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.
> Given that [to author] can cover some or all of the activities
> you describe, it doesn't do an accurate job. That makes it
> less than useful.
----------
Weeeellll... at least if we've got 2 words there's an opportunity to
distinguish between them. I think there's a need for the 2 words. I agree that
there's no commonly understood distinction between them at the moment. If it's
true that there is a need for 2 words, then I think a common understanding of
the distinction will emerge in usage quite quickly -- say 5 years. If there
isn't, either 'to author' will die out, or we'll have another shibboleth to
play with.
Today, if I read "Authored Software Design Document" with no indication of why
the 'writer' was saying authored and not wrote, I would be suspicious. But that
doesn't mean that there isn't a real place for 'author' as a verb.
That said, I still have difficulty imagining myself saying (still less writing)
"I authored 4 online procedures manuals" anywhere except in a discussion of the
verb. But the English language has never shown much willingness to limit itself
to what I can imagine.
