RE: Semantic(s)

Subject: RE: Semantic(s)
From: "Boudreaux, Madelyn (GE Healthcare, consultant)" <MadelynBoudreaux -at- ge -dot- com>
To: "Dana Worley" <dana -at- campbellsci -dot- com>, <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com>
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 15:17:16 -0400

Dana Worley wrote:

>On Thursday, March 18, 2010, Boudreaux, Madelyn (GE Health wrote:
>> But doesn't it mean arguable in the sense that it's only arguable by
>> people with nothing better to do, is purely academic, not worth
>> bothering with, etc?
>Not really. Historically, a moot discussion in a court of law was a
>mock court or hypothetical case. You *could* argue they had nothing
>better to do :) But as an adjective a moot point means it is open
>for discussion or debate, and as a verb, to moot a point is to present
>the point for discussion.
>And then there's also the definition of being of little practical

Right, I know about moot in the mock court sense, which would fall under
"purely academic" (itself a rather pejorative term and open to
interpretation depending on context). I see a vague distinction, but no
major difference between what I was saying and what you are saying. When
people use it, they seem to mean "in this context, that point doesn't
matter," which applies the word correctly. It's a nice way of saying, "I
understand that the point you're making could be important but I am
dismissing it for now." As opposed to "that's beside the point," which
is a nice way of saying "stop trying to change the subject!"

(I'm not arguing that some people might use "moot" to mean something
else, but I don't think I've encountered that, myself. YMMV.)

>My take on it is if you want to avoid ambiguity, don't use moot since
>you could mean the point is arguable or not worth arguing.

I agree completely. Any word that can be taken to have opposite
meanings, depending on context, should be avoided. I will go to my grave
kicking myself for using the wrong terms in conversation and emails; as
least I am pretty good at avoiding them in my work. I get to hear
regular recordings of myself and the number of times I miss-speak
*kills* me and gives me a lot of sympathy for the Joe Bidens and Dan
Qayles of the world.

Madelyn "inflammable" Boudreaux

Use Doc-To-Help's XML-based editor, Microsoft Word, or HTML and
produce desktop, Web, or print deliverables. Just write (or import)
and Doc-To-Help does the rest. Free trial:

Explore CAREER options and paths related to Technical Writing,
learn to create SOFTWARE REQUIREMENTS documents, and
get tips on FUNCTIONAL SPECIFICATION best practices. Free at:

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:

Semantic(s): From: Janet Swisher
Re: Semantic(s): From: Dana Worley
RE: Semantic(s): From: Boudreaux, Madelyn (GE Healthcare, consultant)
RE: Semantic(s): From: Dana Worley

Previous by Author: RE: Semantic(s)
Next by Author: Convincing others of your value (was: Metrics in its own thread)
Previous by Thread: RE: Semantic(s)
Next by Thread: Re: Semantic(s)

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

Sponsored Ads