That's an interesting angle that I didn't think of, Ana. I don't think
there's any chance that the documents I write will need to be translated,
but other documents in this department almost certainly will. And, as
Michael said, there are many definitions of both 'over' and 'under' in the
Macquarie dictionary (45 and 29, I think it was, from memory).
[For Michael] If there really are three Lewis's Laws (or more?), can you
tell us about the others?
Regards
Howard
On Fri, 16 Jun 2017 at 6:13 am, Ana Young <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Nothing to do with formality (IMHO) and all to do with problems if the
document if going to be translated (hence the reason behind Simplified
Technical English). Under has more than one meaning and so does over.
Regards,
Ana
On Thursday, 15 June 2017, 21:30, Michael Lewis <mlewis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
I was tempted to say that if you can't recognise pomposity I can't help
you much. But then I remembered Lewis's Third Law of Linguistic Laxity (aka
the law of linguistic atrophy): If you can't say what you mean, you
probably don't know what you mean. Which implies, I think, that you
shouldn't use words that you can't define!
But you are as capable of finding the word in a dictionary as I am, so
let's start with your first comment - that you have difficulty with the
concept of formality. I would want to think of it as a scale, or "cline",
with slangy at one end and pompous at the other; in between, we have
colloquial, chatty, conversational, something for which I don't have a word
but would match a careful but friendly radio broadcast, and then formal.
The last of these is itself a fairly broad category, but could be described
as the kind of language great aunt Matilda might have accepted in the
drawing room. (Compare Jeremy Corbyn's conversational style with Theresa
May's formality, which varies from aggressively formal through stilted to
affectedly pompous.) Also think of the average policeman's discomfort when
being interviewed for the TV news; never use a normal word when you can
think of something that "sounds more impressive".
Part of the challenge in dealing with all of this as a professional
communicator is the need to use a style that respects your reader while
remaining approachable. That's why "audience analysis" is one of the
communicator's fundamental skills.
- Michael
On 15/06/2017 20:52, Howard Silcock wrote:
I think I have a problem with the notion of formality. The same writing
guide I mentioned before frequently says some usage or other should be
avoided in a formal document, but what is it that makes certain documents
formal? I work with another tech writer who seems to think we shouldn't use
many everyday words in a user guide because they're too 'informal'. For
example, he doesn't like to say 'Figure 1 shows the interface as seen on
start-up', because 'show' is 'too informal'. He wants to change it to
'illustrate'. I strongly disagree, in this case partly because
'illustrate' is not a synonym for 'show'. (It means 'provide an example of'
and I'm not giving an example, just depicting what is there.) But also I
can't see what's wrong with 'show' anyway. The books I most like to read
when I'm learning how to use software are all written very chattily -
what's wrong with that? - so I like to write that way. But I do know that
some people like to avoid using contractions in user guides, and so I avoid
them when I think that's the case, but would prefer not to. And I
definitely resist changing my vocabulary significantly. I would like the
style guide to tell me what documents are the 'formal' ones, but I know
they won't. Where's the line between formality and pomposity, Michael?
Howard
On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 at 5:30 pm, Michael Lewis <mlewis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Depends on what you mean by "too informal". An age is something one can
certainly be over or under, as with Howard's unexceptionable examples;
numbers (of count nouns!) not so clearly. Pam Peters is silent on this one,
but the Macquarie Dictionary equates "over" with "in excess of" or "more
than", so it's hard to see what the problem is. However, "more" is
acceptable, even to the most pedantic, with both mass and count nouns;
there isn't the same choice as with "less" and "fewer". Perhaps, though,
part of the problem is the potential for ambiguity between "people over 20"
and "over 20 people". My own view is that "over" can be used with both
types of noun, so why would we argue about "under"? That said, I can
certainly see that "in excess of" has a more formal ring to it than either
"over" or "more than", but frankly that seems a matter of pomposity rather
than of ordinary formality.
- Michael
On 15/06/2017 14:22, Howard Silcock wrote:
Seems this list hasn't quite gone to ground (or been gonetogrounded?), so
I'll raise another question.
The writing style guide for the department where I'm working tells us not
to use 'over' instead of 'more than' in phrases like 'over 20 people' and
similarly not to say 'under 20 people' instead of 'fewer than'. This seems
ridiculous to me - phrases like 'the over-60s' and 'children under 12' are
perfectly ordinary usage, not even slang. But my wife agrees with the style
guide that these are 'too informal'.
What do you think?
Howard
On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 at 1:21 pm, John Maizels <john@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I'm with Michael, even though I didn't have anything rationed.
When I see "a software" my first thought is that there's a missing noun,
as in "a software title". I have trouble considering software as a count
noun, but I do like Michael's explanation as to why non E1L speakers (and
especially those from Asia) might treat it as a count noun.
As for the other, I'm on the way to onboard a room full of students.
Seems natural enough.
John
At 13:09 15/06/2017, Michael Lewis wrote:
Indeed. (As a child of the rationing era, I remember it quite well.) But
the term has now acquired the meaning of a dealing "out of sight" of
authorities of any kind, including the tax man - and the anti-corruption
watchdogs. (There's another term that has taken on a new life!) "Under the
counter" is used often enough - at least in England, though perhaps it's
less common here - that it doesn't need a revival.
- Michael
On 15/06/2017 12:59, Bob T wrote:
Michael,
I though that the phrase 'under the counter' was a rather old phrase from
Britain that describes retailing during WW2 when rationing was being used.
One way to get around rations was to have some goods under counter and out
of sight.Â
Maybe it will have a revival.
Bob T
On 15 June 2017 at 11:08, Michael Lewis <mlewis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Treating "software" as a count noun rather than a mass noun is, indeed,
common to non-native speakers. There are many comparable examples,
including one I mentioned a while back - "pant" having become a singular
noun in quite widespread usage, because "a pair of pants" seems to refer to
those generous tailors (no "Y" there, Janet!) who sell a suit with a single
jacket and a second pair of trews. The mass/count noun distinction really
doesn't exist in many east Asian languages, especially those that don't
have "articles" such as a/an and the, so speakers of those languages don't
have the habits of thought that make the distinction seem natural.
As for "onboarding", it's a result of a legitimate process by which new
words enter the language and, having entered, start to behave like other
longer-standing words. Perhaps current political issues will lead to
"underthecountering" in the near future . . .
Michael Lewis
On 15/06/2017 09:51, Janet Taylor wrote:
Where on earth did you see that?
I’m still reeling from ‘onboarding’.
Bye…
From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [
mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>] On Behalf Of Nick Shears
Sent: Thursday, 15 June 2017 8:47 AM
To: Aus Tech Writer ( austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx)
<austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: atw: "A software"?!
Â
Hi Austechies,
I know it’s been quiet here, but perhaps I can change that.
Am I the only person who winces when I see the phrase “a software†?
I tend to use “software†, “a software package†, or “an app†.
I know that language evolves, and “a software†may become standard, but
for now it reads as if English is not the writer’s native language.
Am I alone?
Cheers,
Nick
[image: []]
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
Virus-free.
www.avg.com
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
<https://mg.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.rand=a7umml7fusdig#m_-5902649200674592149_m_-7030610363047120287_m_-6403303840161634912_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
--
Bob Trussler
*John P Maizels* FSMPTE
Mobile: +61-412-576-888
*Media Versatilist: no problem too complex *SMPTE Governor , Asia
Pacific Region
