TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:Re: Computers aren't hammers (more on passives) From:Richard Sobocinski <"Richard_G_Sobocinski%~WHC207"@CCMAIL.PNL.GOV> Date:Tue, 24 May 1994 07:43:00 -0700
Richard Burnham writes:
On a related point, one of my clients has a style guide that
prohibits the use of modal verbs (can, may, should etc.) Now, I
appreciate that they often introduce ambiguity, especially "may"
and "should", but do other readers think that modal verbs should
be banned altogether? I actually *like* the word "can" where it
is unambiguous, with its suggestion of "empowerment" (vogue
word) of the user:
...
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
I prefer style guides that "discourage" rather than outright
prohibit. In my industry, the ambiguities are wrung out by
providing clear definitions. The word "should" is
discouraged and "shall" is defined to mean *requirement*.
