Re: #3(4) TECHWR-L Digest - ...

Subject: Re: #3(4) TECHWR-L Digest - ...
From: Patrick Duffy <PDUFF -at- AOL -dot- COM>
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 1994 21:33:34 EDT

>>FYI - My original decision to
>>use thru was based on the Department of Defense Technical Writing
>>Style Guide, MIL-HDBK-63038-2 (TM).
>I'd guess "thru" made the military handbook because it takes fewer
>keystrokes to type it (much the way the dreaded "employe" has >been
insidiously working its way into accepted style).

It is pointless to speculate on why the military adopted "thru," as the
decision was undoubtably made by a bunch of guys sitting around a table, on
their brains, many years ago. However, the military has been trying to get
away from military unique spellings over the last few years. For example,
"inclosed" was once used instead of "enclosed" in military correspondence.
As MIL-HDBK-63038-2 has not been updated for about ten years, the old style
is still in use. As a tech manual editor for the Army, I'll accept either
spelling as long as the writer is consistent.


Previous by Author: Re: Bad Manuscripts
Next by Author: Re: Hobbe's Internet timeline
Previous by Thread: Re: Arlen's comments
Next by Thread: MISC> The World Wide Web by E-mail (fwd)

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

Sponsored Ads