Re: Writing

Re: Writing: ">If technical writing (and/or on-line documentation) is becoming more

>colloquial in an attempt to be more easily understood, are editors letting

>mistakes slide? Are there types of documentation wherein editors/employers

>would be less likely to worry about mistakes like these?



Linguists know that no language has rules, merely conventions. What we call

'rules' are actually just mutually acceptable things that we've agreed to do

in common. 'Its' vs. 'it's' is only a common distinction, not natural law.



Thus, editors, especially in an era when 'high' (Latinate) English in

documentation is being gradually replaced by 'low,' or vernacular English,

are in a bind. On the one hand, any good editor wants to preserve the

language as a tool. Who wants chaos in letters? On the other hand,

vernacular is much livelier than Latinate English, more prone to shift and

change. A valid and defensible usage this year becomes next year's

stodginess. For example, I've been using contractions in this message, while

several years ago I'd be brought to book for it. (Notice how I've changed

construction in that last sentence. Is it permissible? Well...)

"