|
HeavansKeeper -> RE: Use of terminology (3/12/2009 12:14:41 AM)
|
MstrTiger,
I understand that when someone uses words like all, none, and other quantifiers and generalities that exceptions exist. I do not need to be reminded of that. However, I do judge (poorly) those who use generalities, most notably when I cannot be 100% certain if they remembered that exceptions exist. This inability to articulate specifics bothers me.
Take, for instance, the "general you". When I cannot be sure if "you" is referring directly to me or to all readers, I am unimpressed.
Words mean whatever we decide they mean. An extreme example, if someone understood the word "hungry" to mean "pregnant", serious miscommunications would occur. I know thats absurd, but I use the example to reinforce the importance of agreeing on the definition of words. I try to be a literalist, but I'm a human too.
Work can be bogged down by over-clarification. I don't write stereo instructions, I write prose. I expect the audience to use common sense when reading. In the BDSM world, the difference between slave and submissive is a particularly touchy, wavering, inconsistent line. Unless discussing an issue where the difference is important, I expect the reader to look at the bigger picture. When talking about "Submissives cooking for diabetic masters", the words bottom, slave, pet, submissive, chef, cook are all interchangeable. This is certainly not true on a job interview for a restaurant.
The venue and audience determine which words need clarification.
Regarding miscommunications: Since humor, satire, sarcasm, insult, disapproval, compliment, etc. do not relay well in text, I always attempt to get a clarification on the matter before proceeding.
|
|
|
|
