Eli Zaretskii writes: >> From: "Basil L. Contovounesios" >> Date: Wed, 02 May 2018 19:57:59 +0100 >> Cc: Noam Postavsky >> >> +@kindex C-M-S-v >> +@findex scroll-other-window-down >> The usual scrolling commands (@pxref{Display}) apply to the selected >> -window only, but there is one command to scroll the next window. >> +window only, but there are two commands to scroll the next window. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > I'd just say "there are commands". That's much better, but the sentence still seems a bit abrupt to me. How about "there are also commands"? >> @kbd{C-M-v} (@code{scroll-other-window}) scrolls the window that >> -@kbd{C-x o} would select. It takes arguments, positive and negative, >> -like @kbd{C-v}. (In the minibuffer, @kbd{C-M-v} scrolls the help >> -window associated with the minibuffer, if any, rather than the next >> -window in the standard cyclic order; @pxref{Minibuffer Edit}.) >> +@kbd{C-x o} would select upward. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > This makes the sentence ambiguous: it is not clear whether "upward" > goes with "scroll" or with "select". Either say "scrolls upward" at > the beginning of the sentence, or maybe explain the "upward" part in a > separate sentence (and what does "upward" mean here anyway -- does the > text or the viewport move upward?). Good point. Given that (a) forward/upward and backward/downward scrolling is described in more detail under the indirectly referenced "(emacs) Scrolling", and (b) half of this paragraph is already parenthetical, could we get away with just minor disambiguation? For example: