Re: Functionality

Subject: Re: Functionality
From: "Dixon, Paul" <Paul -dot- Dixon -at- FMR -dot- COM>
Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 16:12:00 -0400

My position stands. I don't know about this. I know it's in Webster's
10th. Still, it seems like something that evolved into the language, but I
feel that it only muddies the language, and that we should still try to use
function, functions, or capability. Functionality--Webster's or not--is
technospeak.
----------
From: Technical Writers List; for all Technical Communication issues
To: A207708
Subject: Re: Functionality
Date: Wednesday, May 22, 1996 4:03PM

<<File Attachment: HEADRESTS>>

Paul Dixon replied that functionality is "not a word. People think it is,
but it isn't. Try using function or functions." It is a word, according
to Webster's Collegiate (10th ed.), where it's tacked on to the end of
"functional".



Else Kapitan-White
Schlumberger Hobnailed Marketing Services
(713)275-7563, fax -8545

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post Message: TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU
Get Commands: LISTSERV -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU with "help" in body.
Subscribe: LISTSERV -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU with "signify ETCHER"
Listowner: ejray -at- ionet -dot- net

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post Message: TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU
Get Commands: LISTSERV -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU with "help" in body.
Unsubscribe: LISTSERV -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU with "signoff TECHWR-L"
Listowner: ejray -at- ionet -dot- net


Previous by Author: Re: Functionality
Next by Author: Re: Using the MS logo in your manual
Previous by Thread: Re: Functionality
Next by Thread: Re: Functionality


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

Sponsored Ads


Sponsored Ads