I'm not illiterate or inarticulate. I know the right way to say things and the right way to write things. I certainly wouldn't write such a thing in a technical document. But why wouldn't I? How many people do you know who don't say gonna? Who says kind of instead of kinda? Supposed to and not sposda?
I think about that a lot. Why don't we write like we talk?
In technical documentation, you're not supposed to personify computers. Computers don't talk to each other, they communicate. They don't see hardware attached to them, they detect it. When a programmer explains something to me in programmer-ese, it's my job to translate it into English. But if a programmer explains to me that the Server "sees" another computer on the network, I have to translate it to the dry diction of technical documentation. To do otherwise would make the documentation seem unprofessional.
Of course, back in the day, you weren't supposed to use the second person in professional writing. Instead of saying "You can configure the program this way or that way," you would say "the user can configure the program this way or that way." Why ever would one add more words to make a sentence less direct? Because those are the rules.
When we were kids, we were supposed to practically copy the encyclopedia articles when we wrote a report. Then we were supposed to paraphrase the encyclopedia. Then we weren't supposed to use the encyclopedia when we wrote reports.
Once, we learned a million fanciful ways to say the word said. Declared, stated, exclaimed, voiced, communicated... and you barely use any of them. If you wrote fiction and used a different synonym for said every time someone said something, you'd look pretty silly.
|It's not linoleum, but it is flooring...|
Or is it a picture of the Midwest from above?