Ted,
On 4 Mar 2011, at 16:43, Eddie Kohler wrote:
> Larry,
who?
> Probably I should have said "correct" or "common". Nevertheless, you are
> wrong; technical writing is itself an idiom ("the language peculiar to a
> people or to a district, community, or class").
That definition is for a dialect - which idiom can be a synonym for.
Technical writing is, in general, the deliberate absence of idioms or
colloquialisms where possible - and when they are used, they are often
explicitly defined. Expressing a preference for the more
idiomatic form goes against that.
>
> Eddie
>
>
> On 3/4/11 7:41 AM, L.Wood@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> idiomatic text should be avoided in technical writing.
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: dccp-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:dccp-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On
>>> Behalf Of Eddie Kohler
>>> Sent: 04 March 2011 15:27
>>> To: Gerrit Renker
>>> Cc: dccp@xxxxxxxx group
>>> Subject: Re: AD review: draft-ietf-dccp-tfrc-rtt-option-03
>>>
>>> Hi Gerrit,
>>>
>>> Lars is right, "cannot" is far more idiomatic, in written or
>>> spoken text.
>>>
>>> http://www.drgrammar.org/frequently-asked-questions#30
>>> http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/cannot.html
>>>
>>> Eddie
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 3/4/11 3:54 AM, Gerrit Renker wrote:
>>>> Lars, -
>>>> |> than 4 can not be determined: such samples have to
>>> be discarded.
>>>> |
>>>> | Nit: s/can not/cannot/
>>>> |
>>>> I would like to ask if we could keep it as it is, the
>>> suggestion confuses me:
>>>> can is a verb, not the negation, cannot is spoken language, the
>>>> document is written text. I actually replace everywhere I
>>> see this the
>>>> other way around, since I read somewhere that cannot in
>>> written text
>>>> is not considered good style. If you can give a rule for
>>> the above, I
>>>> am willing to be educated on the matter.
Lloyd Wood
L.Wood@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://sat-net.com/L.Wood
