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:Re: 'author' vs. 'write' From:"L. Burnham O'Donald" <lodonald -at- PRIMENET -dot- COM> Date:Wed, 28 May 1997 17:23:31 -0400
Jim Purcell wrote:
> If "to author" is no more than a slightly more general synonym for "to
> write," its only purpose is decorative.
If you start seeing
> a lot of resumes that say things like "Authored corporate Web site" or
> "Authored CBT for fork lift operators," you can conclude that this more
> modern sense of "to author" has arrived.
Jim makes some good points.
I'm confused, though (and this isn't aimed at Jim but at anyone who'd
prefer to use "author" in this context): why "author" for the Web site
or CBT? Why not "create" or "develop"? (I feel like I'm on the
copyediting-l here!). But seriously, these are good, solid, established
words with no confusion.
My own sneaking suspicion is that "author" is one of those words that
someone thinks sounds better and more distinguished than "write". If I
heard someone say they "authored" a Web site I would personally think
they meant they wrote the material that's on it and not that they
necessarily did the ancillary work of getting the Web site up and
running. Same for the CBT.