[no subject]

>I do concede, however, that less experienced writers might need additional

>explanations for some grammar terms, so I suggest that we include a short
>glossary of such terms in the GDSG. There shouldn't be many terms in the
grammar
>glossary, so this section would not be a big overhead. The explanations
can be
>in layman's (Sax. gen.) language, such as the nice piece that Tom Musgrove
found
>about the Saxon genitive. A simple hyperlink to the glossary term would
allow
>the writer to quickly look up the term, without interfering (gerund) with
the
>flow of the main text.
>
Maybe a quick reference that explained complex grammatical concepts in
terms of more simple ones would be helpful.  For example, Saxon Genitive
could be found under "possessives," a term that I think many more people
would be familiar with.  This technique is not unheard of.  In _The Chicago
Manual of Style_, and industry standard for writers, the only entry for
genitive falls under possessives.

>This approach requires a certain amount of work on the part of the
aspiring
>writer to learn the tools of the trade. In the long run, however, the
approach
>leads to a better understanding of the craft of technical writing, which
can
>only be beneficial for future GNOME documentation. More experienced
writers
>should not need to access the grammar glossary, but surely a simple
hyperlink
>would not disturb the flow of their understanding in text.
>
While I agree that people who want to write should learn the "tools of the
trade," I would argue that knowledge of complex grammatical concepts is not
one of the most important tools.  Certainly, it is important that a writer
know basic punctuation rules, but knowing terms like "gerund" and "Saxon
genitive" are not at the heart of the "craft of technical writing."  What
is at the center of technical writing is audience analysis and
communicating concepts in a manner that is meaningful and helpful to
readers.  One of the key concepts in technical communication is that
grammar is a slave to technical communication, not the foundation upon
which it is built.

>If there are any other unfamiliar grammar terms in the GDSG, other than
the two
>points mentioned in the mail string, then let me know. I'll be most
pleased to
>put together easy-to-understand explanations for the proposed grammar
glossary
>in the GDSG.

My mention of those two terms in particular was meant to be an example of
how the Style Guide might not be suitable for the audience it is supposed
to be directed to.  The complex terms are not the problem but rather a
symptom of the larger problem that the Style Guide may not be completely
written for the audience it is supposed to serve.  I would be happy to
offer my help in an effort to improve the Guide.  I would suggest picking
specific people (so it would be more likely we would get a response) from
the list to review the Style Guide and basing some revisions on their
responses.  I think it would be well worth the effort if the result is a
Style Guide that people are more likely to use.

Thanks,
Kristin



^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Kristin Thomas
Linux Information Development
Linux Technology Center
Ph. (512) 838-4546
T/L 678-4546
Bldg. 908 1D002