style: Some ideas on General Style
Subject:
Re: Some ideas on General Style
From:
Tabatha Persad ####@####.####
Date:
13 Apr 2002 15:47:35 -0000
Message-Id: <20020413154708.ZYIT1901.rwcrmhc52.attbi.com@there>
On Saturday 13 April 2002 10:28, Martin WHEELER wrote:
> > - 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'.)
I have seen arguments supporting the use of gender, but can't see how sexist
language would fit in any document. I didn't think only North Americans only
had that problem, but since I'm both Canadian and American and I brought it
up, perhaps it does mostly affect my continent!
> > - 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.
Yes, but would you say it was appropriate to say in your document, for
example, "Even a five year old can do this."? This could imply to the reader
that if things aren't working according to instructions (which hopefully
wouldn't happen!) then the reader must not be too bright. It leaves the
author subject to misinterpretation. That is something that would offend me,
but maybe not someone else.
> > - 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.
Martin, I totally DO understand that! I lived in Canada for most of my life,
so "color" ends up "colour" sometimes still. I suppose I am considering the
translation effort in this statement. I've also seen a lot of open source
author guides out there mention using a common dictionary to spell check
with, so I didn't know this was an issue for some people. I think that so
long as undefined terms are defined (I suppose with the exception of obvious
ones mentioned before), something like this shouldn't be a problem.
> And of course, whatever its origins, good writing will always be read
> and reproduced. Bad writing will sink without trace.
Agreed!
Tabatha
