We recommend Internet Explorer set to 1024x768.

© 2002 Brian F. Schreurs
Even we have a disclaimer.

This, of course, is a source of great amusement to those who have dedicated their lives to written English.

But this is not to say that "engineerspeak" lacks variety. No, there are many interesting variations; if an editor spends enough time in the information technology business, he'll encounter all of these archetypes eventually.

Take a simple sentence:

I went to the grocery store to buy some bread, a case of Mountain Dew, and a copy of Swimsuit Nerds.

Although such a sentence would never actually appear in any form of technical writing, that won't stop the engineers from butchering it if given half a chance.

Unfortunately, one of the more common archetypes is the neverending notetaker. This individual is capable of designing an entire enterprise-level network in his head, yet can't seem to get past the shorthand writing style he used in comp-sci class:

Went to grocery store. Purchased bread, Mtn. Dew, Swimsuit Nerds.

Some engineers feel compelled to provide examples of everything in sight -- just to be clear of course -- to the point of fabricating examples if necessary. These e.g. riders are so-called because of their infatuation with the Latin abbreviations e.g. and i.e. (and sometimes they even know how to use them):

I went to the grocery store to buy goods (e.g., some bread, a case of Mountain Dew, a copy of Swimsuit Nerds).

It is often said that the value of a report is directly proportional to its weight. While this is supposed to be a joke, some take it quite seriously. The negative noise-to-signal writer is capable of adding quite impressive amounts of text without providing any additional useful information:

Taking advantage of time-usage leveraging by maximizing the mission tasks accomplished in the action item, I went to the grocery store to buy some bread, a case of Mountain Dew, and a copy of Swimsuit Nerds, effectively increasing the impactivity of future high-efficiency tasking efforts.

At least there are a few engineers out there dedicated to educating others. But sometimes this can be taken to a ridiculous extreme, such as when an exhausting explainer gets ahold of a concept that he fears the reader may not understand:

I went to the grocery store, a place where thousands of goods, primarily foodstuffs but also including household wares of various types, are sold to the public at a slight markup from the wholesale price. There, I bought some bread (a product made of wheat and other ingredients, cooked into a "loaf" which is then typically sliced and used to capture other food types for efficient and delicious consumption), a case of Mountain Dew (which is, of course, not literally dew from a mountain, but rather a brand name for a carbonated beverage with high concentrations of sugar and caffeine), and a copy of Swimsuit Nerds (a periodical issued monthly that caters to the display of female information technology professionals garbed in swimwear, with interesting sidebars detailing their system preferences).

Although many of these archetypes are frighteningly common, none is more ubiquitous than the passive-aggressive voice. Since most people are unclear on the differences between passive and active voice, they are completely incapable of recognizing when they use one or the other. Therefore, many writers aggressively use passive voice without even realizing it. Sometimes, the problem is so severe that it's actually possibe for the reader to forget whose document he is reading:

Some bread, a case of Mountain Dew, and a copy of Swimsuit Nerds were acquired from the grocery store.

Similar to the negative noise-to-signal writer, the syllable scorecarder believes in value by weight. But this individual prefers to focus on each and every word, not adding extras but doing his best to make each one as close to a 500-pound gorilla as possible:

I travelled to the supermarket establishment to acquire moderations of breadstuffs, a container of Mountain Dew, and a hardcopy of Swimsuit Nerds.

Most engineers tend to be left-brained, which means they tend to think logically. The problem with English sentence structure is that it most assuredly does not flow logically. This is often a point of frustration, especially in sentences that contain lists of items, which can get complicated. The bullet bully simplifies his life by pulling the individual list items into mini-sentences:

I went to the grocery store to buy:

• some bread
• a case of Mountain Dew
• a copy of Swimsuit Nerds

Pedantic patent protectors are concerned about the legal liability from patent lawyers over the contents of a document that will be seen by seven people. They can be insistent and demanding, as they are petrified by the fear of being sued by a megacorporation, yet they can't be troubled to look up actual fair-use laws. They will put the little "TM" or "R" after everything that could even be remotely considered a trademark, and will always introduce the parent corporation to forestall any confusion. These people also frequently are capitalists who capitalize nearly every noun because, after all, those "concepts" are "important". Some will actually completely merge the two archetypes into one horrific monster that believes the only way to tell brand names from any other noun is to use the trademark symbols:

I went to the Grocery Store to buy some Bread, a case of Pepsi® Mountain Dew™, and a copy of Swimsuit Nerds©.

A common trait among engineers is the desire to take complicated concepts and break them down into manageable bites. The best way to do this, in their view, is to abbreviate the term into a bite-size "acronym". The alphabet soup nut will meticulously scan the entire document for violations of his arbitrary abbreviation rules and never notice that large sections are unintelligible:

I went to the grocery store (GS) to buy some bread, a case of Mountain Dew (CMD), and a copy of Swimsuit Nerds (SN).

None of these archetypes pose a serious threat to a good editor by themselves, but the real danger is in the way engineers work. On many projects, they keep a master document that circulates endlessly with little version control. Every engineer on the project feels compelled to add material, but most feel it is not within their rights to remove material already added by others. If, God forbid, the sample sentence were included in a master document with a large engineering team, it might come out like this:

Taking advantage of Time-Usage Leveraging (TUL) by maximizing the Mission Tasks (MT) accomplished in the Action Item (AI), goods, e.g.:

• moderations of breadstuffs (a product made of Wheat and Other Ingredients (WOI), cooked into a "loaf" which is then typically sliced and used to capture Other Food Types (OFT) for efficient and delicious consumption)
• a container of Pepsi® Mountain Dew™ (which is, of course, not literally dew from a mountain, but rather a Brand Name (BN) for a Carbonated Beverage (CB) with high concentrations of sugar and caffeine)
• a hardcopy of Swimsuit Nerds© (a periodical issued monthly that caters to the display of Female Information Technology (IT) Professionals (FITP) garbed in swimwear, with interesting sidebars detailing their System Preferences (SP))

were acquired from the SuperMarket™ Establishment (SE) -- a place where thousands of goods, primarily foodstuffs but also including Household Wares (HW) of various types, are sold to the public at a slight markup from the Wholesale Price (WP) -- effectively increasing the impactivity of future High-Efficiency Tasking Efforts (HETE).

Stuff like this is what causes editors to write essays picking on the writing abilities of engineers. At this point, there can be no repair; it must be replaced. Reducing the sentence to its core will bring praise for its clarity from a few; complaints over its changing the meaning of the sentence from many; and demands to know why the editor thinks he can correct the fine writing by so-and-so from most. The proactive editor might keep a stockpile of style manuals handy to (possibly) explain the basics of style and grammar, or (more likely) to barricade the door from the inside.

Yes, allowing engineers to write is fine sport indeed. Just don't let them change the subject to calculating a tip.