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.au
Need 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 +1000
You'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.au
Need a Holiday? Win a $10,000 Holiday of your choice. Enter
now.http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylc=X3oDMTJxN2x2ZmNpBF9zAzIwMjM2MTY2MTMEdG1fZG1
lY2gDVGV4dCBMaW5rBHRtX2xuawNVMTEwMzk3NwR0bV9uZXQDWWFob28hBHRtX3BvcwN0YWdsaW5
lBHRtX3BwdHkDYXVueg--/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/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
**************************************************
------------------------------
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 not
including 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 info
NOW).
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:
115
In 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?
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: <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 of
Contents".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 much
wasted 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 that
specifically mentions warping, so I opt for the section that seems the
closest: "Formatting characters" on page 258. I trudge off to page
258, scan
the 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". Going
to 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, as
you suggest, then we would need to radically rethink the purpose of a
contents 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 which
case, 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 to
warp 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. The
exception 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 which
reports 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
"The
purpose 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 comes
to 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,
the
damage is minimized.
C.H
On 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?
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: <http://www.abelard.com.au/> www.abelard.com.au
------------------------------
End of austechwriter Digest V7 #117
***********************************