Re: Squashed egos Now: 400% Longer

Subject: Re: Squashed egos Now: 400% Longer
From: "jane" <judydh -at- total -dot- net>
To: "John Posada" <jposada01 -at- yahoo -dot- com>, "TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com>
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 14:49:03 -0400

Hi all

For some reason today, I'm interested in reaching a consensus on the use of
the word "documentation". It parallels the term "information developer", in
that it's sometimes legitimate but kinda new-speak or managese.

for immediate example:

>similar statements in documentation and we/I may be


I had, not 5 minutes earlier, looked up the word in the dictionary because I
was about to use it when telling a user to look up some information in a
third-party manual. It seems the most legitimate use of the word
"documentation" would be in a scenario such as this:

Mr. Green: "But I just came back from a trip to Venezuela and I brought that
pottery in my luggage"

Officer Black: "It appears to be a relic and of considerable value. The
Venezuelan government would probably not part with it easily. Do you have
documentation supporting its legitimate purchase and export?"


In other words, documentation has a historical significance or it is used as
source material, but not necessarily a body of work intended to convey
context and meaning. Or something like that.

Anyway, I think I'd rather be called the Publications Department. I also
will commit myself to using Manual, Document (without the "-ation"), File,
etc.

Wow, I feel like I'm either wasting time or policing my own use of language.

Thoughts?

Jane





Previous by Author: Thanking people, WAS Squashed egos...
Next by Author: Re: Leggo my eggo
Previous by Thread: Re[2]: Punctuating parentheses
Next by Thread: RE: Squashed egos Now: 400% Longer


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

Sponsored Ads


Sponsored Ads