atw: Re: Youse
- From: "Terry Dowling" <Terrence.Dowling@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 15:38:20 +0800
Sorry Geoffrey, I didn't understand a lot of what you wrote last time. Virgule?
I don't use words or punctuation marks that are not commonly accepted (new or
old) unless there is a 'good' reason and I would also provide some definition.
As I said, if the words become commonly accepted, I will use them (and they
shouldn't need defining). I don't see a need to speed up the adoption of words
I don't like. If I were to use youse [puke!], I would include both a
pronunciation guide (not like house) and a definition.
I will quote GB Shaw (I think. Possibly O Wilde) who said that all writing
should be didactic. I agree. I usually look up things I don't understand, but I
don't expect others will.
Maybe they won't look up principle, but I'll feel better knowing that the way I
used it is right, and there'll be no justification in the client returning the
document to me as there would be if I got it wrong. Do you want to know how
much time and effort I've had to waste fixing errors like the ones below?
I get the feeling that you and Michael feel that you can write whatever you
like, without the need to conform to standards or styles, as long as it gets
your point across. I cannot. I believe most technical writers can't. In how
many documents for clients or consumers have you used youse?
My work is reviewed internally by at least two people and then by two separate
external groups (that's 'groups', not 'individuals'). They all want to
understand it and they want it to be right. Lives and, of course, dollars could
be at stake. If somone doesn't understand what I've said and I've used commonly
accepted and standard langauge and language structures, and it's right... I
won't be found guilty of negligence. If I use non-standard words, punctuation,
structures... and someone fries themselves on 6,600 Volts, guess what!
>Define "crap".
==
The following is crap when it appears in a manual on how to operate a
multi-million dollar piece of mining equipment. I understand it all, but it
ain't good and it causes rework:
"The following are some of the more usual changes that event [?] a possible
failure:
Oil or grease “Pooling” under motors and gearboxes, indicating leaking
and damaged bearings and seals [leaking bearings?]
Loose electrical fittings, especially things like pushbuttons,
indicator lamps and switches
Cable glands and associated shourouds [what?] working loose or damaged
Cable support systems moving, excessively vibrating or damaged
Electrical cubical [non-standard] doors not closed, locked or of bad
fitting appearance [yep!]
Luminaries [lots of them on board] not working, dirty or damaged
Loose cables, especially earth cables on rail shoes, or attached by
external bolts across modules of the machine"
>I've seen no evidence that Geoffrey wants to move to the lowest common
>denominator. He
>simply acknowledges that language is mutable.
==
I'm paraphrasing, but I believe Geoffrey has said that if it is commonly used
in speech, it is OK to use in writing and there is no 'correct'. Yet, both you
and he have been assiduous in making sure your language is correct/standard.
Why bother? Because it's right! Because it won't get thrown back in your face.
>If word choice is all you are going to think about, you are not going to
>communicate
>effectively. Language is more than words; it's also principles for
>constructing clauses,
>sentences, paragraphs, and texts.
==
So now *you're* saying I have to worry about structure and grammar?! I agree.
>English teachers are precisely those people who perpetuated nonsense like
>"Don't begin a
>sentence with and or but or so", "Don't split an infinitive", "Don't end a
>sentence with a
>preposition". When they call something "incorrect" they are, as Geoffrey says,
>making a
>category mistake.
==
And now you're saying I *don't* need to worry about structure and grammar?!
Some rules are good, some bad. I agree that these add nothing but complexity.
>This whole series of related threads has revealed a tragic problem in a
>community of
>professional users of language. We should not talk about "correct" English; we
>should
>talk about "good" English. And "good" English is not some divinely decreed
>version of
>the language; it is whatever works best in the immediate circumstances. "Good"
>English,
>otherwise (misleadingly) called "plain" English, is simply "appropriate"
>English -
>nothing more, nothing less.
So good English is just "good", not correct? Is it right or wrong to use good
English? Or 'bad' to use bad English, and 'good' to use good English? If I fill
an article with lots of spelling errors, is that 'bad' or 'incorrect'? I know
with the clients I deal with, they'll deem it both and it'll come back to be
fixed.
Give me the money to freeze Lyn and the drugs to keep me alive when she wakes
up 400 years hence. I run away and keep the money. And, yes, though I haven't
read her book, I call her an accurate writer (in our time) and Shakespeare a
good writer (especially in his time). And I know he invented lots of new words
and phrases.
N��{ ay����!¸�z��r�z�(��0���zX���+���r�z�ں�^r +�N�����r��zǧu���Ơz���^r +����z�_�祊�l��0��n�˛���m觶����r��zWp��h�ڮ�N���� ʋ����r���*'z ��ݺ{ �2$ڝ�@�8٨u�
��0��y�b��(����j�-y�p�+^�: �{Zr�azX���f�x������ �֦z���hj�-y�p�+^��f�{ �祊�l��
Other related posts:
