atw: Re: Youse
- From: "Neil Maloney" <maloneyn@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 19:20:16 +1100
Working in the aviation industry, I strongly agree with Terry, but do so solely
in relation to those documents I work with. What might seem to be minor errors
in some of those documents could result in a big hole in the ground with
aircraft pieces and bodies around it.
One of my earliest errors when I started working in aviation was changing
"disinsection" (spraying the aircraft cabin to kill insects) to "disinfection".
People still remind of that after many years. At the same time I did that, I
correctly changed "the baton must be used only as a treat" (batons being an
item of security equipment on some aircraft) to "the baton must be used only as
a threat", and I remind the people concerned, in that airline, of that mistake
which I corrected at the same time, as a counter to their leg-pulling. So it's
all good fun, but it's also deadly serious stuff.
People in aviation, at least those I have worked with, are very concerned about
the correct and appropriate use of terms and definitions, and also pick me to
pieces if I make any grammar "mistakes" in my writing (although split
infinitives are not regarded as such). I recently spent a lot of time (on a
technical document that had been translated from French) on whether the word
"rotactor" was correct for a particular component in the aircraft, to the
extent of did the word even exist, and found eventually that it is a computer
input device for the flight deck that does not have an exact equivalent
elsewhere and so the French manufacturer made up a word to describe it. Voila,
it is now a rotactor (which is what some of this thread is about, the creation
of new words).
I also strongly agree with much of what has been said from differing points of
view. We're lacking (or seem to want to be lacking) a situational matrix we can
play battleships with, and when I'm in B12 what I'm saying is of course
different to what I would say / how I would write if I was across the board in
F1. Put your own various industries, target audiences, etc. in the squares of
the board. I occasionally still do software jobs and how I write then is much
more informal than for aviation. I can also use humour in software manuals, but
not in aviation manuals.
What I most strongly agree with is that there are no "correct" answers and no
single way everyone should write, no single group of mutable Rules Of English
that we all need to pin to the wall for the current point-in-time discussion
and then compare each to each how well we are all satisfying the requirements
of those Rules. I would like to believe that each of us is using writing
styles, conventions of grammar, colloquialisms (or not), British / Australian /
American spelling, and so on that suit the requirements of the jobs we find
ourselves in. Either what we are doing is working for us and we are earning
what we need to pay the bills or we are busy going through a string of clients
who will not give us good references and we are busy on our way out of our
occupations.
I've been a lurker in the background of Austechwriter since late 2004, so not
exactly a newcomer. What I've seen over the years is that Austechwriter is a
forum for exchanging ideas and learning from each other's knowledge and
experiences, as well as being used as an informal help desk. Where I've seen
the threads flying thick and fast is where the contributors appear to have a
deep need – perfectly understandable, acceptable and useful – to have their
points of view broadly accepted by this community, which they value. On those
occasions, I struggle to recall even one discussion where everyone agreed!
Neil.
----- Original Message -----
From: Terry Dowling
To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 6:38 PM
Subject: atw: Re: Youse
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!
Other related posts:
