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:Correct Wording for Examples - an ESL's opinion! From:"Peter Ring, PRC" <prc -at- PIP -dot- DKNET -dot- DK> Date:Sat, 23 Nov 1996 14:28:36 +1
Gillian McGarvey wrote:
> Is it correct that we generally shouldn't use abbreviations like
> "e.g." and "i.e." in order to avoid giving the user any extraneaous
> terms that cause the reader to process more info than they must
> already?
and Stephen Victor answered:
> Some consider these abbreviations difficult for non-native
> speakers of English to understand. They might also be a problem for
> translators, who often are themselves not native speakers of
> English. Instead (so the story goes), we should use their full
> English equivalents ("for example" and "that is").
First: If you are writing for "weak readers", avoid abbreviations in
general, and make the sentences as SHORT as possible. Examples:
... xxx, e.g. yyy ... => ... xxx. Example: yyy ...
... xxx, i.e. yyy ... => ... xxx. That is yyy ...
The weak readers are order of magnitude 30-50% of the population even
in countries with a good school system. "Ordinary consumers" should
always be considered "weak readers". The tabloid newspapers are good
examples of what's permissible here, but an order of magnitude 15-20%
of the adult population can't even read the tabloids!
Second: I am a non-native speaker of English, and I do a lot of
translations. I also sometimes have to translate from languages I am
less familiar with (e.g. French or Italian), mainly because it is
the original language of the document I am translating, and the
English or German text I am translating from is inadequate
(ambiguous, looks wrong, ...). So I know the problems!
My attitude is, that if a translator ...
1. DON'T KNOW the most common abbreviations of the language (s)he is
translating from like i.e. and e.g.
and
2. DON'T HAVE a dictionary where it can be looked up,
... (s)he should not at all to do the translation! Am I wrong?
I have checked a number of English-[other language] dictionaries, and
only a .7"x3"x4" Turkish-English/English-Turkish traveller's pocket
dictionary didn't have them. (But of course I haven't checked all
dictionaries in the world!)
Conclusion: For weak readers, avoid abbreviations not used in the
normal language of tabloid press (I'm not talking about the naughty
pages!). And use very short - preferably 1-2 chunck - sentences! For
the translators it doesn't matter!
Greetings from Denmark
Peter Ring
PRC (Peter Ring Consultants)
- specialists in user friendly manuals and audits on manuals.
prc -at- pip -dot- dknet -dot- dk http://www.pip.dknet.dk/~pip323/index.html
- the "User Friendly Manuals" website with links, bibliography, list
