Re: Alternative way to say strongly?

Subject: Re: Alternative way to say strongly?
From: "Linda K. Sherman" <linsherm -at- GTE -dot- NET>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 19:12:46 -0400

Scott Holstad wrote:
>
> At 04:51 PM 8/18/98 -0400, Linda K. Sherman wrote:
>
> I disagree, ever so slightly. I think that it's important to qualify our
> statements at times, for a variety of reasons, and therefore "should" is a
> necessary component of our literary tools.

I failed to make myself clear. I wasn't trying to suggest that we should
<g> never use "should" or "strongly recommend." I was just trying to
point out that these are often used in cases where more direct language
is called for. Reading between the lines, I couldn't belp but feel that
this might be one of those cases.

>
> Then again, I spent four years working for a law firm back in the mid-80s,
> so perhaps I've been biased by that, as well as years in academia as
> well.... ;)

That brings up another good point, which is that "should" gets used in
academic writing to avoid the imperative, e.g.: "The results should not
be interpreted..." instead of "Do not interpret the results..." Although
I still think "must" is better here.

"Should" is the conditional of "shall", of course, and I certainly have
no objection to it being used as such: "They should be there by then",
"This should work", etc.

L.
--
Linda K. Sherman <linsherm -at- gte -dot- net>
Computer Consulting Services -- http://www.cti-pro.com
Dysgwch Gymraeg! Learn Welsh! -- http://www.dalati.com

From ??? -at- ??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000=




Previous by Author: Re: Alternative way to say strongly?
Next by Author: Re: FWD: More anecdotal evidence on moonlighting
Previous by Thread: Re: Alternative way to say strongly?
Next by Thread: Re: Alternative way to say strongly?


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:


Sponsored Ads