Re: I need help with Functionality versus Function ; Plus

[David Dvorkin <DDvorkin -at- FRXSOFT -dot- COM>]

In this discussion, Mark made this the issue.

Note that I didn't say that any new word or grammatical error that
becomes widespread should be adopted by writers.

The errors you listed are grating and all too common, but
fortunately they're not usages specific to an industry, and
they didn't arise to fill an existing need.

"Functionality" is one of those coinages that appeared and spread
because it did satisfy a need.  When it's used the way I described
(to mean the set of all functions performed by an application),
it's not equivalent to "function".  It's useful, even necessary, in
documentation.



David Dvorkin
FRx Software Corporation
mailto:ddvorkin -at- frxsoft -dot- com
(303) 741-8280

> ----------
> From:         Porrello, Leonard[SMTP:Leonard -dot- Porrello -at- TANDEM -dot- COM]
> Sent:         Wednesday, July 15, 1998 10:18 AM
> To:   TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU
> Subject:      I need help with Functionality versus Function ; Plus
>
> > 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
>