ADMIN: Why Isn't Grammar Appropriate for This List?

Subject: ADMIN: Why Isn't Grammar Appropriate for This List?
From: "Eric J. Ray" <ejray -at- RAYCOMM -dot- COM>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 08:46:27 -0600

Gang,

In response to the latest flurry of questions about grammar
discussions on TECHWR-L, here's the listowner's essay on
why it's not appropriate. If you disagree or agree,
contact me offline. This topic isn't open for discussion
on the list at this time.

The one space/two space after a period holy war
(although not purely a grammar question) is a great example
of why I actively discourage most grammatical discussions on the
list. Think about the latest round, then note that:
1) Everyone has opinions.
2) Many people on this forum post their _opinions_ as
though they were fact.
3) Many of these "facts" directly contradict each other.
4) Many people on this list unquestioningly accept the
"right" way to do things, as posted on the list,
as the TRUTH, rather than just another (quite
possibly ill-informed) opinion.
5) Many people cannot rationally discuss issues in which
the beliefs they've held since 9th grade English
class or 10th grade typing class are questioned.
(Search the archives for proof of each of these points.)

Grammar rules are not inviolate--different publishers, writers,
and grammar books follow different rules or different interpretations
of the rules. This doesn't make one set right and the other
wrong; rather, it just shows that language cannot be as
easily pinned down as many would like.

(Thwarting a related argument: The history of language,
linguistics, our roles as "keeper of the language", or
related issues aren't appropriate for TECHWR-L either, for
the reasons cited above. In brief, these discussions shed
far more heat than light and are often convincingly
argued and remarkably ill-informed.)

For proof that I'm right about grammar issues (irony intended),
go find a pile of books, or magazines, or newspapers. (Mix
genres for an easy proof, stick with a single genre for a more
convincing one, pick different books published at different times
from the same publisher for an extremely convincing one.)
Look through your samples for the style bugaboo of your
choice (serial commas are an easy mark, the use of
http:// with URLs is a more relevant and quickly changing
mark, but you can pick your own poison).

Note that some publishers (particularly newspapers) omit
the , before the concluding "and" in a serial list, while
most book publishers include the serial comma. Now,
I don't think anyone on this list would argue that, say,
the Associated Press Style Book is wrong about comma
usage, nor would anyone argue that any of a number of
authoritative references that specify a serial comma are all
wrong.

Similarly, if you look at publications from 2 or 3 years ago,
you'll find that almost all URLs appeared in complete form,
with http:// at the beginning of them. Now, _even in books
within the same series from the same publisher_, the http://
isn't used unless it's absolutely necessary for context or
information.

Each publisher makes individual decisions about the rules--
there are good arguments, given the medium and context,
for each usage of the serial comma, and both are right.
Likewise, two years ago, there was a greater need for
the http:// than there is now (when more people recognize
Web addresses and most browsers fill in the http:// even
if you don't).

So, the rules change and we change with them.

That said, you still want to talk grammar?

First, check the archives because most of these issues have been
done to the death. Second, check the topic summaries at
www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for cogent synopses of many
overdone topics. Third, if you want the latest opinions on
grammar specifically, check out the copyediting list or other
grammar-oriented lists. Fourth, consult grammar references
of your choice before you post anything. Fifth, if you have
a grammar question that has a specifically technical
communication component, make the connection to a
real, specific, technical communication problem
positively, beyond a doubt, crystal clear, and provide
the information you found in your other searches to help
the context of your posting.

My opinion (and it's only an opinion) is to find a style guide,
and grammar book, and dictionary, and other references
that you personally really like. Ask your boss/clients/whoever
if they have a library of references that they want you to follow. If so,
follow them. If not, offer to use yours and write consistently to
them. It's really that simple.

(Look at http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/books.htm for
a long list of reference books.)

Grammar and style isn't about following the
"right" rules; rather, it's about following the rules that
you've decided are appropriate for your audience (and
following them consistently).

Eric
(This has been another installment in the continuing "Listowner
as Jerk, or, Why is Eric so Arbitrary, Anyway?" series of
postings. Thanks to Deb for the inspiration.)


*********************************************************
* Eric J. Ray, ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com, http://www.raycomm.com/
* TECHWR-L Listowner, co-author _Mastering HTML 4.0_
* _HTML 4 for Dummies Quick Reference_, and others.
* See our overhauled Web site at http://www.raycomm.com

From ??? -at- ??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000=




Previous by Author: FWD: Tech Writing Individual Performance Plan/Selling Yourself
Next by Author: Re: Visio drawings into Netscape Composer (longish saga)
Previous by Thread: Re: Electronic Data Conversion
Next by Thread: Italian


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


Sponsored Ads