I need help with Functionality versus Function ; Plus

["Porrello, Leonard" <Leonard -dot- Porrello -at- TANDEM -dot- COM>]

> Of course, but is this really the issue. It is the misuse of language that
> most writers feel uncomfortable with. So, I've no problem with
> "functionality" except that it is often used where "function" should be
> used.
>
> It follows from your statement that we should adopt the following popular,
> and therefore arguably expected, conventions:
>
> Let's start using comma-splices.
> Let's start using commas before conjunctions that introduce dependent
> clauses.
> Let's substitute "myself" for "me". For example, "Anyone interested should
> contact myself."
>
> Leonard
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Dvorkin [SMTP:DDvorkin -at- FRXSOFT -dot- COM]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 1998 10:28 AM
> To:   TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU
> Subject:      Re: I need help with Functionality versus Function ; Plus
>
> Writers who refuse to use terminology common in their business
> and expected by those who read their documents are interfering
> with communication, not improving it.
>
>
>
> David Dvorkin
> FRx Software Corporation
> mailto:ddvorkin -at- frxsoft -dot- com
> (303) 741-8280
>
> > ----------
> > From:         Mark Dempsey[SMTP:mxd2 -at- OSI -dot- COM]
> > Sent:         Wednesday, July 15, 1998 9:13 AM
> > To:   TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU
> > Subject:      Re: I need help with Functionality versus Function ;
> > Plus
> >
> > I write documents, not documentation (yes, they're both in the
> > dictionary).
> >
> > I also use (not "utilize") graphic user interfaces, not graphical
> > ones.
> >
> > The Bo-Deedlized "complicationization" of straightforward prose is
> > counter-productive when you're writing instructions.  It may show how
> > cool you are, but I doubt it instructs your customers.
> >
>
> ~
>