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:Functionality (#699979) From:"Higgins, Lisa R." <eilrh -at- EXCHANGE -dot- WCC -dot- ATT -dot- COM> Date:Thu, 23 May 1996 15:38:00 -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
Linguistically, this stance has no foundation. The suffix *-ity* can be
to many words to create terms that simply haven't existed. It simply
adjective into a noun that pertains to a quality relating to the term's
*Specific* becomes *specificity*. *Tenacious* loses its *-ious* to
*tenacity*, or it retains its adjectival suffix and adds *-ness* to
noun that means the same thing. The language has syntactic rules for
how suffixes may be used. Whether or not this term appears in a popular
dictionary is beside the point if it follows these rules.
The question, as I see it, is "Is there a difference between the word
'function' and the word 'functionality,' or is it just another pompous
long-cut for windbags who don't have anything weighty enough to say that
it doesn't require $6 words to maintain some perception of heft?"
And the ANSWER, IMO, is: The windbag thing.
And to clear up a couple of other points:
1. Dictionaries do not dictate language.
2. Syntactic rules do not dictate how suffices are used. Never have,
3. A native speaker CANNOT unknowingly violate a grammatical rule.
(Except in rare cases of head injury, yadda yadda yadda...)
If you say it as a word, it is a word. If I call you a horkmonkey,
'horkmonkey' is a word just as valid and respectable a word as
'cheeseburger,' 'desk,' or 'doppelganger.'
SO... "Is this a word?" is not a valid question.
"Is this word an elegant and effective way to communicate what I want to
communicate?" is the real question.
Consider accuracy and clarity foremost, and it's not a bad idea to
occasionally make a concession to the constipated proscriptivist types
in your audience whose brains explode when you split an infinitive.
If your audience really really wants the word, for whatever reason--it's
pompous and absurd, and makes them feel like big important grownups; it
really has some distinct meaning that 'function' doesn't accurately
convey; they really like the letter 'y' because it makes them think
about girls--use it. If they don't need or really want it, use something
shorter and clearer.
I use a few approaches when I write to lessen the chance that I increase
readability levels. First, I avoid using terms of French or Latin
when a simple Anglo-Saxon derivative is available. Second, I use
clauses sparingly. Third, when I use a technical term that a reader may
understand, I define it in context or use it in a way that most users
it in context on their own. And fourth, I look at the number of
word with a lot of affixes may complicate communication. Based on these
I determine how to get the cumulative effect I desire.
Yeah. I think that it's unreasonable of us to expect our users to have
assimilated this new French lexicon a scant 930 years after the Norman
If only you guys all knew how to write effective user manuals like my
recent "Dog, Log, and Pig: An Order Entry Guide." I think the caesura
and eye-rhyme really added to the retention factor.
eilrh -at- ei -dot- att -dot- com
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