw: Re: Tech Writers, Grammar, and the Prescriptive Attitude by Bruce Byfield

I was beginning to worry that we [as TWs] were more concerned about =
setting up firewalls etc.
C'mon people. Did anyone read this? Where's the opinions? Has Bruce =
Byfield got you all bluffed?
This article is totally relavent and yet the thred is suprisingly short.

Hoping to hear more from you.=20

Btw: have a great long w'end!!!

Regards
Nigel


-----Original Message-----
From: Peter G. Martin [mailto:peter.martin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, 1 October 2004 1:37 PM
To: Brian Clarke; austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: atw: Re: Tech Writers, Grammar, and the Prescriptive Attitude
by Bruce Byfield


OK, I'll bite :-)

On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 10:29:17 +1000, Brian Clarke wrote:
> Careful, now. There are several problems with the Bryant piece on
> grammar. Firstly, there is the matter of conflict of interest - he
> is not an unbiased observer - he has a particular ax to grind. He
> has a wish to denigrate the prescriptive and replace it with the
> descriptive approach to grammar. Notice that there was no balanced
> approach in his presentation of these two forms of grammar usage.

I think this means you disagree with his conclusions.=20

This is your right, but if you put it this way, and I disagree with you, =
I=3D
 can
as easily say you have a conflict of interest with a particular ax to
grind.... etc...      Doesn't really advance the argument at all. =20


No balance ?   =20

Well he does say :

That is not to say that taking a descriptive approach to grammar =
means=3D
 writing=20
in the latest slang. Nothing could date a document faster, or be more=3D
 intrusive=20
to a technical manual. Nor does it mean abandoning technical =
vocabularies=3D
 that=20
are known to the audience or that make explanations easier. If anything, =
a=20
descriptive approach demands a much greater awareness of the language =
than a=3D
=20
prescriptive one. Instead of learning the single correct version of the=20
languages, writers who take a descriptive approach need to be=3D
 aware--probably=20
through constant reading--not only of dozens of different versions, but =
of=3D
 how=20
each version is changing.=20
If necessary, writers can use descriptive grammars such as =
journalistic=3D
 style=20
guides to help them.=20




> Secondly, he is a self-confessed poet. This means that he focuses
> on the use of language for emotional expression. I suspect that
> most of our output is intended to be as non-emotional as possible -
> I hesitate to suggest 'objective', because our various
> objectivities may differ. However, emotional expression often
> includes alliterations, elisions, ellipses, misspellings,
> onomatopoeia,  unusual word orders and so on, to achieve particular
> rhymes, rhythms or other effects.
>

Wow !  A bloke confesses to being a poet and suddenly he's a=20
grammar criminal ?    Or disqualified from writing without all these
things ?      A metaphor junky ?   All poets are <fill in the blank>?

A bit tough as a generalisation, I'd suggest... =20


> Thirdly, he is treading on the dangerous ground of suggesting that
> we take 'what is' and let that be our new 'what ought to be'. One
> of the problems with accepting 'what is' is that much of what
> passes for English in some of our potential users/readers is
> confusing, unclear, possibly offensive to some, and
> incomprehensible without generous hand-waving.
>

But see the extract cited above.   You appear somewhat unfair
here. =20


Nevertheless, we agree about the mess sports writers=20
make of participles and the present tense.   But not if you=20
want to single out the ABC.   My observation is that this
habit started with commercial TV new sports writers..

Swans won.   Kicking 5 goals in the final 5 mins.
Lions kicking 2 behinds. Forward line missing frequently.
Present participles predominating. Sentences missing.=20
Past tense seldom appearing. Self screaming abuse
at TV set. Turning off. Drinking more.


-Peter G. Martin,=20
Technical writer, Proxima Technology


**************************************************
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
**************************************************
**************************************************
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: