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:Re: To Vet or Not to Vet From:"K. Edgcombe" <ke10 -at- CUS -dot- CAM -dot- AC -dot- UK> Date:Tue, 20 Sep 1994 10:22:29 GMT
In article <199409162229 -dot- AA12690 -at- interlock -dot- jci -dot- com>,
<Arlen -dot- P -dot- Walker -at- jci -dot- com> wrote:
>>My manager sent me this e-mail note today about the usage and spelling of
>>the word or abbreviation, "vet". I'm not familiar with it. If anyone can
>>confirm the usage and spelling, I'd appreciate it. Thanks.
It's commonplace in the UK. One of the commonest uses is in
"security vetting" of individuals entering Government service
or taking on Government contracts, but I don't know whether this
is in any sense the original usage (no dictionary handy, sorry).
I have always supposed it came from checking an animal's state
of health.
Anyway, it is used as an ordinary verb, spelt as you spell it,
not treated as an abbreviation. It is informal but not slang,
and would be acceptable in an informal communication but
would be a little unexpected in a printed manual, for instance.
