Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2003 11:39:48 +1000 From: Sue Blake <sue@welearn.com.au> To: "Gary W. Swearingen" <swear@attbi.com> Cc: chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: grammar Message-ID: <20030601113948.G33085@welearn.com.au> In-Reply-To: <qvsmqvnjtq.mqv@localhost.localdomain>; from swear@attbi.com on Sat, May 31, 2003 at 09:48:33AM -0700 References: <3ECD3A8C.1040506@potentialtech.com> <00ae01c32668$2ff5ad70$2441d5cc@nitanjared> <20030531072026.O33085@welearn.com.au> <20030530213625.GA41089@wopr.caltech.edu> <20030531080645.Q33085@welearn.com.au> <qvsmqvnjtq.mqv@localhost.localdomain>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Gary, I'm going to strongly disagree with much you said, not to put
you down, but demonstrating how strongly the usage is viewed here.
On Sat, May 31, 2003 at 09:48:33AM -0700, Gary W. Swearingen wrote:
> Sue Blake <sue@welearn.com.au> writes:
> > On Fri, May 30, 2003 at 02:36:25PM -0700, Matthew Hunt wrote:
> ...
> > > Here in the US, at least, it is
> > > common for fire alarms to have instructions like "In case of fire, pull
> > > handle."
> >
> > We had signs like that here for a while, and they were strictly
> > speaking correct for our language. The presence of "of" changes
> > the meaning and makes it clear, at least to someone in a calm
> > state who can stop and process language patterns that are not
> > part of every day speech (i.e. only found on emergency signs).
> > Comedians had a field day with people pulling handles, smashing
> > glass windows, etc, just in case the disaster might happen.
> > But I agree, that usage is correct by my language. The phrase
> > "in case of" and the phrase "in case" have very different meanings.
>
> For "in case", my dictionary has "If it happens that; if.", but I'm
> sure that that is an incomplete definition.
In my language, that is quite wrong. I expect my dictionary to
support my view, but if it does not I would still say it is wrong
because it conflicts with how my people use language. It conflicts
in such a way that people are misled, as in the real world example
I gave, which makes it unallowable to use those words with that
meaning in documentation that intends to cause people to take a
particular action or not.
> I suppose that "in case" is a long-accepted shortening of "in the case"
> or "in a case" and that "in case X, do Y" is a shortening of "in the/a
> case of X happening, do Y". This shortening can explain the above
> warning, but another explanation is that it is a shortening of "In
> cases of fire", which seems strictly correct to me.
That seems quite correct to me too, but in my view you supposed
wrong. "In the case of" is shortened to "in case OF", and similarly
the phrase "in cases where" holds up specific types of cases
for consideration.
On the other hand, "in case" _by_itself_ is very different indeed.
It is one of those phrases that has obtained its own unique meaning,
mostly used in the form "In case..., do ...", sometimes "Do ... in
case ...", and always used to state a precaution. Students sometimes
mistakenly believe it to be a single word "incase" because in their
minds it is so logically distinct from "in case of".
In fact, if the first words of a sentence are "In case" then I can
be pretty sure that it's a precaution, except for somtimes when it
is followed by "of" making an entirely different construction.
> > Tell me, how would you follow the following (hypothetical) instruction?
> >
> > In case you run out of memory, don't run all of the programs together.
>
> This, and your original example, are not grammatically wrong, and are
> fully sensical language. The problem is with the meaning that the
> language conveys. (One hopes that it isn't the meaning the author meant
> to convey, but that's a different issue.) This is partly because we
> understand "case" here to mean "an instance of a general case".
That's interesting. It does not convey the slightest hint of that
meaning to me. The phrase "In case you..." is unambigously the
beginning of a precaution, no doubt in my mind there, no leeway.
> The sentence is telling one what to do in a particular instance
> (ie, when something happens), and that has a couple of problems.
> 1) When the case happens, the advice doesn't help with this
> instance; there might not even be a next one for which to use the
> advice. 2) The advice is weasily; it tells you what not to do,
> instead of what to do, so that running no programs follows the
> advice without solving the problem. "In case you run out of memory,
> cry." has a much better "ring" to my ear. The sentences clearly
> need complete rewriting.
The sentences all sound fine to me, and their meaning is crystal
clear. I am left with no doubt, and confident that I understand
and know how to follow the advice that each of these "case"
sentences offers.
Where we have the problem is that what I know the sentence told
me, is the opposite of what other people say it means.
That would seem to make particular ways of using "case"
unsuitable for documentation.
> Usually, one can guess the intended meaning of of bad writing, but it
> takes extra effort and it leaves one wondering if one guessed right.
Usually that is true because usually one is reading something that
is written close to one's level of understanding. In the case of
technical documentation, it is going to be read by people who are
floundering with the concepts. They have no hope of working out
the intended meaning. In fact, if an ambiguity can be squeezed in
anywhere, they will find a way. Here we are talking about a phrase
that strikes the readers as UNambiguous, and they do not understand
the subject matter well enough to spot the wrong instruction because
they're only up to the stage of reading the manual.
> Writers should think of their readers more and at least read what they
> have written and do a bit of self-editing of the worst parts.
Absolutely. But I don't think the best writer in the world could
catch all of their own writing problems. Ideally, after basic
typo and techo corrections, all writing would be reviewed by a
realistic sample of the kinds of people who will be reading and
depending on the document. Furthermore, that review needs to be
conducted hands-on, in order to catch "perfectly clear" 180 degree
misunderstandings by their practical outcomes.
Of course the opportunity to do that is rare and it's costly and time
consuming so it's not very practical, that's why it is important to
explore things like the misunderstanding surrounding "in case" and
try to predict outcomes. There are some cases where the opportunity
arises to newbie-test documentation. One example is CFBSD which has
been peer reviewed as well as having most of its content laboriously
worked through by newbies over a period of some years. The
opportunity was there, and the author was humble enough to be open
to advice from all. Another example is the availability of a little
mob of FreeBSD-newbies who generally respond well to emails requesting
testing of a finished and technically correct tutorial document or
manual.
> > Is it something to do as a precaution, or a response to take when
> > an unlikely situation occurs? I would read it as a precaution and
> > make a workplace rule that we must follow it.
>
> How one reads something depends a lot on one's tolerance and
> imagination, but we should use little of either when discussing
> the meaning of some writing.
For general reading, yes. People who need to study a manual
cannot offer tolerance or imagination at that time.
> The examples are not precautions,
> as written, even if everyone is clever enough to find them so.
I quite disagree. The "In case you..." sentences are all
properly constructed precautions, there is no doubt in my
mind whatsoever.
That we disagree does not mean that one of us is wrong.
It means that the sentences have conflicting unambigous meanings
to different people, and perhaps ambiguity to some people.
I was prepared to consider that it might be a lapse in my
education until I tried presenting the opposite view (in case
means if) to a workplace and got unanimous confident disagreement
and system damage as a result. Even when I explained what the
author meant, the users were unable to cope with the conflict.
My conclusion is that in documentation, "in case" on its own
(without "in case of") cannot be used to mean anything like "if".
In other words,
If:
In any case where the word "if" would suffice, "if" must be
used rather than "in case" in order to convey the "if" meaning.
Cases:
It is fine to talk about cases by using "in (the) case of",
"in cases where/when", or "in the ... case".
Precaution:
Sentences of the form "In case X do (not) Y" or "Do (not) Y
in case X" will be understood unambiguously as precautions,
at least in some parts of the world. In particular, a sentence
beginning "In case you..." is likely to be understood as a
precaution.
If there is any native Aussie, Kiwi, or Pom who disagrees with me,
please do speak up.
--
Regards,
-*Sue*-
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030601113948.G33085>