Specification Language

Log Out | Topics | Search Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Author Message John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 135 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Wednesday, November 19, 2003 - 02:21 pm:    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." Steven T. Lawrey, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, November 20, 2003 - 02:43 pm:    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". John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 137 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Thursday, November 20, 2003 - 06:38 pm:    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. Russell W. Wood Junior Member Username: woodr5678 Post Number: 2 Registered: 11-2003 Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 10:34 am:    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". Lynn Javoroski Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 38 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, December 17, 2003 - 04:18 pm:    How about "any and all"? What the heck does that mean? Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 40 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Wednesday, December 17, 2003 - 04:46 pm:    How about "each and every"? Or, in common speech, "pick and choose" or "any way, shape, or form." Aaaaaaaaargh! Robert E. Woodburn, RA, CCS, CCCA,CSI Senior Member Username: bob_woodburn Post Number: 29 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Wednesday, December 17, 2003 - 05:20 pm:    I know what you mean, Sheldon. If there's anything I can't stand, it's wording that is redundant, superfluous and unnecessary! Lynn Javoroski Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 40 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, December 17, 2003 - 05:29 pm:    "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. John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 147 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Wednesday, December 17, 2003 - 09:32 pm:    >>If there's anything I can't stand, it's wording that is redundant, superfluous and unnecessary!<< and needlessly repetitious, too! John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 148 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Wednesday, December 17, 2003 - 09:35 pm:    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. Doug Frank FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: doug_frank_ccs Post Number: 58 Registered: 06-2002 Posted on Thursday, December 18, 2003 - 08:05 am:    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”? Tom Heineman RA, FCSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: tom_heineman Post Number: 22 Registered: 06-2002 Posted on Saturday, December 20, 2003 - 10:50 am:    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. Donald R. Woolery, RA, CSI Member Username: donald_woolery Post Number: 3 Registered: 01-2004 Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 04:18 pm:    For a look at more hilarious samples of bad writing, see http://engineeringnot.netfirms.com. Donald R. Woolery, RA, CSI Intermediate Member Username: donald_woolery Post Number: 4 Registered: 01-2004 Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 04:31 pm:    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." Jo Drummond Senior Member Username: jo_drummond Post Number: 79 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Sunday, February 01, 2004 - 06:30 pm:    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! Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 54 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Sunday, February 01, 2004 - 10:53 pm:    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. Tom Heineman RA, FCSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: tom_heineman Post Number: 25 Registered: 06-2002 Posted on Monday, February 02, 2004 - 07:15 am:    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: 1. Forget the one-to-twelve-in-words rule. Write 1, 7, 11 instead of one, seven, or eleven. 2. Forget the number-expressed-in-words rule at the beginning of a sentence. "99 bottles of beer on the wall" is correct technical writing, not "Ninety-nine bottles . . ." 3. The general rule that connects 1. and 2. is the desirability of having nearly all numbers on a page of specifications readily checkable. Digits catch the eye; numbers-written-out blend in with the rest of the text. Checkability and accuracy must take precedence in our line of work. 4. "Two 2x4s" is the anomaly that validates rule 3. The "two" is introduced precisely to reduce confusion and increase comprehension. David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 231 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Monday, February 02, 2004 - 06:42 pm:    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. (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, February 02, 2004 - 10:20 pm:    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.) Tom Peck (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Tuesday, February 03, 2004 - 11:13 am:    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? David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 232 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Tuesday, February 03, 2004 - 11:57 am:    The CSI Manual of Practice dictates to spell out symbols. Does anyone remember the scene from This is Spinal Tap about Stonehenge and midgets? If not go rent the movie. Last night I was reading a technical publication which stated that "8 + 3 = 2.667" It took me a minute to realized that the division sign had blurred into a plus sign. I am trying to avoid the abbreviation "No." for number. Instead I write "Bobrick B-345". I'm concerned that in some instance it might be interpretted as "no". Lynn Javoroski Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 52 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Tuesday, February 03, 2004 - 11:57 am:    Tom, you're exactly right. MOP, FF170, Symbols: "...symbols that should not be used..." include %, +, @ (for at) and some others. It also says that feet and inches should be spelled out when only "feet" or "inches" are used, but that in the case of 8'-1", the symbols are OK - there's little chance of confusion in that case. Another reason for not using symbols is that different software translates the symbols differently. I've often received specs from another source and the document will be sprinkled with little rectangles - my software's interpretation of whatever the symbol was. And then I have to try to figure it out. Sometimes it's not very evident what the symbol should be! So you are doing it right. "When in doubt, spell it out." Lynn Javoroski Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 53 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Tuesday, February 03, 2004 - 12:03 pm:    David, It always bugs me when people make lists and cite "No. A, No. B, No. C..." Since when are a, b, and c numbers? But do you ever hear of a list as "Letter A, Letter B, Letter C...?" I, too, try to avoid using "number" or "no."; just let the list or model stand alone. It won't be confusing. (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Tuesday, February 03, 2004 - 12:05 pm:    I was notified of an odd Roman numeral 2 (i.e. II) in a spec section. Turns out that a manufacturer had included the copyright symbol as part of a system's trade name. The copyright symbol had apparently morphed into a "II" Helaine K. Robinson CCS Senior Member Username: hollyrob Post Number: 37 Registered: 07-2003 Posted on Tuesday, February 03, 2004 - 12:06 pm:    sorry, that was my message Gerard Sanchis (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, February 09, 2004 - 04:36 pm:    All of this is very enjoyable but what do we do with bad consultants' specs? I for one have no time to rewrite them. We issue very clear instructions, which we label "Start-Up Package" every time we start a project, but with a few exceptions, no one seems to read them. By the way, I disagree with Neils Bohr. In my opinion, an expert is usually someone I've never worked with. Lynn Javoroski Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 161 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, December 01, 2004 - 03:11 pm:    Here's a suggestion from another source: Substitute damn every time you're inclined to write very; your editor will delete it and the writing will be just as it should be. - Mark Twain, author and humorist (1835-1910)