Setting manually?

Subject: Setting manually?
From: "Geoff Hart (by way of \"Eric J. Ray\" <ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com>)" <ght -at- MTL -dot- FERIC -dot- CA>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 08:39:53 -0700

John Posada wondered about <<When the new XXX is manually set [is
set manually?], a single XXX must be taken out of service, then put
back in service to trigger ...>>

I don't think there's any actual difference in meaning whatsoever,
and though there are guidelines (not rules) in English on where to
place the modifier (the adverb "manually"), the only important rule
in most cases is to ensure that it's obvious which word is being
modified. Here, it's obvious, so go with whichever version "tastes"
better.

I do have some concern about the passive voice, though. If you really
want to camouflage the setter (or if it's not relevant), then I'd say
"has been manually set" (i.e., the condition exists, and we don't
care who did the setting). However, even if you use passive voice
there, I'd much prefer (speaking as reader, not editor) to know just
who must take the XX out of service. Perhaps: "When the new XXX has
been manually set, _you_ must.... and then..." or some similar
wording that provides the necessary missing info.?
--Geoff Hart @8^{)}
geoff-h -at- mtl -dot- feric -dot- ca

"By God, for a moment there it all made sense!"--Gahan Wilson

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




Previous by Author: Document numbering?
Next by Author: Handling ranges of negative numbers
Previous by Thread: Re: ADA guidelines for website design
Next by Thread: Fed up with Eric's Rules


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


Sponsored Ads