Thread: pgsql: Fix a bunch of bad grammar in the docs: ", which see for
pgsql: Fix a bunch of bad grammar in the docs: ", which see for
From
neilc@postgresql.org (Neil Conway)
Date:
Log Message:
-----------
Fix a bunch of bad grammar in the docs: "<link>, which see for more
information" is un-good English.
Modified Files:
--------------
pgsql/doc/src/sgml:
ddl.sgml (r1.74 -> r1.75)
(http://developer.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/doc/src/sgml/ddl.sgml.diff?r1=1.74&r2=1.75)
pgsql/doc/src/sgml/ref:
alter_role.sgml (r1.7 -> r1.8)
(http://developer.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/doc/src/sgml/ref/alter_role.sgml.diff?r1=1.7&r2=1.8)
alter_user.sgml (r1.42 -> r1.43)
(http://developer.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/doc/src/sgml/ref/alter_user.sgml.diff?r1=1.42&r2=1.43)
begin.sgml (r1.35 -> r1.36)
(http://developer.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/doc/src/sgml/ref/begin.sgml.diff?r1=1.35&r2=1.36)
create_group.sgml (r1.17 -> r1.18)
(http://developer.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/doc/src/sgml/ref/create_group.sgml.diff?r1=1.17&r2=1.18)
create_user.sgml (r1.39 -> r1.40)
(http://developer.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/doc/src/sgml/ref/create_user.sgml.diff?r1=1.39&r2=1.40)
createlang.sgml (r1.40 -> r1.41)
(http://developer.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/doc/src/sgml/ref/createlang.sgml.diff?r1=1.40&r2=1.41)
drop_group.sgml (r1.13 -> r1.14)
(http://developer.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/doc/src/sgml/ref/drop_group.sgml.diff?r1=1.13&r2=1.14)
drop_user.sgml (r1.23 -> r1.24)
(http://developer.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/doc/src/sgml/ref/drop_user.sgml.diff?r1=1.23&r2=1.24)
neilc@postgresql.org (Neil Conway) writes:
> Log Message:
> -----------
> Fix a bunch of bad grammar in the docs: "<link>, which see for more
> information" is un-good English.
I beg to differ.
regards, tom lane
On Wed, 2007-16-05 at 15:10 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > I beg to differ. On what grounds? -Neil
"Neil Conway" <neilc@samurai.com> writes: > On Wed, 2007-16-05 at 15:10 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> I beg to differ. > > On what grounds? "which see" is an unusual formulation but it's actually pretty standard. You see it a lot in older texts. IIRC it's used heavily in the TeX book. It's probably not a bad idea to avoid it though given that many readers will indeed be surprised by it. -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Gregory Stark wrote: > "Neil Conway" <neilc@samurai.com> writes: > >> On Wed, 2007-16-05 at 15:10 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >>> I beg to differ. >> On what grounds? > > "which see" is an unusual formulation but it's actually pretty standard. You > see it a lot in older texts. IIRC it's used heavily in the TeX book. > > It's probably not a bad idea to avoid it though given that many readers will > indeed be surprised by it. yes indeed - looks pretty weird to me at least (as a non native speaker) Stefan
On Wed, 2007-16-05 at 20:49 +0100, Gregory Stark wrote: > "which see" is an unusual formulation but it's actually pretty standard. You > see it a lot in older texts. Interesting, I've never run across it before. It certainly sounds awkward to me, but I can revert the change if people would like. -Neil
Neil Conway wrote: > On Wed, 2007-16-05 at 20:49 +0100, Gregory Stark wrote: > > "which see" is an unusual formulation but it's actually pretty standard. You > > see it a lot in older texts. > > Interesting, I've never run across it before. It certainly sounds > awkward to me, but I can revert the change if people would like. I don't care either way because the new wording seems OK too, but I as a non-native speaker found the construct very natural and easy to understand. It also maps into the latin q.v. verbatim. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
Neil Conway wrote: > On Wed, 2007-16-05 at 20:49 +0100, Gregory Stark wrote: >> "which see" is an unusual formulation but it's actually pretty standard. You >> see it a lot in older texts. > > Interesting, I've never run across it before. It certainly sounds > awkward to me, but I can revert the change if people would like. I've never seen it before, and it certainly sounds wrong to my ears. Greg would probably argue that I can't string two sentences together myself though, so who am I to comment? :-) Regards, Dave
On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 04:11:11PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Neil Conway wrote: > > On Wed, 2007-16-05 at 20:49 +0100, Gregory Stark wrote: > > > "which see" is an unusual formulation but it's actually pretty standard. You > > > see it a lot in older texts. > > > > Interesting, I've never run across it before. It certainly sounds > > awkward to me, but I can revert the change if people would like. > > I don't care either way because the new wording seems OK too, but I as a > non-native speaker found the construct very natural and easy to > understand. It also maps into the latin q.v. verbatim. Perhaps this is something that sounds better to non-native english speakers than it does to native. I hadn't run across the original, but it certainly grates on my ears. I vote keep the new version. -- Jim Nasby decibel@decibel.org EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)