Re: Contractions

Subject: Re: Contractions
From: Heli Roosild <HeliR -at- MSMAILHQ -dot- NETIMAGE -dot- COM>
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 1995 11:12:00 PDT

I have to agree with Dave: When people are reading rapidly, it is all too
easy to miss the meaning behind a contraction--especially with negatives
such as "don't" and "can't". I also wonder if people are as used to
*reading* contractions as their full word counterparts. And as the
literature shows, reading is very much a process of recognizing the visual
patterns of common words--e.g., "is," "will," "not," and so on.

--Heli
=======================
Heli L. Roosild
helir -at- msmailhq -dot- netimage -dot- com

----------
From: TECHWR-L
To: Multiple recipients of list TECHWR-L
Subject: Re: Contractions
Date: Friday, April 07, 1995 7:29AM

Easier to read? I have a real problem with this one. Can you convince
me it is actually easier to read AND UNDERSTAND the following contractions
than their fully-written counterparts?

I'd, you'd, can't, I'll, would've.

Even English-speaking readers would have to spend a little more time
and effort to fully understand what you are writing. Foreign-born
readers may have to ask such questions as: *Don't: is that do not or
donut?* We can not (lack of contraction intentional) afford such
ambiguity in our writing.

For clarity, avoid contractions.

Regards,

Dave Demyan *** Mendem Concord, Inc.
(908) 753-8500 *** One Mountain Blvd.
concord -at- ix -dot- netcom -dot- com *** Warren, NJ 07059
FAX: (908) 754-8224


Previous by Author: Re: Converting Adobe Illustrator
Next by Author: Re: Seeking Xerox Docutech & Kodak Lionheart info
Previous by Thread: Re: Contractions
Next by Thread: Contractions


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

Sponsored Ads


Sponsored Ads