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.
Subject:While we're on the topic of words . . . From:Gregory=Kushmerek%AcctgMed%FIN -at- HUMRES-SERVER -dot- NET -dot- TUFTS -dot- EDU Date:Thu, 3 Feb 1994 09:07:57 EST
This is more a peeve than anything else: does anyone feel as I
do about the word "pro-active?"
I don't like that word; it's redundant for one, and the people I see
use it are usually trying to sound more important than they really
are.
After all, doesn't the use of "pro" in front of "active" somehow
assume that "active" does convey its meaning well enough? Does
this mean that by saying "I'm taking an active stance," someone
may think I'm sitting on my butt?
Shouldn't a user of 'pro-active' use 're-pro-active' as its antonym?
Just using 'reactive' may not be clear enough!
