style: Some ideas on General Style
Subject:
Re: Some ideas on General Style
From:
Martin WHEELER ####@####.####
Date:
13 Apr 2002 14:29:12 -0000
Message-Id: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0204131314230.6083-100000@caxton.startext.demon.co.uk>
On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, Tabatha Persad wrote:
> Style Don'ts:
...
> - Sexist or gender specific language
This is a culturally-dependent concept, affecting mainly N. Americans.
Personally I'm proud of my (British) linguistic heritage; have an
excellent reading background in a variety of texts written in English
over the past six centuries, and don't suffer from any sort of semantic
constipation in the language.
My personal attitude is to stick to historic usage (known and
recognised), and eschew late 20th C. fads, experimentation and
uproarious attempts at social engineering. (see Australian Government
Manual of Style recommendations on lexical items such as 'manhole
cover'.)
> - A condescending tone
Again, this is culture-dependent. (See paragraph above.)
British public school education does not necessarily equip one to
communicate effectively with the average Australian outback ocker.
What is considered condescending for one is not for the other.
Etc.
> - Spell check using a common resource
Problematic. No way am I ever going to change my British editing
workstation defaults to accept N. American spelling and punctuation
habits (or default American page print sizes); any more than others
are going to accept British or European norms in the same areas.
All in all, I would suggest that until one flavour of English becomes
acceptable as a global 'lingua anglica', we all continue to use our own
idiolectal versions; and learn to interpret the other varieties we
encounter.
And of course, whatever its origins, good writing will always be read
and reproduced. Bad writing will sink without trace.
Martin
--
Martin Wheeler ####@####.#### gpg key 01269BEB @ the.earth.li
