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.
Subject:Re: Simple Verbiage Question From:Nancy Smith <smithcds -at- ICI -dot- NET> Date:Thu, 26 Aug 1999 14:24:00 -0400
"Functionality," "utilize" (and various forms of
that word), and "capability" are, to me, appropriate
in marketing literature (and in spoken
communication) but not in technical writing.
The use of less/fewer and that/which are governed by
specific rules of grammar.
But, then, I'm an old fogey!
Nancy
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Technical Writers List; for all Technical
Communication issues
> [mailto:TECHWR-L -at- listserv -dot- okstate -dot- edu]On Behalf Of
Cheryle W
> Sent: Thursday, August 26, 1999 1:24 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
>
>
>
====================================================
==========
> =============
> If it's not about technical communication,
don't post it!
> Send commands to listserv -at- listserv -dot- okstate -dot- edu
(e.g., SIGNOFF
> TECHWR-L)
> Search archives at: http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/archives.htm
> Find additional TECHWR-L resources at
>http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/
> Send all list-related
>
>
