![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ventaAt work, I am currently reviewing a big pile of technical documentation. Largely because no one understands it. Except the guy who wrote it, who understands it perfectly and doesn't see what the fuss is about. So I am reading, asking him questions, re-writing, asking him more questions, trying to explain to someone else, realising I don't understand at all, rinse, repeat. Everything he's written is correct, it just needs a lot more explanation and examples adding.
The writer's first language is German and, while he speaks (and writes) excellent English, he does occasionally use words in a way a native speaker wouldn't. In particular, several of us have been thrown by his describing certain objects as "contenders".
Contenders for what? we ask.
It turns out that in some cases, we might end up with conflicting objects. These objects are in contention. And a thing that's in contention? That's a contender.
Which intrigues me. A contender - one who contends - clearly is in contention. I can't fault the logic. However, I don't think that's a usage of contender which comes naturally in English.
Would any of you use contender in that way? I'm particularly interested to hear from people who might be writing (or reading) technical docs relating to things in contention :)
(I've changed it, since it confused at least three people here. I've gone for the rather more verbose "object with a conflicting ID".)
In any case, the net effect is that I have been singing Heavyweight Champion of the World on and off for two days. Which is slightly more fortunate than another colleague, who immediately associated it with Gladiators instead :)
The writer's first language is German and, while he speaks (and writes) excellent English, he does occasionally use words in a way a native speaker wouldn't. In particular, several of us have been thrown by his describing certain objects as "contenders".
Contenders for what? we ask.
It turns out that in some cases, we might end up with conflicting objects. These objects are in contention. And a thing that's in contention? That's a contender.
Which intrigues me. A contender - one who contends - clearly is in contention. I can't fault the logic. However, I don't think that's a usage of contender which comes naturally in English.
Would any of you use contender in that way? I'm particularly interested to hear from people who might be writing (or reading) technical docs relating to things in contention :)
(I've changed it, since it confused at least three people here. I've gone for the rather more verbose "object with a conflicting ID".)
In any case, the net effect is that I have been singing Heavyweight Champion of the World on and off for two days. Which is slightly more fortunate than another colleague, who immediately associated it with Gladiators instead :)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2012-09-26 09:54 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-09-26 09:58 am (UTC)Examples are a Good Plan, especially if you make them relevant to what people will actually try to do with the tech, rather than just what it does. Am I alone in finding example-writing oddly fun?
no subject
Date: 2012-09-26 10:02 am (UTC)Example code is often a faff, though, because you have to write so much which isn't strictly relevant in order to provide a context for the thing that you actually want to demonstate. (Assuming you need stuff which can be compiled and run, rather than just illustrative snippets.)
no subject
Date: 2012-09-26 10:38 am (UTC)The example for 'how to make a set of decision tables rather than one humungous table' was a bit tedious, though, I'll confess :)
no subject
Date: 2012-09-26 10:58 am (UTC)See also: documentation, words which probably shouldn't appear in
:)
no subject
Date: 2012-09-26 11:04 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-09-26 09:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-09-27 05:28 pm (UTC)