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.
On May 23, 9:33am, David Jones/KSBEISD wrote:
> Subject: Re: Functionality
> Forgive me (my OED is at home), but when was the last time the OED and its
> Supplement were updated? I find the OED great for the history of a word,
> not that useful when it comes to modern usage or recent words. I would
> it not as "definitive" but as "exhaustive but dated."
> To: TECHWR-L @ LISTSERV.OKSTATE.EDU
> From: bygravem @ INTUITIVE.CO.UK (Mike Bygrave) @ Internet @ DATAHUB
> Date: 05/23/96 09:31:26 AM
> Subject: Re: Functionality
> Sue proposed that:
> >> It *is* a word, and is listed in my Webster's under "functional."
> You may (or may not) be interested to find that 'functionality' is not
> mentioned in the Oxford English Dictionary. Does this mean that it is
> acceptable in American English but not in English? After all, you can't get
> much more definitive in terms of the English language than the OED.
Methought [and trust me, having had to live most of my life in two former
British colonies spelling words with "-our" and then having a *Britisher*, no
less, fly out thousands of miles to Pakistan to tell me (among other things)
that he wanted the new version of the manual to have American spellings and
terminology ("-or" all the way and Function Modelling instead of Process
Modelling and ... notice that I still forget the comma before the "and" at
times?), me has had to do a lot of thinking in this regard] I find it hard to
digest that there is still any doubt that The Queen's English and American
English do not have things not-in-common, so to speak. I thought Noah Webster
settled that -- or was it Miriam ...? After all, isn't that the original
raison d'etre of Webster's? I think the foreword or preface or something to
the original edition says something like "... to provide a record for ... how
the language is spoken ..." Does someone have the tome at hand?
2209 15th Street ashrafs -at- rpi -dot- edu
Troy, NY 12180 www.rpi.edu/~ashrafs
(518) 274 9562
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