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.
> ----------
> From: Cheryle W[SMTP:cjwiese -at- HOTMAIL -dot- COM]
> Reply To: Cheryle W
> Sent: Thursday, August 26, 1999 12:50 PM
> To: TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU
> Subject: Re: Simple Verbiage Question
>
> Hi,
>
> Does anyone else get the shivers over the word, "functionality?"
> To me, it is one of those "avoid at all costs" terms like "basically"
> or "really."
>
> That aside, I would go for something simple like "Screen Function"
> and leave it at that.
>
> Good luck,
> Cheryle
>
Cheryl,
I used to get upset with words that seemed made up, but I learned that it is
a part of what keeps English a living language. I still grumble and grouse
to myself about some 'constructs,' but I try to keep it quiet.
What I haven't come to terms with are the seeming death of the word "fewer"
and the misuse of "that" and "which." "Fewer" is a perfectly good word that
no one uses anymore, it seems, not even professional writers (and you know
who you are); everything is "less," even where "fewer" reads easier.
Regarding "that" and "which," I find that even professional writers can
never seem to figure out when to use what.
And then there is "who" and "that." But I better not get started or this
will turn into a rant.
> Tom Murrell
> Senior Technical Writer, Alliance Data Systems, Inc.
> CAD4A - (614)729-4364
> Fax: (614)729-4499
>mailto:tmurrell -at- alldata -dot- net
>
