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.
I guess I did come across sounding like the Grammar Police, which you did
not. Yes, I do find the incessant use of "functionality," "usage," and
others like them annoying. I also find the verbifying of nouns annoying and
try to avoid doing it too much <g>.
However, I must admit that I still aspire to being General Benevolent
Dictator For English On This World And Beyond. Alas, my following is
smaller than Dogbert's
Tom Murrell
Senior Grammatical & Rhetorical Grump, Alliance Data Systems, Inc.
CAD4A - (614)729-4364
Fax: (614)729-4499 mailto:tmurrell -at- alldata -dot- net
> ----------
> From: Cheryle W[SMTP:cjwiese -at- HOTMAIL -dot- COM]
> Reply To: Cheryle W
> Sent: Thursday, August 26, 1999 1:23 PM
> To: TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU
> Subject: Re: Simple Verbiage Question
>
> Hi Tom,
>
> I didn't mean to say that I was upset about the use of functionality.
> Believe me, I am anything BUT the grammar police - those types
> drive me nuts. My beef with the words I mentioned below is
> not that they are *incorrect* but that they are overused to the
> point of becoming annoying. :)
>
> Respectfully,
> Cheryle
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> >>>>Cheryl,
> >I used to get upset with words that seemed made up, but I learned to
> myself
> >about some 'constructs,' but I try to keep it quiet.
> that it is a part of what keeps English a living language. I still
> grumble
> and grouse
>
> >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
>
>
> _______________________________________________________________
> Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com
>
>
> From ??? -at- ??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000=
> =
>
>