I confess I like longer headings, and discussion of gerunds brings tears to an old TW's eyes. The all purpose part of speech for all professions - where would trainers and personnel practitioners be without em? BTW has anyone else noticed some of the fancy pants language being used in job ads? They require perfection from the applicants, but often can't even string a proper sentence together.
On 24/05/2009, at 3:07 PM, FreeLists Mailing List Manager wrote:
austechwriter Digest Sat, 23 May 2009 Volume: 07 Issue: 117 In This Issue: Re: Time for another debate? Re: Time for another debate? Re: austechwriter Digest V7 #115 Re: Time for another debate? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 22:32:52 -0700 (PDT) From: Ken Randall <kenneth_james_randall@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: Time for another debate? Gerunds are present participles used as nouns, not nouns taking an "-ing" ending. Gerunds have also been called "verbal nouns" (Oxford English Dictionary,vol. Vi, p. 473). The examples given, "entering" and "using", are also found in the list of chapter titles earlier in the email, where they are used as present participles ("present participle + noun"). Perhaps a good test would be whether there is a gerund whose stem or root is not also a verb. Taking the cases cited, for "entering" there is "to enter", and for "using" there is "to use". The stem or root verb may be archaic, and not used in its own right today. The word "gerund" itself derives from Latin, which presumably also created nouns from parts of verbs. --- On Sat, 23/5/09, Geoffrey Marnell <geoffrey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:From: Geoffrey Marnell <geoffrey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: atw: Time for another debate? To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Received: Saturday, 23 May, 2009, 1:57 PM Hi austechies, This list has gone deadly quiet of late, so how about a new debate? What about one on the format of chapter titles in user guides. Although not universally the practice, it seems that most technical writers (TWs) cannot resist constructing chapter titles in the form {present participle + noun}. For example: Entering bookings Using reports Working with tables The first word in these examples is a present participle (the -ing form of an underlying verb: enter, use and work). Some folk call these introductory words gerunds, but gerunds, although also taking an -ing ending, are formed from nouns, not from verbs. The gerund equivalents of the examples given above are "The entering of bookings", "The using of reports" and so on.) Happily, TWs don't use the excruciating gerund form for chapter titles, but why do we feel the need to include the present participle? Why don't we just call these chapters: Bookings Reports Tables I've asked a couple of senior TWs this question and their view is that an action word in the title makes it clear that the chapter is telling us how to do things, not just giving us facts. But the fact that the entire document is called a user guide or user manual is already telling us that it is primarily about how to do things, namely, using a product. It might have some referential material in it (say, a list of error messages) but such material has a traditional and expected place in a user guide: in the appendixes. Referential material goes into appendixes; procedural material goes into chapters. That's been traditional publishing practice for yonks. No TW following standard practice sandwiches a chapter of referential material between two chapters of procedural material. Hence there doesn't seem to be a need for any special flag in the title of a chapter to tell the reader that this particular chapter is about how to do things. The context, and traditional publishing practice, says it all. So the {present participle + noun} form seems unnecessarily verbose in a user guide. (What does "Working with tables" tell you that "Tables" doesn't?) Further, it forces the TW into either truncated specialisation (calling a chapter "Entering bookings" when it is also about changing, cancelling and printing bookings) or imprecise abstraction (what does "using" or "working with" really mean?: just doing things with?). In a manual that is primarily about how to do things, it seems a waste to keep reminding the reader that a chapter is about how to do things. Moreover, does anyone actually read chapter titles? I doubt if more than a few do. The way a typical user typically uses a user guide is to consult the index and then jump straight to the topic or task they need help with. A chapter title is at most a blur during thumbing. Why, then, do we fuss over something that most uses never read and, for those who do, the meaning would be quite clear without any leading participle or participle phrase? So, is there any logic to our practice of naming chapters in the {present participle + noun} form? Or do we do it simply because we have always done it? Let the games begin. Geoffrey Marnell Principal Consultant Abelard Consulting Pty Ltd T: +61 3 9596 3456 F: +61 3 9596 3625 W: www.abelard.com.auNeed a Holiday? Win a $10,000 Holiday of your choice. Enter now.http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylc=X3oDMTJxN2x2ZmNpBF9zAzIwMjM2MTY2MTMEdG1fZG1lY2gDVGV4dCBMaW5rBHRtX2xuawNVMTEwMzk3NwR0bV9uZXQDWWFob28hBHRtX3BvcwN0YWdsaW5lBHRtX3BwdHkDYXVueg--/SIG=14600t3ni/**http%3A//au.rd.yahoo.com/mail/tagline/creativeholidays/*http%3A//au.docs.yahoo.com/homepageset/%3Fp1=other%26p2=au%26p3=mailtagline ------------------------------ From: "Geoffrey Marnell" <geoffrey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: Time for another debate? Date: Sat, 23 May 2009 17:13:08 +1000You're right Ken. I meant to say that gerunds are nouns derived from verbs:She sings [verb] beautifully > Her singing [gerund] is beautiful. But we do agree, don?t we, that chapter titles of the form "Entering bookings" do not contain a gerund? Cheers Geoffrey Marnell Principal Consultant Abelard Consulting Pty Ltd T: +61 3 9596 3456 F: +61 3 9596 3625 W: www.abelard.com.au -----Original Message----- From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ken Randall Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2009 3:33 PM To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: atw: Re: Time for another debate? Gerunds are present participles used as nouns, not nouns taking an "-ing" ending. Gerunds have also been called "verbal nouns" (Oxford English Dictionary,vol. Vi, p. 473). The examples given, "entering" and "using", are also found in the list of chapter titles earlier in the email, where they are used as present participles ("present participle + noun"). Perhaps a good test would be whether there is a gerund whose stem or root is not also a verb. Taking the cases cited, for "entering" there is "to enter", and for "using" there is "to use". The stem or root verb may be archaic, and not used in its own right today. The word "gerund" itself derives from Latin, which presumably also created nouns from parts of verbs. --- On Sat, 23/5/09, Geoffrey Marnell <geoffrey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:From: Geoffrey Marnell <geoffrey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: atw: Time for another debate? To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Received: Saturday, 23 May, 2009, 1:57 PM Hi austechies, This list has gone deadly quiet of late, so how about a new debate? What about one on the format of chapter titles in user guides. Although not universally the practice, it seems that most technical writers (TWs) cannot resist constructing chapter titles in the form {present participle + noun}. For example: Entering bookings Using reports Working with tables The first word in these examples is a present participle (the -ing form of an underlying verb: enter, use and work). Some folk call these introductory words gerunds, but gerunds, although also taking an -ing ending, are formed from nouns, not from verbs. The gerund equivalents of the examples given above are "The entering of bookings", "The using of reports" and so on.) Happily, TWs don't use the excruciating gerund form for chapter titles, but why do we feel the need to include the present participle? Why don't we just call these chapters: Bookings Reports Tables I've asked a couple of senior TWs this question and their view is that an action word in the title makes it clear that the chapter is telling us how to do things, not just giving us facts. But the fact that the entire document is called a user guide or user manual is already telling us that it is primarily about how to do things, namely, using a product. It might have some referential material in it (say, a list of error messages) but such material has a traditional and expected place in a user guide: in the appendixes. Referential material goes into appendixes; procedural material goes into chapters. That's been traditional publishing practice for yonks. No TW following standard practice sandwiches a chapter of referential material between two chapters of procedural material. Hence there doesn't seem to be a need for any special flag in the title of a chapter to tell the reader that this particular chapter is about how to do things. The context, and traditional publishing practice, says it all. So the {present participle + noun} form seems unnecessarily verbose in a user guide. (What does "Working with tables" tell you that "Tables" doesn't?) Further, it forces the TW into either truncated specialisation (calling a chapter "Entering bookings" when it is also about changing, cancelling and printing bookings) or imprecise abstraction (what does "using" or "working with" really mean?: just doing things with?). In a manual that is primarily about how to do things, it seems a waste to keep reminding the reader that a chapter is about how to do things. Moreover, does anyone actually read chapter titles? I doubt if more than a few do. The way a typical user typically uses a user guide is to consult the index and then jump straight to the topic or task they need help with. A chapter title is at most a blur during thumbing. Why, then, do we fuss over something that most uses never read and, for those who do, the meaning would be quite clear without any leading participle or participle phrase? So, is there any logic to our practice of naming chapters in the {present participle + noun} form? Or do we do it simply because we have always done it? Let the games begin. Geoffrey Marnell Principal Consultant Abelard Consulting Pty Ltd T: +61 3 9596 3456 F: +61 3 9596 3625 W: www.abelard.com.auNeed a Holiday? Win a $10,000 Holiday of your choice. Enter now.http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylc=X3oDMTJxN2x2ZmNpBF9zAzIwMjM2MTY2MTMEdG1fZG1 lY2gDVGV4dCBMaW5rBHRtX2xuawNVMTEwMzk3NwR0bV9uZXQDWWFob28hBHRtX3BvcwN0YWdsaW5lBHRtX3BwdHkDYXVueg--/SIG=14600t3ni/**http%3A//au.rd.yahoo.com/mail/ tagline/ creativeholidays/*http%3A//au.docs.yahoo.com/homepageset/%3Fp1=other %26p2=au%26p3=mailtagline ************************************************** To view the austechwriter archives, go to www.freelists.org/archives/austechwriterTo 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 ************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 May 2009 18:39:25 +1000 Subject: Re: austechwriter Digest V7 #115 From: HILCHER <hilcher@xxxxxxxxx> Personally I believe it is dependent on the use of the material.Technical information pertaining to standards etc. are more suitable to notincluding the present participle.I would however believe action material such as training is more suited. Primarily because of the need of the reader (under stress and needing infoNOW). On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 1:58 PM, FreeLists Mailing List Manager < ecartis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:austechwriter Digest Fri, 22 May 2009 Volume: 07 Issue: 115In This Issue: Time for another debate? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Geoffrey Marnell" <geoffrey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: Time for another debate? Date: Sat, 23 May 2009 13:57:45 +1000 Hi austechies,This list has gone deadly quiet of late, so how about a new debate? Whatabout one on the format of chapter titles in user guides.Although not universally the practice, it seems that most technical writers(TWs) cannot resist constructing chapter titles in the form {present participle + noun}. For example: * Entering bookings * Using reports * Working with tablesThe first word in these examples is a present participle (the -ing form of an underlying verb: enter, use and work). Some folk call these introductorywords gerunds, but gerunds, although also taking an -ing ending, are formedfrom nouns, not from verbs. The gerund equivalents of the examples given above are "The entering of bookings", "The using of reports" and so on.)Happily, TWs don't use the excruciating gerund form for chapter titles, but why do we feel the need to include the present participle? Why don't wejust call these chapters: * Bookings * Reports * TablesI've asked a couple of senior TWs this question and their view is that an action word in the title makes it clear that the chapter is telling us howto do things, not just giving us facts. But the fact that the entiredocument is called a user guide or user manual is already telling us thatitis primarily about how to do things, namely, using a product. It might have some referential material in it (say, a list of error messages) but suchmaterial has a traditional and expected place in a user guide: in theappendixes. Referential material goes into appendixes; procedural material goes into chapters. That's been traditional publishing practice for yonks.No TW following standard practice sandwiches a chapter of referentialmaterial between two chapters of procedural material. Hence there doesn't seem to be a need for any special flag in the title of a chapter to tellthereader that this particular chapter is about how to do things. The context,and traditional publishing practice, says it all.So the {present participle + noun} form seems unnecessarily verbose in auser guide. (What does "Working with tables" tell you that "Tables"doesn't?) Further, it forces the TW into either truncated specialisation (calling a chapter "Entering bookings" when it is also about changing,cancelling and printing bookings) or imprecise abstraction (what does"using" or "working with" really mean?: just doing things with?). In a manual that is primarily about how to do things, it seems a waste to keepreminding the reader that a chapter is about how to do things.Moreover, does anyone actually read chapter titles? I doubt if more than a few do. The way a typical user typically uses a user guide is to consulttheindex and then jump straight to the topic or task they need help with. A chapter title is at most a blur during thumbing. Why, then, do we fuss over something that most uses never read and, for those who do, the meaningwould be quite clear without any leading participle or participle phrase?So, is there any logic to our practice of naming chapters in the {present participle + noun} form? Or do we do it simply because we have always doneit? Let the games begin. Geoffrey Marnell Principal Consultant Abelard Consulting Pty Ltd T: +61 3 9596 3456 F: +61 3 9596 3625 W: <http://www.abelard.com.au/> www.abelard.com.au ------------------------------ End of austechwriter Digest V7 #115 ***********************************------------------------------ From: "Geoffrey Marnell" <geoffrey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: Time for another debate? Date: Sun, 24 May 2009 12:20:14 +1000 Hi Caz,I share your distaste for the silly repetitiveness in business writing. It's also common in technical writing: "In [software name] there are five reports you can use to manage a stocktake." Yes, I know it's in [software name].That's what's on the front cover of the guide! And "Table ofContents".Crikey, we don't call the index a Table of Index, so why write "Table of Contents" rather than just Contents? So many wasted words, So muchwasted time, So many wasted resources.But your first point is interesting, and I'd be keen to hear from other austechies on the subject. Except in online help systems, most contents sections rarely go below second-level headings, and few ever go to the level of providing task-based information. Maybe you've been lucky with your user guides and the contents section has taken you straight to what you want. But I'd be surprised if that was a common experience. Suppose, for example. I wanted to learn how to warp type in Photoshop. If I relied on the contents section, I'd first have to flick though the contents looking for a chapter on type (which happens to be on on the fifth page of the version 6 user guide). I then you have to scan the eight entries under "Using Type" for one that seems to have something to do with warping. There isn't a heading thatspecifically mentions warping, so I opt for the section that seems theclosest: "Formatting characters" on page 258. I trudge off to page 258, scanthe seven pages in that section and find nothing on warping text.Information on warping is actually on page 256, in a section called "Working with type layers". I could have discovered that immediately by going to the index and seeing the sub-head "warping type" under the keyword "Type". Goingto the index first would have saved me a lot of time.If having to go to the index is an indication of a poor contents section, asyou suggest, then we would need to radically rethink the purpose of acontents section. It would have to have much more depth than most currently do, so much so that it would have to become more like an index ... in whichcase, why not just use the index?Austechies: when you are searching for specific material in a user guide, or in any non-fiction book, do you prefer to find it in the contents section or the index? (I'm talking here about specific information, not just general information that is not immediately relevant to the task at hand. (How towarp type, not just stuff about type, for instance.) Cheers Geoffrey Marnell Principal Consultant Abelard Consulting Pty Ltd T: +61 3 9596 3456 F: +61 3 9596 3625 W: <http://www.abelard.com.au/> www.abelard.com.au _____ From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Caz.H Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2009 2:34 PM To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: atw: Re: Time for another debate?1. I read the content pages (chapter titles), always. If I have to go to an index to find the information I need from a plain old user manual then they've done a poor job of the titles as well as the chapter content. Theexception is recipe books.2. Yes, the traditional heading form is redundant. Very often not even accurate, as you've noted. One could get quite pedantic (which I'm rather inclined to do) about "using reports", for example, since the guide has yet to be written for instructing anyone on how to "use" reports. At best, user manuals tell people how to generate and present reports. The uses to whichreports are put, or not, is a more mysterious matter.3. I have to confess that I get rather rabid about headings, as used in the wider world of business. For example, when I see "Table of Contents" I tend to start foaming at the mouth. The consequences are much the same when I see a heading such as "Purpose", following by a sentence that begins "Thepurpose of this document ..."; or "Audience" ..."The audience for this document is ... " Arrrrhhhhhhh!See Geoffrey, there are bigger, more mind numbing, fish to fry when it comesto superfluous verbiage in business.User manuals are probably the more innocent party, since most people never look at them again once they walk out of a training room, therefore, thedamage is minimized. C.HOn Sat, May 23, 2009 at 1:57 PM, Geoffrey Marnell <geoffrey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx >wrote: Hi austechies,This list has gone deadly quiet of late, so how about a new debate? Whatabout one on the format of chapter titles in user guides.Although not universally the practice, it seems that most technical writers(TWs) cannot resist constructing chapter titles in the form {present participle + noun}. For example: * Entering bookings * Using reports * Working with tablesThe first word in these examples is a present participle (the -ing form of an underlying verb: enter, use and work). Some folk call these introductory words gerunds, but gerunds, although also taking an -ing ending, are formed from nouns, not from verbs. The gerund equivalents of the examples given above are "The entering of bookings", "The using of reports" and so on.)Happily, TWs don't use the excruciating gerund form for chapter titles, but why do we feel the need to include the present participle? Why don't we justcall these chapters: * Bookings * Reports * TablesI've asked a couple of senior TWs this question and their view is that an action word in the title makes it clear that the chapter is telling us howto do things, not just giving us facts. But the fact that the entiredocument is called a user guide or user manual is already telling us that it is primarily about how to do things, namely, using a product. It might have some referential material in it (say, a list of error messages) but suchmaterial has a traditional and expected place in a user guide: in theappendixes. Referential material goes into appendixes; procedural material goes into chapters. That's been traditional publishing practice for yonks.No TW following standard practice sandwiches a chapter of referentialmaterial between two chapters of procedural material. Hence there doesn't seem to be a need for any special flag in the title of a chapter to tell the reader that this particular chapter is about how to do things. The context,and traditional publishing practice, says it all.So the {present participle + noun} form seems unnecessarily verbose in auser guide. (What does "Working with tables" tell you that "Tables"doesn't?) Further, it forces the TW into either truncated specialisation (calling a chapter "Entering bookings" when it is also about changing,cancelling and printing bookings) or imprecise abstraction (what does "using" or "working with" really mean?: just doing things with?). In amanual that is primarily about how to do things, it seems a waste to keepreminding the reader that a chapter is about how to do things.Moreover, does anyone actually read chapter titles? I doubt if more than a few do. The way a typical user typically uses a user guide is to consult the index and then jump straight to the topic or task they need help with. A chapter title is at most a blur during thumbing. Why, then, do we fuss over something that most uses never read and, for those who do, the meaning wouldbe quite clear without any leading participle or participle phrase?So, is there any logic to our practice of naming chapters in the {present participle + noun} form? Or do we do it simply because we have always doneit? Let the games begin. Geoffrey Marnell Principal Consultant Abelard Consulting Pty Ltd T: +61 3 9596 3456 F: +61 3 9596 3625 W: <http://www.abelard.com.au/> www.abelard.com.au ------------------------------ End of austechwriter Digest V7 #117 ***********************************
************************************************** 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 **************************************************
