[net.micro] An example of good spelling, but bad language.

CSvax:Pucc-H:Physics:piner@pur-ee.UUCP (06/22/83)

I have seen the debate on spelling and language going on. I am
currently trying to figure out the video display hardware on my
new MAX-80 computer. Here is a sample of the CRT controller chip
documentation from Hitachi included with the manual:

     "Number of horizontal displayed characters is pro-
   grammed to horizontal displayed register (R1) of the
   CRTC. Programmed value is based on screen format.
   Horizontal display period, which is given by specifi-
   cation of horizontal deflection frequency and horizontal
   retrace period of CRT display unit, determines horizontal
   character time, being divided by number of horizontal
   displayed characters. Moreover, as Fig. 9-10 shows the
   access method of refresh memory, its cycle time and 
   access time which are necessary for CRT display system
   are determined by horizontal character time."

There are no misspellings in this paragraph, but the meaning is
not clear. If you go over it enough, move the words around,
etc., you can make sense of it. Syntax is important, especially
when the reader is unfamiliar with the subject. Please remember
this when writting documentation. Spelling also counts, but a
misspelled word in the right place, is not as confusing as a
correctly spelled word in the wrong place. As a final reference,
try reading "The God Damn English Language" by Mark Twain.

					Rich Piner
					Purdue Physics Dept.

mat@hou5e.UUCP (06/24/83)

The example given in then original article has a very peculiar, but
somewhat consistant, language-unit structure.  Since it came from Hitachi (sp?)
isn't it possible that it was originally an engineers document  written in
Japanese and translated literally by someone who didn't have the technical
expertise to translate it on a meaning-by-meaning basis?

						Mark Terribile
						(Duke, yes, of deNet)