Re: Use v. utilize (was Re: Simple Verbiage Question)

[LDurway -at- PAV -dot- COM]

I have no problem with excellent writing in technical manuals. I sometimes
knowingly write beyond the sensitivity of my audience simply because I feel
like it.  I think the problem arises when you use some subtle linguistic
distinction to carry important technical data that is not also present in a
more accessible form.  The best example I can come up with immediately is
this:

The words "consequently" and "subsequently" might pass for synonyms among
the uninitiated, but we know better.  So would you use "subsequently" in a
context where the uninitiated reader, thinking you mean "consequently,"
could make a serious mistake?  No--you're a nice writer & know better than
to lead your reader into such folly.  You could supply redundant text
clarifying the "subsequent" idea, but then you negate the whole thing.
Consider a slightly different situation:  you use the word "subsequent"
appropriately but in a context where confusion with "consequent" won't cause
any problems.  This situation is better because you don't have to introduce
clarifying redundancies; nevertheless, the distinction between "sub~" and
"con~" becomes irrelevant, leaving you with the artless employment of an
oddball word that you didn't really need in the first place.

I read somewhere that Twain said that if you find you've written a
particularly brilliant sentence, you should strike it immediately;
otherwise, you end up writing all your other sentences to accommodate it,
and it ruins the whole piece.

I've occasionally allowed clever writing to remain--tidbits kind of like the
Easter eggs that programmers sometimes hide in their code.

Gee, did I really cover tunable kernel parameters completely in iambic
pentameter?

Lindsey

> -----Original Message-----
> "What good are nuances if the reader doesn't appreciate them?"  I think
> doing the right thing need not depend on who is watching.  If, as I hope,
> we
> have all had some training in the language, I can hope also that we have
> each developed some appreciation for both its subtleties and its nuances.
>
> I guess to simplify what could become a long self-righteous rant, I would
> say that it's important because, as writers, we help define the correct
> use
> of language.  And because we're professionals, we should uphold some
> professional standards.  We are as responsible for the care and feeding of
> the language as crusty English professors and editors of dictionaries.
>
> Tom Murrell
> Senior Grammatical Protector & Defender Of The Faith
>

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