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: Re. more on jargon From:"Cheverie, Paul [Cont]" <paul -dot- cheverie -at- CANADA -dot- CDEV -dot- COM> Date:Thu, 31 Aug 1995 18:42:00 EDT
Sorry to carry on the thread - but it ain't quite dead yet and I figure I'll
hit it one more time to make sure of it. 8>] <grin>
----------
Geoff wrote: Jargon of type 1 is great: it's explicit, concise
and unlikely to offend anyone if your audience
comprises members of the profession. This is a
simple case of using the right word for the right
job. Jargon of type 2 is pedantic and confusing.
Avoid! So to summarize, I proposed that type 1
jargon is acceptable and perhaps even helpful.
I agree, but I really don't like using the term jargon for acceptable
terminology. I can't find anything to back me up on this except my own
personal preference, but it seems a little confusing to have two different
classifications of jargon. Why not just define jargon as Geoff's type 2
jargon and refer to Geoff's type 1 jargon as acceptable technical
terminology.
