If there is a single overriding principle of technical writing, it is that
the words must be subject to a single unambiguous interpretation. /jmac
-----Original Message-----
From: olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx]On
Behalf Of Piers Hemy
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 12:51 PM
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [OM] Re: Another AP article full of praise
"many parts of a Latin expression were implied rather than explicit."
perhaps is specific to the vantge point of an English speaker, given that
much of the meaning of the Latin is conveyed by the word endings which
English does not have. It follows that English has to provide that part of
the meaning by eg more explicit phraseology.
I am reminded of a particularly challenging translation of a technical
document from English into a language which has a full complement of word
endings (as in Latin). The English was grammatically ambiguous, but the
translation of course could not be. I had the gratifying experience of
taking the expert to one side to explain our problem, and to request a
rewrite. Why gratifying? Because it became clear that the reason for the
ambiguity was that the 'expert' did not have the first idea what he was
talking about, but hoped that peppering his piece with plenty of jargon
would convince most readers that they themselves didn't understand the
technicalities of what he was talking about - and move on to the next page.
In that case the vigilance was certainly burdensome. But Latin does have
its uses!
--
Piers
<<< snip
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|