> A "widely-used standard of technical English" is probably not what he is after, if I may disagree.
@R.E. I give you full permission to disagree. Since you say English is your second language, I respect your opinion on the matter. More than I would most people's. I don't profess to know what my hypothetical Dr XXY is after. That was not my point. What I bet he is *not* after is having to waste yet more time decyphering my English, when the remedy lies in my hands. See ftp://ftp.iitb.ac.in/LDP/LDP/abs/abs-guide.pdf -for an example of the sort of manual I'm grousing about. You'd think the writer was aiming for the Pulitzer Prize, not to deliver his know-how efficiently. So what exactly is the remedy which lies in my hands? My first impulse was to set about drawing up my own style guide. It would include a phrasebook of stock phrases. There's enough similarity between programming languages to predict it wouldn't be particularly large. Yes, the Oxford English Dictionary is good on technical terms, but only "terms" (nouns and verbs), not entire phrases, like "Type-in the following expression and press Enter". Once drawn-up, my proposal would need to be promoted. And *that* is the difficult bit. It would never be that useful until it was ISO standard 12345 (say). Then documenters would be encouraged to write ISO 12345-compliant manuals – and non-English speakers learn the requisite skills to use them: a trivial task. But why reinvent the wheel? I'd be most surprised if the need for such a guide or manual hasn't already been thoroughly recognised – and duly satisfied. So… given it's been satisfied, where's the ISO standard? Failing one, do forum members have their favorite manual / style guide? I'm shopping for one to adopt myself. Thank you all for your suggestions to-date. Oh… and thank you @Roger for the Orwell reference. In his novel "1984" Orwell offered a thorough spec for a language ("Newspeak") designed to mystify what it purported to communicate. I wasn't aware he'd gone into the theory of the matter. I shall try to get hold of the original paper. It strikes me that what I'm looking for is an anti-Newspeak. Not just a list of platitudes. "Show-not-tell". On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 7:33 PM R.E. Boss <[email protected]> wrote: > A "widely-used standard of technical English" is probably not what he is > after, if I may disagree. > And even more probable, he will nowhere have better guidance in his > language learning than at Harvard. > English is a second language for me as well and even at my age (which has > the same binary length as yours) I consult the internet to assist me. > And if I write a paper to be published, I pay for proofreading. > > My 2 cents. > > R.E. Boss > > > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: Chat <[email protected]> Namens Ian Clark > Verzonden: vrijdag 19 oktober 2018 19:40 > Aan: [email protected] > Onderwerp: [Jchat] Standardized technical English > > For Dr XXY, English is a second language. One of many. His first language > has never been studied, let alone learnt, by an outsider: it is spoken by > hardly anyone outside his village, but they've all saved up to send him to > Harvard. > > Dr XXY is on the point of reconciling Quantum Theory with General > Relativity. > His English is now good enough to read a road-sign and to buy food without > pointing – and to use the internet. > Especially to read the pearls of technical wisdom that fall from my pen. > Not for pleasure, I might add: he wants to know more about J. > > I want to be helpful, so I adopt a chatty tone. Yesterday I wrote: "Do > what you like but it doesn't do to do it all the time." > It took Dr XXY an evening of intense investigation on ويكيبيديا to > discover what I was actually saying. He did so on the off-chance it might > turn out to be crucial. > A lifetime of deep study has taught him the importance of attending to > detail. > > Now Dr XXY is no dunce. > I am. (I used not to be, but as I get older it's getting worse.) Dr XXY is > not smart: he is super-smart. He holds the destiny of the world in his > fingertips. I don't. > He is not grateful to me for wasting his time. It mortifies me to know > that I do. > I'd have done better to write: > "You are free to adopt your own strategy, but it's not good to employ this > idiom in every situation." > He'd have sussed that out in less than minute, using nothing but his > well-thumbed Websters. Because the words I used, although they were big > ones, were unambiguous. > > When I write technical stuff, Dr XXY is very much in my mind. > Can anyone recommend a widely-used standard of technical English that > would gladden his heart to read? > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
