I ran across a web page regarding simplifying legal writing by choosing more simple terms for the “legalese” that attorneys often use. I think this could also apply to specfications writing.
See http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~volokh/legalese.htm
… with all due respect to the memory of former U.S. Vice President and crook Spiro T. Agnew whose speech was laced with uncommon terms that bordered on “felonius pomposity.”
John, one of my pet peeves is the use of “and/or”. I wish these people could make up their mind. It certainly is not clear or concise. If this legalese must be used the proper phrase, for example, is “steel or aluminum, or both”.
I define terms in Section 01420 - References.
“‘And/or:’ If used, shall mean that either or both of the items so joined are required.”
I am scrupulous about not using “and/or”. However, there are Sections prepared by others which I cannot control (nor do I wish to get involved with). Sometimes “and/or” is used in these Sections.
And, yes, it’s an imperfect definition. I still don’t know what it exactly means.
What about “as per”? I work with highly educated, licensed professionals, and I can’t get them to stop using the term “as per”. I tell them, something is either “as” or “per”. I guess folks feel additional emphasis is not gained by combining “as per”.
How about “any and all”? What the heck does that mean?
How about “each and every”?
Or, in common speech, “pick and choose” or “any way, shape, or form.” Aaaaaaaaargh!
I know what you mean, Sheldon.
If there’s anything I can’t stand, it’s wording that is redundant, superfluous and unnecessary!
“An expert is a man who has made all the mistakes which can be made in a very narrow field.” - Niels Bohr, physicist (1885-1962) and “Jokes of the proper kind, properly told, can do more to enlighten questions of politics, philosophy, and literature than any number of dull arguments.” - Isaac Asimov, scientist and writer (1920-92)
I wouldn’t argue with either of these two gentlemen.
If there’s anything I can’t stand, it’s wording that is redundant, superfluous and unnecessary!<<
and needlessly repetitious, too!
How about “workmanlike manner” or “best practices of the trade” or “perfectly smooth”, and similar expressions. What do these mean?!
and, “to the satisfaction of the Architect”, etc.
One of my favorites is As Required. I see this note on Drawings constantly and always ask the note writer what it really means. As Required; by whom; for what purpose; who gets the final say as to what is actually Required?
Good, Doug.
I never use “as required” unless a requirement has been specified. “As needed” is more appropriate, particularly if the thought is completed.
“As needed” becomes a short, powerful performance specification if it is followed by - guess what - a statement of performance desired.
Example:
“As needed to keep the wood dry” or “As needed to withstand 150 lbs withdrawal force.”
If you substitute “required” for “needed”, the contractor can ask, “OK, so where’s your requirement?”
“As needed to . . .” puts performance in his court.
For a look at more hilarious samples of bad writing, see http://engineeringnot.netfirms.com.
RE Numbers: Technical documents have a long tradition of expressing quantities in legalese, e.g. 19 has commonly been written as “nineteen (19).” This system dates back to medieval times when lawyers were paid by the word. All too often in the rush of our modern days so filled with numbers, someone editing the text changes the numeral but not the word, or vice versa. The result is a series of phone calls, faxes and trouble, out of proportion to the discrepancy. Thus, in a spec --where the ease with which a spec can be read and digested greatly adds to its success-- my policy is that numbers are expressed with numerals only. There are a few exceptions, such as, “two 3/4” bolts."
I agree with you Donald, I scrub out “double” numbers by the hundreds when I am editing and formatting specs. from others. In my instructions to consultants on preparing their specs, which are part of mine, I tell them not to do it.
After all, we write five (5), as if it can be misunderstood if we don’t, but I have yet to see an electrical engineer try to write a double number for a fixture, such as 5XY237-8X6-2-48. They expect that you will know what that is, but not what five (5) is!
A similar situation exists on many bid forms, where the bidder is required to enter the bid in both digits and words. Asking for both is giving one more opportunity to screw up the bid. In those cases when I have seen a discrepancy, it has been the words that were wrong.
Sheldon refers to the non-malicious mistakes.
Presiding over most public bid openings for a large firm for a number of years, I soon became aware of the few smarty-pants contractors who more than once made their words NOT match the digits - or who “forgot” to sign their bids. Trying to get two bites of the apple we called it.
Rejecting their bids was the first step we recommended in remedying the situation. (Not that this kept the malfactors from making a stink, especially with public agencies, or with some private clients, each of whom might thirst for the lowball price and damn the responsiveness). (The sleaze artist WANTED his lowball bid or umatched words/figures to be deemed unresponsive, depending on how low his ball was!)
As to writing digits only instead of spelling out numbers: It is essential in our line of work to forget the neat rules we are taught for writing non-technical English. In our technical English these rules should be followed:
I agree. Words blend into the paragraph.
Exception as you said:
1 2 x 4 could be interpreted as one 2x4 or a 12x4. One 2x4 is clearer.
Two guys go to the lumber yard. One waits in the pick’m up truck while the other goes in to order some lumber.
He goes to the order desks and tells the clerk, “I want some 4 by 2’s.” The clerk asks, “Do you mean 2 by 4’s?” The guy says, “I’ll have to ask.”
He goes out to the pick’m up truck and talks it over with his buddy, then returns to the order desk. “Yes,” he tells the clerk, “we want 2 by 4’s.”
“How long do you want them?” asks the clerk. “I’ll have to go ask,” was the response.
He returns to the pick’m up truck for another conversation and then returns to the order desk, announcing “We’re building a house so we’ll need 'em 30 maybe 40 years.”
(Hmmm. Maybe if he specified the work results instead of the products there wouldn’t have been confusion.)
Along the same lines of recent posts (but not the lumber yard guys), our office has been writing out the words for inch, foot, pound, etc. rather than ", ', # … it would seem that the written word avoids the potential problem when the copying process of the specifications might blurr or even remove the symbols. Do you find one or the other more technically appropriate?