3.876 your sweet etc. (101)

Willard McCarty (MCCARTY@vm.epas.utoronto.ca)
Wed, 20 Dec 89 21:51:55 EST

Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 3, No. 876. Wednesday, 20 Dec 1989.


(1) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 89 23:48 EST (16 lines)
From: Michel LENOBLE <LENOBLEM@UMTLVR.BITNET>
Subject: ETC... ET cetera... usw...

(2) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 89 08:25:39 PLT (38 lines)
From: "Guy L. Pace" <PACE@WSUVM1>
Subject: etc.

(3) Date: 20 December 1989, 15:15:18 EDT (23 lines)
From: FLANNAGA at OUACCVMB
Subject: etc., redundantly, one more time, and the last?

(1) --------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 89 23:48 EST
From: Michel LENOBLE <LENOBLEM@UMTLVR.BITNET>
Subject: ETC... ET cetera... usw...

Being the one who started that ETC debate, I just wish to remind all
HUMANIST to scan their E-bookshelves to find how many ETC they are able
to spot in literary works, and for the sake of comparison, in scientific
writings too. The one who finds the most ETC during these year's end
holidays will be given the ETC medal, etc...
Yours,

Michel Lenoble
Litterature Comparee
Universite de Montreal
E-mail: lenoblem@cc.umontreal.ca
(2) --------------------------------------------------------------42----
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 89 08:25:39 PLT
From: "Guy L. Pace" <PACE@WSUVM1>
Subject: etc.

I stepped out to change into my flame-proof skivvies.

As in any communication between communicator and the target of the
message, there is an assumption on the part of the communicator that
communication occurred. Of course, we all know what assume did.

When vague, indefinite phrases and terms (such as etc.) are used in
a message, there is an automatic assumption on the part of the
communicator that the target of the message knows what part of the
message has been left out, or intuitively understands the implied
portion of the message.

If your message contains vague or indefinite phrases or terms, and the
target of your message is a group of collegues who have the same
educational, social, cultural and economic backgrounds as yourself,
you can safely expect that most of your message, including its implied
meanings and missing items, will be received by the audience. If it
isn't important that all of the message be received (and if that's the
case, why are you sending the message?) or if you know that your target
audience will understand the vague and indefinite parts of the message,
then it is not necessary for stringent use of direct, specific terms
and phrases.

When the target of your message is an audience with broader,
dissimilar backgrounds, and it is important that the message is not
missunderstood by the audience, then the use of direct, specific
terms or phrases is imperative. In journalism, it is critical
that the vague and indirect parts of the language be left behind
to better insure that the message be readable, understandable
and not misleading to the majority of the audience.

Therefore, use etc. if you are _certain_ your audience understands
your implied meaning or missing examples, and if you can afford
to have your message misunderstood.
(3) --------------------------------------------------------------26----
Date: 20 December 1989, 15:15:18 EDT
From: FLANNAGA at OUACCVMB
Subject: etc., redundantly, one more time, and the last?

I agree with the good person of York who said we were all right about
etc. It can be a bad little appendage, doing no good wiggling in the
air. But the whole debate brings up proscription of usage vs. letting
it all hang out, proscription vs. description. I am mostly concerned
with mannerisms in my own writing, so I would proscribe for myself but
not even for my composition students. Here is what I avoid, but Willard
may find a fresh Nigerian student who will rediscover any one of them
and use it freshly: factors, facets, lifestyle, nice, interesting,
environment, area, phenomena. I don't much like contact as a verb, I
distinctly dislike verb constructions like "facilitate the optimization
of" and "prioritize the agenda." I don't like using "authored" for
"wrote," though that is very fashionable. I do a "this" edit on anything
I write over ten or maybe even five pages, and get rid of all "thises"
that aren't very close to the noun they stand for. There is something
wrong with "prerecorded," though I can't argue the case against it very
well. Some phrases are certainly wordy or redundant: at this point in
time, combined together, in the home environment, alleged suspect, end
result. Pet peeves (such as dated slang, as with "letting it all hang
out," above?), anyone? Roy Flannagan