Re: and/or?

["Raj Machhan" <raj -dot- machhan -at- gmail -dot- com>]

 Yves wrote:

>>We disagree that "Technical writing is a dynamic field [that] is
evolving constantly." Euclid's _Elements of Geometry_, (circa 400 BC)
offers adequate technical writing, and is still used as a model.
Sure, one can add HTML, hypertext links, 3-D graphics, and so on,
but that's the *publishing* that has evolved, the document design,
not the writing per se.>>


Yves:

Thank you for your kind words. It is a pleasure participating in meaningful,
lively debates like this one. Threads like these - sustained by top quality
inputs from Techwhirlers - make TECHWR-L a truly unique space.
Btw, I did some reading on Lyotard and his "Strength of the Weak" argument
and I am impressed with the impeccable logic. Thank you once again for
sharing this with us all.

Before I pen off, I will leave you with an universal truth, a law of nature
that captures the essence of our entire debate.
I am sure you have heard of this: In this world of ours, CHANGE IS THE ONLY
CONSTANT. Dylan captures it best in the song 'Times they are a changin':

"You better learn swimming, or you'll sink like a stone, For the times they
are a changin'.

Change is the sign of life. Stagnation is death. You must have heard of dead
languages. Technical writing is no different.

Best regards,

raj



On 6/27/07, Yves JEAUROND <jingting -at- rogers -dot- com> wrote:
>
> Raj:
>
> Thank you for your kind reply.
> Btw, I also speak French, and there are similar debates in
> that language as well. That is why I knew of Lyotard and wanted
> to share it with such a good participant to the TECHWR-L list.
>
> We disagree that "Technical writing is a dynamic field [that] is
> evolving constantly." Euclid's _Elements of Geometry_, (circa 400 BC)
> offers adequate technical writing, and is still used as a model.
> Sure, one can add HTML, hypertext links, 3-D graphics, and so on,
> but that's the *publishing* that has evolved, the document design,
> not the writing per se. The economy of Euclid's writing
> (proto-minimalism?),
> his use of illustrations and cross-references, survive even in
> translation.
> It is as if Euclid had foreseen localization not only in space, but in
> time as well.
>
> What is this about "not [having] any option but to dive deep
> before forming an opinion."? There are options on many matters.
> Basic English, for example; one does not need to dive any deeper than
> one's high-school English courses.
>
> Take the "and/or" construct, for example. Any competent
> high-school teacher would shoot it down instantly.
> One can't help notice that it is disparaged by Strunk, an
> English teacher, and White, a professional editor, who both come
> from generations when high-school English was serious stuff
> (the early 1900s). I also note that the construct is
> encouraged in military writing. Btw, I was a civilian writer for
> the military for a few years. Let me tell you that the reading
> level of soldiers is usually below that of high-school graduates.
> They cannot see the many problems with the construct and thus
> use it indiscriminately. Strunk and White can see its faults.
> Is that elitism? :-) I think it is common sense to respect
> authorities who--not unlike Euclid--have managed to grasp the
> basics of language.
>
> And for those who insist on "diving deep", there is Lanham's
> wonderful _Handlist of Rhetorical Terms_, that describe all
> manner of figures of speech. Would the "and/or" construct be
> an epexegesis? --An adding of words or phrases to further clarify
> or specify a statement already made? I leave that as an exercise
> for another time :-)
>
> My point is this: I've seen too many efforts on this list to reinvent
> the wheel of basic, high-school English. The futility of that
> can be amusing for a while. When outrageous statements,
> misplaced ingenuity or plain ignorance of 'what English is'
> start to surface, it is no longer amusing; it is reprehensible.
> Fortunately, politeness dictates that if one has nothing good
> to say, then one should say nothing :-)
> --quite the opposite of many posts to the TECHWR-L forum.
>
> Cordially,
>
> YJ
> p.s., Speaking of basic English, the history of publishing, and all that,
> I just saw the wonderful movie Miss Potter
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0482546/
> Cheers.
>
>
> *Raj Machhan <raj -dot- machhan -at- gmail -dot- com>* a écrit :
>
> Yves wrote:
> >Thanks for that. Raj's request sounds like the "Strength of the weak"
> argument
> that Lyotard talks about. :-)>
>
>
> Yves:
>
> Thanks for introducing me to Lyotard and the "Strength of the weak"
> argument. Sounds interesting. :)
> The sole aim of my request concerning the style guide was to arrive at a
> definite conclusion about the usage of "and/or" in technical documentation.
> I thought it would be useful to find out whether we have any other logical
> perspective in support of "and/or".
> Technical writing is a dynamic field and is evolving constantly. Guess we
> do not have any option but to dive deep before forming an opinion.
>
> Regards,
>
> Raj
>
>
> On 6/26/07, Yves JEAUROND <jingting -at- rogers -dot- com> wrote:
> >
> > Mark:
> >
> > Thanks for that. Raj's request sounds like the "Strength of the weak"
> > argument
> > that Lyotard talks about. :-)
> >
> > In a nutshell: (A) if a small man is accused of beating up a dozen
> > large fellows, he could plead legitimately that, not having the strength
> >
> > to do so, he thus could not have. Thus an accusation is shown and made
> > to be implausible.
> > (French: "invraisemblable"). This is the (rhetorical) strength of
> > a weaker man.
> >
> > However (B) if a gang of men are accused of beating up one man,
> > and they plead that, since they had the means, and appearances were
> > against them, it would have been foolish to have even contemplated
> > assaulting the fellow. And thus, they could not have done it.
> > "Error! Aristotle would say. These ruffians are arguing that a plausible
> > accusation is implausible." (Lyotard) They are pleading the
> > strength of the weak position, from a position of strength.
> >
> > Which brings me back to "and/or". Finding style guides that support
> > good semantics is plausible.
> > Are attempts at finding a style guide to support bad semantics
> > similar to those ruffians attempting to make the implausible appear
> > as plausible, as in (B) above?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > YJ
> >
> >
> >
> > *"Mark L. Levinson" <nosnivel -at- netvision -dot- net -dot- il>* a écrit :
> >
> > Raj Machhan wrote:
> > > It would be a great
> > > value addition to this thread if anybody could come up with a style
> > > guide that favors that use of "and/or".
> >
> > I'm not sure any addition to this thread has value
> > any more, but here goes:
> >
> > From _The Handbook of Good English_, by
> > Edward D. Johnson:
> >
> > - quote -
> >
> > and/or a convenient and compact device--
> > it isn't really a word or even a conventional
> > compound-- but a graceless one. It has a place
> > in legal, commercial, and technical writing, in
> > which precision and compactness are more important
> > than grace, but even in such writing it is often
> > unnecessarily used when _or_ alone would carry
> > the meaning. Elsewhere it should be avoided,
> > even though avoiding it may require several
> > additional words.
> >
> > - end quote -
> >
> > In short, as Johnson says elsewhere in the
> > same book, "_And/or_ can be effectively used,
> > but too often it merely camouflages muddy
> > thinking."
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------
> > Mark L. Levinson - nosnivel -at- netvision -dot- net -dot- il
> > ------------------------------------------------
> > Mark discourses to fellow Israeli techwriters in
> > The Why of Style, at http://www.elephant.org.il/
> > ------------------------------------------------
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> > Create HTML or Microsoft Word content and convert to Help file formats
> > or
> > printed documentation. Features include support for Windows Vista & 2007
> >
> > Microsoft Office, team authoring, plus more.
> > http://www.DocToHelp.com/TechwrlList<http://www.doctohelp.com/TechwrlList>
> >
> > True single source, conditional content, PDF export, modular help.
> > Help & Manual is the most powerful authoring tool for technical
> > documentation. Boost your productivity! http://www.helpandmanual.com
> >
> > ---
> > You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as jingting -at- rogers -dot- com -dot- 
> >
> > To unsubscribe send a blank email to
> > techwr-l-unsubscribe -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
> > or visit http://lists.techwr-l.com/mailman/options/techwr-l/jingting%40rogers.com
> >
> >
> >
> > To subscribe, send a blank email to techwr-l-join -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
> >
> > Send administrative questions to admin -at- techwr-l -dot- com -dot-  Visit
> > http://www.techwr-l.com/ for more resources and info.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Create HTML or Microsoft Word content and convert to Help file formats or 
printed documentation. Features include support for Windows Vista & 2007 
Microsoft Office, team authoring, plus more.
http://www.DocToHelp.com/TechwrlList

True single source, conditional content, PDF export, modular help.
Help & Manual is the most powerful authoring tool for technical
documentation. Boost your productivity! http://www.helpandmanual.com

---
You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as archive -at- web -dot- techwr-l -dot- com -dot- 

To unsubscribe send a blank email to 
techwr-l-unsubscribe -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
or visit http://lists.techwr-l.com/mailman/options/techwr-l/archive%40web.techwr-l.com


To subscribe, send a blank email to techwr-l-join -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com

Send administrative questions to admin -at- techwr-l -dot- com -dot-  Visit
http://www.techwr-l.com/ for more resources and info.