RE: Wrong? Poor style? OK?

Subject: RE: Wrong? Poor style? OK?
From: Fred Ridder <docudoc -at- hotmail -dot- com>
To: <maker -at- verizon -dot- net>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 10:17:18 -0400

> > Does this sentence violate a grammatical principle, is it stylistically
> > poor, or is it OK, in your opinion:
> >
> > "There are two ways to control how test results are saved."
> What about
> "There are two ways to save test results." ?

Some of the discussion on this thread has been interesting (and some has been somewhat over the top), but what everybody has been missing so far is that none of the proposed alternatives actually say what the original did. All the alternatives have focused on two ways of saving test results, while the original wording refers to two different *means of controlling* how the results are saved. A common scenario that is consistent with the original wording is an application that supports both GUI and command-line interfaces to the save operation. It's possible that the "ways to save the test results" could actually encompass a dozen or more permutations of media/location, file type, and results filtering. All we know from the original sentence without any surrounding context is that there are two ways *of controlling* whatever save options actually exist.

Now it may be that the original statement is actually incorrect, and really was supposed to say that exactly two ways of saving results existing. But we don't know that for sure (without querying an SME or trying the application first-hand) and must therefore be very careful about changing its meaning when rewording to make it sound better. Accuracy has to be a higher priority than producing pretty (or punchy) prose.

-Fred Ridder

ComponentOne Doc-To-Help 2009 is your all-in-one authoring and publishing
solution. Author in Doc-To-Help's XML-based editor, Microsoft Word or
HTML and publish to the Web, Help systems or printed manuals.

Help & Manual 5: The complete help authoring tool for individual
authors and teams. Professional power, intuitive interface. Write
once, publish to 8 formats. Multi-user authoring and version control!

You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as archive -at- web -dot- techwr-l -dot- com -dot-

To unsubscribe send a blank email to
techwr-l-unsubscribe -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
or visit

To subscribe, send a blank email to techwr-l-join -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com

Send administrative questions to admin -at- techwr-l -dot- com -dot- Visit for more resources and info.

Please move off-topic discussions to the Chat list, at:

Wrong? Poor style? OK?: From: Nancy Allison
Re: Wrong? Poor style? OK?: From: voxwoman

Previous by Author: Re: Grammar question‏ (was RE: TECHWR-L Digest, Vol 41, Issue 18)
Next by Author: RE: George Hayhoe, a rant, and a resignation
Previous by Thread: Re: Wrong? Poor style? OK?
Next by Thread: Re: Wrong? Poor style? OK?

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads