« How to Avoid Silly Errors in Email | Main | The Awkward "Please" »

May 20, 2009

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c02a553ef01157099c607970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Your Help Please With "As Per":

Comments

Clare

I would never use the phrase "as per", even in technical text. It's a strange hybrid of English and Latin that sounds both wrong and pretentious.

Couldn't we just do a straight translation here of "per" and say "as with"? Or replace "as per" with "according to"?

jade1977

I also cringe at the term "as per". That may be because some of my coworkers use it too often, and many times incorrectly. I think I would use "as stated in Instruction 3231"

Victor

I would use

Attach the plate to the rod following Instruction 3231 on plate-rod assembly.

Lester Smith

How about simply removing the "as"? I see nothing wrong with:

Attach the plate to the rod per Instruction 3231 on plate-rod assembly.

Lynn

Thanks for your suggestions! Let's see if others have ideas.

Mike Badger

The Handbook of Technical Writing from Bedford/St. Martins makes a nice reference book. Here's the advice on using per: "When [per is] used to mean 'according to,' the expression is jargon and should be avoided."

As a technical writer, I would say there's a bigger issue than using as per to reference other instructions. It's an issue of clarity.

Each time you make a reader break from the current set of instructions to find, follow, and return from another set of instructions, you run the risk of losing the reader.

I think there's lots of options to edit "as per" that depends more on the actual context of document than whether or not it's jargon. But that may be just my opinion.

Lynn

Thanks, everyone! I appreciate your suggestions. It sounds as though we agree that "as per" stinks. The suggestions that seem most workable to me are:

--according to
--following
--as stated in

Mike, thanks for commenting and sharing "The Handbook of Technical Writing" advice. I agree that multilayered instructions are wrong-headed. The woman in my class, however, had a reason for using them. In her view, all the assemblers actually know the substeps. They are simply there for reference in case a new assembler is learning the procedure.

Lynn

1red111

I would never use "following" due to readability issues, including potential ambiguity. "According to" and "as stated in" are wordy for technical documents. I would simply use "per" and spare the sorry bunch who have to read my docs some text.

Marza

http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/asper.html This explains why "as per" is not necessary.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment