Re: Against "we"

Subject: Re: Against "we"
From: "Susan W. Gallagher" <sgallagher -at- STARBASECORP -dot- COM>
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 1995 10:57:23 -0700

Jan B writes...


> May I add another point? - I see "should" as a conditional; "must" is an
> imperative. "Should" must include (must include, not should include) the
> conditions under which one "should" ....


In response to LaVonna's response to Mark L...

> > > Rather than "we recommend"
> > > I try to use an imperative, or "you should."
> >
> > Good point. I was thinking about scholarly papers rather
> > than instructional material when I said to use "we recommend"
> > vs. "it is recommended."
> >
Sorry, guys (that's the gender-neutral 'guys' BTW).
On the rare occasions when I find it necessary to
recommend a course of action to the user, I prefer
the direct "we recommend" over "you should" or the
passive "it is recommended that".

The user understands the sentence, it's direct and
straight forward, and it's construction and tone fit
well with the second-person active-voice writing
style I use in the rest of the book.

I've always thought that the conditional overtone of
'should' is something I 'should' avoid in technical
writing -- and if it's only a recommended course of
action, 'must' is too strong.

Just my $.02

Sue Gallagher
sgallagher -at- starbasecorp -dot- com


Previous by Author: Re: Excuse me, but...
Next by Author: Re: Against "we"
Previous by Thread: Re: Against "we"
Next by Thread: Re: Against "we"


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


Sponsored Ads