q.v.?

[Geoff Hart <ghart -at- videotron -dot- ca>]

Michael Strickland wondered: <<How do you handle "q.v."?>>

I eliminate it with extreme prejudice and replace it with something the 
average reader can be expected to understand. It's a term that no 
longer has any place outside a literature thesis (even there it's 
probably pretentious and in many cases should actually be cf.) or a 
doctor's instructions to a pharmacist, and given what I've read about 
mangled prescriptions, it probably has no place there either.

<<"And so on" is used in place of "etc.," "for example" in place of 
"e.g.," "that is" in place of "i.e."...>>

All of these are reasonable substitutions for a general audience, and 
probably even for a technical or educated audience. Although the Latin 
is familiar to a reasonable number of readers, you can bet it's 
unfamiliar to a greater number. Moreover, a good half of the authors 
whose works I've edited don't know the difference between i.e. and 
e.g., which makes me less confident than I used to be about continuing 
to use them in my main work, scientific editing.

<<An example with alternative citations in context (from a glossary):
MEDIA ITEM ID
An ID corresponding to a media item (q.v.).  or
An ID corresponding to a media item (which see).  or
An ID corresponding to a media item (see media item).>>

Go with the last one. It's unmistakable as a cross-reference to the 
vast majority of readers. The first is opaque at best, and the second 
begs the question "see what?", which probably isn't a good thing.

<<From a tech writing style perspective, the latter seems like the 
right choice, but it seems superfluous to repeat the term.>.

There's _useless_ redundancy, and there's _useful_ redundancy. The 
latter is a good thing to strive for, as in this case. Of course, were 
this an online document, you could eliminate the "see" entirely by 
replacing the key words with a hyperlink to the definition.

--Geoff Hart   ghart -at- videotron -dot- ca
(try geoffhart -at- mac -dot- com if you don't get a reply)


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

ROBOHELP X5: Featuring Word 2003 support, Content Management, Multi-Author
support, PDF and XML support and much more!
TRY IT TODAY at http://www.macromedia.com/go/techwrl

WEBWORKS FINALDRAFT: New! Document review system for Word and FrameMaker
authors. Automatic browser-based drafts with unlimited reviewers. Full
online discussions -- no Web server needed! http://www.webworks.com/techwr-l 

---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as:
archiver -at- techwr-l -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.