Grammar, language change, & phobia

[KnoxML1 <KnoxML1 -at- TEOMAIL -dot- JHUAPL -dot- EDU>]

Several people have written that use of "displays" as a verb
is now acceptable in computer documentation. I submit that
there are a couple of problems with jumping on that bandwagon:
In the phrase
      "The framis displays"
on first reading the sentence seems incomplete (the framis displays
what?). Only then comes the realization that the word is being used
in the newer sense as an intransitive verb. You've already distracted
the reader from content for a moment. Further, the standard meaning
(as a mating display) is also there to distract. The fix is simple.
We don't *need* to mangle the language to communicate clearly. Why
not use
   "The framis is displayed"  OR
   "The command {or action] displays the framis"

How often have you heard a new user try to begin learning computers
today, only to give up in frustration because the documentation is
"incomprehensible"? The rapid change in the language to accommodate
computers is part of what makes it so difficult. The words look
familiar but the meanings are elusive. "Display" as an intransitive
verb is *not* yet standard English, understood and accepted by the
entire culture of English speakers. (Hence many dictionaries do not
recognize it, Webster's Collegiate, 10th ed, a new and widely used
dictionary, is just one.)

Communicating with the widest possible audience means respecting the
cultural construct that is grammar. When you ignore it, you risk losing
readers. Yes, language changes, and grammar changes, but should we,
professional communicators, be on the vanguard of that change? Shouldn't
we wait until the language has irrevocably changed and the words are truly
in the general the language before we take advantage of them, in
deference to the readers who may not have adjusted to the change?

We are partly responsible for computer phobia, I believe. We as documenters
have been too ready to adopt the language of the developers (the technical
jargon of the field). English is wonderfully flexible. Shouldn't we use our
language expertise to find the best way to communicate with *all* readers,
not only those already steeped in the jargon of computers?

Sorry about the rant. It's just that there are SO MANY brand-new, nonstandard,
jargony words that readers already must deal with, why use those we can easily
avoid?

A final thought about helping people overcome computer phobia
(not related to grammar): I have found over the years that phobic
types respond very badly to being told it is "really very simple."
(That increases the fear of failure--if they fail now, they must be
_really_ stupid...). Also, if one can't even understand the words in the
documentation, it doesn't seem simple, and so calling things simple
can create hostility and increase resistance. It's better to find some
other way to describe what you are trying to teach. Let them discover
for themselves that it is simple.

Margaret
margaret -dot- knox -at- jhuapl -dot- edu