Blog Posts - words by kurt

Aspire to inspire

Tip #149: Avoid such that so that you’re more precise

12/15/2016

Recently I’ve been discussing various ways in which precision of language produces more effective technical writing. Two weeks ago I extolled using somewhat instead of some. Last week I examined the word so. This week I’m discussing another such construction — such that.

In precision of language cases, the difference between spoken and written English often plays an important role. Spoken English often introduces informality which more effective technical writing typically avoids.

For example, consider the example sentence in the cropped graphic above. Many writers would think nothing of such a construction. Yet the construction such that is rarely precise. The word such is an adjective which means of this or that kind. Replace the word such in the example sentence with its definition, and you get a very muddled sentence.

The procedure should be simple enough of this and that kind that it can be repeated with little need for correction.

More appropriate than such that is so that. Making this correction to the example sentence produces a much better read.

The procedure should be simple enough so that it can be repeated with little need for correction.

Some writers may argue that replacing so that with so produces a shorter sentence with no loss in clarity. I disagree. Including the conjunction that assures clarity while at the same time providing the formality more effective technical writing demands. Such a construction could be very acceptable in business writing or news copy. But business writing and news copy aren’t technical writing.

Spoken English commonly employs informal constructs. However, more effective technical writing avoids informality. Avoid such that so that you’re more precise. More precise language means a better presentation of your message to your audience, and that will leave them with a better impression of both you and your brands.

Tip #148: Avoid so vague a word as so

12/8/2016

Lately I’ve been addressing precision of language in technical writing. Actually, it’s been a subject of my weekly posts for the last few months. That’s because precision of language in technical writing is a “big ticket item.” Exercising it in your technical writing makes your documents all the more effective.

Two weeks ago I examined the inappropriate use of ‘til in replacing until in technical writing. Last week I examined another such swap — replacing the more precise somewhat with the more vague some. This week I’m discussing another vagary — so.

In all of these cases the difference between spoken and written English has played an important role. Each of these examples introduce informality which more effective technical writing typically avoids.

Such is often the case when writers employ the word so. Although vague terms often find acceptance in spoken English, that same acceptance doesn’t always transfer to written English. More effective technical writers will always choose another word when it more precisely communicates the intended meaning.

Consider the example sentence in the cropped graphic above. As used, so appears acceptable. However, the intended meaning is to convey a cause-and-effect relationship between the elements represented in each of the phrases in the sentence. So can do that, but another word like because does that same job more effectively. This means more effective writers will revise that example sentence to employ more precise language.

Because the welders have been using the new weld procedure, failure testing has improved.

Failure testing has improved because the welders have been using the new weld procedure.

It’s very common in speech to employ informal constructs. More effective technical writing demands that writers avoid informality. So avoid so vague a word as so. Use the word that more clearly communicates your message. More precise language means a better presentation of your message to your audience, and that will leave them with a better impression of both you and your brands.

Tip #147: Avoid some more than somewhat

12/1/2016

Lately I’ve been addressing precision of language in technical writing. Two weeks ago I examined the importance of avoiding half a and half an. Last week I examined another such word — ‘til. This week I’m discussing another word in that same vein — some.

In all of these cases the difference between spoken and written English has played an important role. Each of these examples introduce informality which more effective technical writing typically avoids.

In that same vein, some writers use the word some (which is an adjective meaning an undetermined quantity or a pronoun meaning certain unspecified persons) in place of the word somewhat (which is an adverb meaning to an extent). While this practice may find acceptance in speech, more effective technical writing is structurally sound in its grammar.

This means the writer should revise the example sentence in the cropped graphic above. Here are two alternatives, both of which are acceptable.

Quality has somewhat improved since the implementation of Six Sigma at the factory.

Quality has improved somewhat since the implementation of Six Sigma at the factory.

It’s very common in speech to employ informal constructs. But more effective technical writing demands that writers avoid informality. So avoid some more than somewhat. Use the word that more clearly communicates your message. More precise language means a better presentation of your message to your audience, and that will leave them with a better impression of both you and your brands.

Tip #146: Don’t stop until you replace every ‘til

11/17/2016

Lately I’ve been addressing precision of language in technical writing through the lens of the difference between spoken and written English. Three weeks ago I examined the word fine. Two weeks ago, the word d’ jour was nice. Last week, I discussed the proper use of half. This week I’m looking at ‘til.

The word ‘til is an abbreviated form of until. When spoken, the word ‘til is archaic but acceptable. That archaic quality, however, makes ‘til unacceptable in technical writing. More effective technical writers, therefore, will use the full word until, a more appropriate word for technical writing which minimizes confusion potentially created by its more nonstandard cousin.

It’s very common in speech to employ informal constructs. But more effective technical writing demands that writers avoid informality. So if you want more effective technical writing, don’t stop until you replace every ‘til in your document. More effective technical writing employs more precise language, and that produces a better presentation of both you and your brands in the minds of your audience. Have a Happy Thanksgiving!

Tip #145: You have to avoid a half a anything

11/10/2016

Lately I’ve been addressing precision of language in technical writing. Two weeks ago I examined that theme through the lens of the difference between written English and spoken English. I used the context of that difference as background for avoiding the word fine. This colloquialism commonly used in speech conveys too much ambiguity to produce more effective technical writing. Last week I examined another such word — nice.

This week I’m discussing another word in that same vein — half.

Here we see another example of the distinction between spoken and written English. When spoken, the article a or an often follows half. In speech, this use has found broad acceptance.

However, this use is colloquial. Thus, when used in writing, half a and half an invite less formality than what more effective technical writing requires. This means the writer should revise the example sentence in the cropped graphic above. Here are two alternatives, both of which are acceptable.

The weld took a half minute to fabricate.

The weld took half a minute to fabricate.

It’s very common in speech to employ informal constructs. But more effective technical writing demands that writers avoid informality. So if you want more effective technical writing, you have to avoid half a anything. More precise language means a better presentation of your message to your audience, and that will leave them with a better impression of both you and your brands.

Tip #144: It’s nice to avoid nice

11/3/2016

Lately I’ve been addressing precision of language in technical writing. Three weeks ago I used the colloquial suffixes -size and -sized to demonstrate the importance of precision of language in more effective technical writing. The following week I continued that theme by observing the difference between two very similar yet different expressions: whose and of which.

Last week I examined that same theme through a related but different lens: the difference between written English and spoken English. I used the context of those differences as background for avoiding the word fine. This colloquialism commonly used in speech conveys too much ambiguity to produce more effective technical writing.

Another word produces the same result in technical writing as fine — nice.

As commonly used, nice like fine is simply colloquial, and colloquial writing is less formal writing. More effective technical writing demands a more formal tone. What is it about nice that creates the informality? It’s the vague nature of its true meaning.

When used in speech, nice like fine generally conveys a sense of positiveness or acceptability. What exactly does it mean when you can replace one vague word with another? It means you need to use a different word that more precisely conveys your meaning.

In speech, many nonverbal cues can fill in the meaning gaps which ambiguity creates. The written word, however, has no such cues. Employing precision of language helps to convey the formality more effective technical writing requires by avoiding ambiguity.

It’s very common in speech to employ informal constructs. But more effective technical writing demands that writers avoid informality. So it’s nice to avoid nice. You will present your message more effectively with more precise language, and that will make a better impression of both you and your brands in the minds of your audience.

Tip #143: It’s fine to avoid fine

10/27/2016

Lately I’ve been addressing precision of language in technical writing. Two weeks ago I used the colloquial suffixes -size and -sized to demonstrate the importance of precision of language in more effective technical writing. Last week I continued that theme by observing the difference between two very similar yet different expressions: whose and of which.

Today I examine that same theme through a related but different lens: the difference between written English and spoken English. Long time readers of this blog will recognize the importance of understanding the difference between written English and spoken English as one of my persistent themes. That’s because understanding that difference can help technical writers to produce more effective writing.

Consider the example sentence in the graphic above. Most would say, “The sentence appears fine.” And that’s the problem right there.

Fine as commonly used is simply colloquial, and colloquial writing is less formal writing. More effective technical writing demands a more formal tone. What is it about fine that creates the informality? It’s the vague nature of its true meaning.

When used in speech, fine generally conveys a sense of positiveness or acceptability. This relates to meanings such as high quality but differs from other actual denotations, such as refined, thin, or delicate. In speech, many nonverbal cues can fill in those gaps. The written word, however, has no such cues.

Employing precision of language helps to convey the formality more effective technical writing requires by avoiding ambiguity. Compare the difference made to the example sentence in the cropped graphic above with the changed sentence below.

Although they made a commendable attempt to identify the root cause, the investigation team observed no evidence for a definitive identification.

Replacing fine with commendable improves this sentence considerably. Commendable better conveys the intended meaning. Fine would have been acceptable had the intended meaning been refined, thin, or delicate. But that’s not the case. Substitute each of those alternatives from the denotation of fine to verify. For example,

Although they made a refined attempt to identify the root cause, the investigation team observed no evidence for a definitive identification.

It’s not quite the same, which verifies that fine is not the right word to use here. Try the other alternatives, and you find similar results.

It’s very common in speech to employ informal constructs. But more effective technical writing demands that writers avoid informality. So it’s fine to avoid fine. If you must use it, make sure you intend to convey the denotation of refined, thin, or delicate. Your readers will have a better presentation or your message, and that will improve their impression of you and your brands in their minds.

Tip #142: Be one whose writing uses of which with inanimate objects

10/20/2016

Last week I used the colloquial suffixes -size and -sized to demonstrate the importance of precision of language in more effective technical writing. This week I continue that theme by observing the difference between two very similar yet different expressions: whose and of which.

A form of the word who (which clearly denotes a person), whose is used with people. In contrast, of which is used with inanimate objects, since the word which does not denote or connote any sense of personality.

Consider the example sentence in the cropped graphic above. Some might consider the use of whose here an exception to the rule, since following the rule produces a sentence that sounds awkward to some.

There are some fields, however, in which totals should never be zero.

The fields referenced are in the user interface of a software program. I disagree with those who claim an exception can be made here. Yes, I can see how in which can sound awkward. That’s why I would replace in which not with whose but rather with for which.

There are some fields, however, for which the totals should never be zero.

Be one whose writing uses of which with inanimate objects. More precise language produces more effective technical writing. And more effective technical writing provides a better presentation of both you and your brand.

Tip #141: Downsize your use of -size and -sized

10/13/2016

Last week I addressed precision of language in the specific case of practical and practicable. This week I’ll examine this same topic together with a related but different topic: understanding the differences between spoken and written English. More effective writers understand and incorporate these differences into their writing. Because spoken English by convention is more lax, it carries an informality inconsistent with the tone which technical writing should often convey.

For instance, consider the example sentence in the graphic above. Using the modifying suffix -size (as well as its sibling -sized) is colloquial and as such conveys that informality which more effective technical writing omits.

Both -size and -sized are very common in advertising copy, in which people write very much like they speak. Technical writing is a very different game. More effective technical writers will opt to omit -size and -sized from their writing to avoid too much informality.

Redundancy provides another rationale for omitting -size and -sized. Consider this revision of the example sentence in the cropped graphic above.

The metallographic inspection revealed giant particles in the metal matrix.

Comparing this sentence with the one in the cropped graphic above reveals that the suffix -sized really doesn’t communicate any additional meaning. That redundancy makes it a great target for elimination. More effective technical writing communicates the essential message with as few words as possible.

You could make an exception if -size and -sized are part of a name. In that case, they are an essential part of the proper noun and should not be removed. In all other instances, these suffixes are redundant and should be avoided.

So remember to downsize your use of -size and -sized. Avoid colloquialisms and redundancies in language. Such efforts will produce not only more effective technical writing but also more effective presentations of both you and your brands to your audience.

Tip #140: Be practical with practicable

10/6/2016

Last week I highlighted the differences between nor and or to exemplify how precision in language can produce more effective writing. This week we stay on that same train by looking at another pair of words that are often erroneously interchanged --- practical and practicable.

Practical and practicable are both adjectives with related meanings, so from a structural viewpoint, they often could be used interchangeably. But the differences in their definitions make one word more appropriate for a given context than the other.

Practical is used to describe something concerned with practice rather than theory or something that is likely to be effective in real circumstances or someone who is realistic in approach. On the other hand, practicable means able to be done or put into practice successfully. These meanings are very much related but also significantly different. The more effective writer will consider those differences when selecting between practical and practicable.

For example, we could say

The investigation report concludes with a practical proposal for preventing future failures.

This sentence says that the proposal is based in practice rather than theory. That implies that the proposal is actually doable, but that meaning is in the connotation (or associated meaning) of practical and not the denotation (or direct meaning). A writer who wants to communicate that meaning directly through denotation should use practicable, as in this sentence:

The investigation report concludes with a practicable proposal for preventing future failures.

Using practicable means that the proposal is doable. The proposal could be based in practice or theory; practicable does not distinguish there the way that practical does.

Be practical with practicable. Precision of language can provide that extra level of professionalism which will reflect back on you and your brand in the minds of your audience. So give proper attention to precision in your language when you write. That in turn will yield a more effective presentation of you and your brand.