atw: Re: Youse
- From: "Michael Lewis" <Michael.Lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2010 12:45:52 +1100
What is this "Here, here" as a mark of agreement or approbation? I've
seen it quite a lot lately (and I've seen "a lot" instead of "a lot"
quite a lot lately). The term is "Hear, Hear".
Now am I arguing for correctness? No, I'm arguing for adhering to the
most widely accepted conventions. One day, no doubt, "a lot" and "here,
here" will be more widely accepted than "a lot" and "hear, hear". Until
then, we should avoid them.
- Michael Lewis
>>> Ken Randall <kenneth_james_randall@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 2010-02-04 11:49
>>>
Hear, hear (sorry: here,here).
--- On Wed, 3/2/10, Terry Dowling <Terrence.Dowling@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
From: Terry Dowling <Terrence.Dowling@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: atw: Re: Youse
To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Received: Wednesday, 3 February, 2010, 6:38 PM
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‹â{ay«¬µç!¸-z¶«r¯zÈ(¶Œ0ÁúÞzX¬¶Ê+ƒö«r¯zÏÚºË^r+Š×«N‹§²æìr¸›zǧu©ž²Æ
zÚºË^r+Š×«-ê®zË_-祊Ël¢¸0ŠØnžË›±Êâm觶’¹¸Þr×âzWpŠØhºÚ®¢×¬N‰š�¨Ê‹«²æìr¸©¶*'zµ©Ýº{´2$Ú�Õ@È8Ù¨uë
¢Ú0Ãëyéb²Û(®åŠËjë-yÈp®+^-:¢{ZrÛazX¬µ§fŠx¬¶¶-¢»�Ö|zË�ëhjë-yÈp®+^-§fŠ{-祊Ël¢¸
__________________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo!7: Catch-up on your favourite Channel 7 TV shows easily, legally,
and for free at PLUS7. www.tv.yahoo.com.au/plus7
**************************************************
To view the austechwriter archives, go to
www.freelists.org/archives/austechwriter
To unsubscribe, send a message to austechwriter-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
"unsubscribe" in the Subject field (without quotes).
To manage your subscription (e.g., set and unset DIGEST and VACATION modes) go
to www.freelists.org/list/austechwriter
To contact the list administrator, send a message to
austechwriter-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
**************************************************
Other related posts:
