TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Ironically, "concision" is more "elegantly terse" than conciseness.
As for Orwell, he was obviously a visual learner. He also was arguably
reacting to the Victorian penchant for circumlocution. Unfortunately,
the aesthetic problems that plague contemporary verbal communication are
opposite those Orwell was trying to correct. Our culture generally
prefers brief, terse, and pithy to a fault. Some might even say that our
culture is strongly anti-intellectual when it comes belles-lettres.
Nevertheless, perhaps there are other reasons to avoid words like
"concision". Let's try using "concision" in another sentence, alongside
a sentence using "conciseness", and hear how it sounds:
-This thread is not informed by concision.
-This thread is not informed by conciseness.
Seems to me that "conciseness" is clunkier phonetically but doesn't give
pause semantically (as does "concision"). So, if I were writing tech
docs, I would use "conciseness", the cognitively less challenging term.
I assume the cognitive dissonance caused by chunkiness is less
distracting to a reader than the semantic difficulty of "concision". If
I were writing to writers or others that might appreciate colorful
prose, I would use "concision".
I wonder if anyone can explain why "concision" strikes one as more
concise than "conciseness" even though it is somewhat esoteric and
comprises the same number of syllables.
Leonard
-----Original Message-----
From: techwr-l-bounces+leonard -dot- porrello=soleratec -dot- com -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
[mailto:techwr-l-bounces+leonard -dot- porrello=soleratec -dot- com -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- c
om] On Behalf Of Cardimon, Craig
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 9:28 AM
To: Odile Sullivan-Tarazi; Pinkham, Jim
Cc: techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
Subject: RE: Concision?
Being elegantly terse is an art I am still learning.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Odile Sullivan-Tarazi [mailto:odile -at- mindspring -dot- com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 12:22 PM
> To: Pinkham, Jim
> Cc: Odile Sullivan-Tarazi; Cardimon, Craig;
techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
> Subject: RE: Concision?
>
>
> Ah, but context, context is all. There is a time to be terse, pithy,
> bare. And a time to be concise, to convey eloquently with concision.
>
> The writer's ear must always be sensitive to context. The words have
> a sound and a feel, as well as a sense. They have a rhythm.
>
> I was more puzzled, than anything else, to see a perfectly good word
> slashed for no good reason. In your quote below, you will notice
> Anglo-Saxon words mixed with Latinate terms to good effect.
>
>
> Odile
>
>
>
> At 11:01 AM -0500 10/29/08, Pinkham, Jim wrote:
> >I'm sure they do. I'm chuckling now a bit that you're taking this so
> >seriously. No offense.
> >
> >Sorry, but when I read concision, the next word that came to mind was
> >"circumcision," and there, perhaps, I'd go for the Latin formation
and
> >avoid some blunter Anglo-Saxon alternative, if such there be.
> >
> >But, generally, I agree with Orwell: Use words that convey images.
Keep
> >it simple and direct. Use the good, crisp, clear Anglo-Saxon words.
> >Don't seek concision. Be concise. Better yet, be brief. Terse. Pithy.
> >
> >Jim
> >
> >*********************************
> >"If thou wouldst be pungent, be brief. For it is with words as with
> >sunbeams: the more they are condensed, the more they burn." --
Robert
> >Southey.
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Odile Sullivan-Tarazi [mailto:odile -at- mindspring -dot- com]
> >Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 10:45 AM
> >To: Pinkham, Jim
> >Cc: Cardimon, Craig; techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
> >Subject: RE: Concision?
> >
> >
> >But why? It is not archaic. Its meaning in the sense of a cutting
up
> >or off is archaic. Its meaning as the quality or state of being
concise
> >is not. And in AH, the order of those two entries is
> >reversed: concision as the quality or state of being concise is
listed
> >first.
> >
> >The second book I cited, _Style: Toward Clarity and Grace_, is put
out
> >by the University of Chicago Press as part of their guide to writing,
> >editing, and publishing series. These guys know a little something
> >about word choice.
> >
> >
> >Odile
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >At 9:57 AM -0500 10/29/08, Pinkham, Jim wrote:
> >>I think the New Oxford Guide editors should go back to Orwell's
> >>"Politics and the English Language" and dispense with words such as
> >>"concision" altogether. But I have no wish to start a dictionary or
> >>style skirmish. This was, as I said, just a good-natured tweak.
> >>
> >>Best,
> >>Jim
> >>
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: Odile Sullivan-Tarazi [mailto:odile -at- mindspring -dot- com]
> >>Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 9:46 AM
> >>To: Pinkham, Jim
> >>Cc: Cardimon, Craig; techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
> >>Subject: Re: Concision?
> >>
> >>
> >>No, I think he meant "concision," a more precise (and concise) word
> >>than "conciseness."
> >>
> >>See, for instance, _The New Oxford Guide to Writing_ or _Style:
> >>Toward Clarity and Grace, the latter of which devotes an entire
chapter
> >
> >>to concision.
> >>
> >>
> >>Odile
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>At 8:40 AM -0500 10/29/08, Pinkham, Jim wrote:
> >>>"Concision," huh? I thought you meant "conciseness," and I had to
go
> >>>look the two up.
> >>>
> >>>Merriam-Webster dates "concision" back to the 14th century, but its
> >>>first listed rendering is archaic, "a cutting up or off," and then
the
> >
> >>>second rendering, of indeterminate origin, gets at conciseness.
> >>>"Conciseness," on the other hand, dates to around 1590 and has the
> >>>definition I suspect you meant: "marked by brevity of expression or
> >>>statement."
> >>>
> >>>So accurate, brief, clear -- that's what we value. Hmm...and
someone
> >>>just suggested law?? :)
> >>>
> >>>OK, enough tweaking...back to work.
> >>>
> >>>Respectfully,
> >>>Jim
> >>>
> >>>-----Original Message-----
> >>>From: techwr-l-bounces+jim -dot- pinkham=voith -dot- com -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
> >>>[mailto:techwr-l-bounces+jim -dot- pinkham=voith -dot- com -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com]
On
> >>>Behalf Of Cardimon, Craig
> >>>Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 8:15 AM
> >>>To: techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
> >>>Subject: RE: Career transition away from tech writing
> >>>
> >>>> I'm thinking about leaving the field of technical writing and
I'm
> > >very
> >>>
> >>>> interested in learning about the jobs other technical writers
have
> >>>> transitioned to. Project management, training, and user
experience
> >>>seem
> >>>> to be the more common transitions, but are there other areas
you
> >may
> >>>> have ventured into?
> >>>>
> >>>> Thank you.
> >>>
> >>>I would bet this comes up more often than one might think. How
about
> >>any
> >>>field that values concision, clarity, and precision. To these I add
> >>>attention to detail and the ability to organize one's thoughts.
> >>>
> >>>Craig
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
> Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.8.4/1753 - Release Date:
10/29/2008
> 7:45 AM
************************************************************************
*****************************************************************
Information contained in this e-mail transmission is privileged and
confidential. If you are not the intended recipient of this email,
do not read, distribute or reproduce this transmission (including any
attachments). If you have received this e-mail in error, please
immediately notify the sender by telephone or email reply.
************************************************************************
*****************************************************************
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
ComponentOne Doc-To-Help 2009 is your all-in-one authoring and
publishing
solution. Author in Doc-To-Help's XML-based editor, Microsoft Word or
HTML and publish to the Web, Help systems or printed manuals. http://www.doctohelp.com
Help & Manual 5: The complete help authoring tool for individual
authors and teams. Professional power, intuitive interface. Write
once, publish to 8 formats. Multi-user authoring and version control! http://www.helpandmanual.com/
---
You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as
Leonard -dot- Porrello -at- soleratec -dot- com -dot-
ComponentOne Doc-To-Help 2009 is your all-in-one authoring and publishing
solution. Author in Doc-To-Help's XML-based editor, Microsoft Word or
HTML and publish to the Web, Help systems or printed manuals. http://www.doctohelp.com
Help & Manual 5: The complete help authoring tool for individual
authors and teams. Professional power, intuitive interface. Write
once, publish to 8 formats. Multi-user authoring and version control! http://www.helpandmanual.com/
---
You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as archive -at- web -dot- techwr-l -dot- com -dot-
