[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Author Index (this month)][Thread Index (this month)][Top of Archive]

Re: Active verbs (was: Basic Voice)

Subject: Re: Active verbs (was: Basic Voice)
From: Peter Gold <peter -at- highsoft -dot- com>
To: "TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 09:00:13 -0600


So long ago that I've completely forgotten its name, I read a book on technical writing, that succinctly stated Chris' point here, namely that users do things and technical publications shouldn't suggest that users have to obtain permission from a computing system or component - what Chris refers to as "CSF".

I think one issue in this discussion is the difference between the familiar voice of conversation or discussion, vs. a writer's voice in written documentation. It's common in US conversation, to use phrases that include "lets," "enables," etc. I'm not sure other languages have this convention. Written communication, designed for wider audiences than participants in a conversation, has different requirements. This difference is one aspect of evaluating one's audience, especially for written material that will be translated to other languages.

Regards,

Peter Gold
_________________________________________________________________________
KnowHow ProServices division of HighSoft, Inc.
www.knowhowpro.com
Adobe Certified Expert: FrameMaker 7, FrameMaker+SGML Authoring,
Acrobat 5, InDesign 2 WebWorks Professional Certified trainer
Voice: 660-691-0701 Toll-free outside S. F. Bay Area: 800-795-6066
FAX: 650-691-0995

On Thursday, February 13, 2003, at 02:57 AM, Chris wrote:

I have a problem with computers, software, or functions (CSF) that allow or let me do anything. That construct implies there are things the CSF will not allow me to do. Untrue - I am a free agent restricted only by laws of man and nature. To say a CSF grants me permission to do something implies that it has power over me, and insults my humanity. The question is whether the CSF is *able* to do what *I want* it to do... If not, I'll find another tool. I am in control here.

Not only is the construct limiting, insulting, and formally incorrect, it also allows you to use unnecessarily baroque language thereby letting you write things with less precision. (Could you write with less precision if that particular construct didn't allow you to? I wonder...)


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Buy or upgrade to RoboHelp X3 today and receive the WebHelp
Merge Module for FREE ($299 value). RoboHelp X3's all-new
features include conditional text, completely re-engineered
printed documentation output, Context-sensitive Help Toolkit,
single-source layouts, and more!
Order online today at http://www.ehelp.com/techwr-l


---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as:
archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot- Visit
http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.


References:
Re: Active verbs (was: Basic Voice): From: Chris

Previous by Author: Re: 1099 work and employment taxes
Next by Author: Re: Active verbs (was: Basic Voice)
Previous by Thread: Re: Active verbs (was: Basic Voice)
Next by Thread: RE: Active verbs (was: Basic Voice)

[Top of Archive] | [Author Index (this month)] | [Thread Index (this month)]

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads