Re: usage: detail(ed) design

[Betsy Maaks <bmaaks -at- FRAME -dot- COM>]

At 07:57 7/21/95 EDT, you wrote:
>A few of my authors are disagreeing on whether to say "detail design" or
>"detailed design."  Before working at this company, all the authors I worked
>with called it a "detailed design."  There are a few here who choose to omit
>the "ed."  I have been asked to give my "expert" editorial opinion (uh-oh)
>and back up my opinion with sources.  I have three computer dictionaries,
>none of which mention this kind of design.  So far, I can only go by the
>dictionary, Webster's 10th.  I would choose "detailed"  because it is acting
>as an adjective, but I would like your opinions and, if possible, sources.

I agree. This is not a computer term problem, but *grammar*. I lament that
it seems like grammar is being abandoned for "whatever *sounds* right," and
that whatever is spoken colloquially must be good grammar. I believe you are
correct that "detailed" is a past participle used as an adjective. I would
say that a "detail design" is a design of a detail, as in "car design."

Thanks for challenging this "detail" ;-/ of grammar with the authors at your
location. And maybe suggest they review their English grammar so the readers
of their documents are given correct language. Better yet, do I hear any
cheers for a good editor, who monitors poor use of language? (that's another
lament: companies do not hire editors and expect that all tech writers know
English grammar through and through. I think your example points out that
many do not).

Thanks, too, for letting me vent. Go in good grammar!

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are strickly my own.
****************************************************************
    Betsy Maaks          +         Frame Technology Corp.
   312-266-3208          +         Advanced Products
 bmaaks -at- frame -dot- com        +         441 W. Huron Street
                         +         Chicago, IL  60610

****************************************************************