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: rules From:"Ekstedt, Peter (GP)" <EKSTEDTP -at- ANZ -dot- COM> Date:Fri, 15 Aug 1997 12:28:00 +1000
Marilynne Smith wrote:
>Support the dictionary whose policies you prefer. Different compilers use
>different methods to gather terms. One uses "what are people saying?" as a
>guideline, another uses "what are people saying that is good and
>necessary?" If you want a dictionary that applies some sense and not just
>usage, use an American Heritage dictionary.
This assumes that you have identified an appropriate authority to make
decisions about what is "good" and/or "necessary". Let me guess - a
bunch of university educated, middle class, white, anglo-saxon
protestants? (This is a pretty good description of myself.)
I think that this is a dangerous approach, given the uses to which
are put. They are, for example, used to assess literacy skills in
allowing people like me to define "correct" usage we directly
against writers from other backgrounds. This approach suggests that
skills can be measured by examining how closely a given writer
a particular socio-economic dialect, rather than by examining how
the writer can express meaning to a given audience.
I think that general dictionaries should identify "prestige usage"
defining "correct usage".
Style guides for specific purposes (e.g. technical writing) are probably
matter......but that isn't what we've been discussing.