bug#32037: simplify possessive form's "functions' definitions"

bug#32037: simplify possessive form's "functions' definitions"

[Van L]

diff --git a/doc/lispintro/emacs-lisp-intro.texi b/doc/lispintro/emacs-lisp-intro.texi
index be3e938b24..82c49bf693 100644
--- a/doc/lispintro/emacs-lisp-intro.texi
+++ b/doc/lispintro/emacs-lisp-intro.texi
@@ -3028,7 +3028,7 @@ Primitive Functions
 @cindex Primitives written in C
 All functions are defined in terms of other functions, except for a few
 @dfn{primitive} functions that are written in the C programming
-language.  When you write functions' definitions, you will write them in
+language.  When you write function definitions, you will write them in
 Emacs Lisp and use other functions as your building blocks.  Some of the
 functions you will use will themselves be written in Emacs Lisp (perhaps
 by you) and some will be primitives written in C@.  The primitive
@@ -3179,7 +3179,7 @@ defun
 
 @findex * @r{(multiplication)}
 The third line of the example consists of the body of the function
-definition.  (Most functions' definitions, of course, are longer than
+definition.  (Most function definitions, of course, are longer than
 this.)  In this function, the body is the list, @code{(* 7 number)}, which
 says to multiply the value of @var{number} by 7.  (In Emacs Lisp,
 @code{*} is the function for multiplication, just as @code{+} is the

bug#32037: simplify possessive form's "functions' definitions"

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Van L <van@scratch.space>
> Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2018 01:11:00 +1000
> 
> diff --git a/doc/lispintro/emacs-lisp-intro.texi b/doc/lispintro/emacs-lisp-intro.texi
> index be3e938b24..82c49bf693 100644
> --- a/doc/lispintro/emacs-lisp-intro.texi
> +++ b/doc/lispintro/emacs-lisp-intro.texi
> @@ -3028,7 +3028,7 @@ Primitive Functions
>  @cindex Primitives written in C
>  All functions are defined in terms of other functions, except for a few
>  @dfn{primitive} functions that are written in the C programming
> -language.  When you write functions' definitions, you will write them in
> +language.  When you write function definitions, you will write them in
>  Emacs Lisp and use other functions as your building blocks.  Some of the
>  functions you will use will themselves be written in Emacs Lisp (perhaps
>  by you) and some will be primitives written in C@.  The primitive
> @@ -3179,7 +3179,7 @@ defun
>  
>  @findex * @r{(multiplication)}
>  The third line of the example consists of the body of the function
> -definition.  (Most functions' definitions, of course, are longer than
> +definition.  (Most function definitions, of course, are longer than
>  this.)  In this function, the body is the list, @code{(* 7 number)}, which
>  says to multiply the value of @var{number} by 7.  (In Emacs Lisp,
>  @code{*} is the function for multiplication, just as @code{+} is the

Thanks, but AFAIK the original wording is perfectly correct English
(if not more correct).  Why did you think it needed to be changed?

bug#32037: simplify possessive form's "functions' definitions"

[Van L]

> Thanks, but AFAIK the original wording is perfectly correct English
> (if not more correct).  Why did you think it needed to be changed?

Is it the correct Emacs’ or Emacs’s? which is recommended use?

The suggestion here is less pedantic.

bug#32037: simplify possessive form's "functions' definitions"

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Van L <van@scratch.space>
> Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2018 01:35:23 +1000
> Cc: 32037@debbugs.gnu.org
> 
> 
> > Thanks, but AFAIK the original wording is perfectly correct English
> > (if not more correct).  Why did you think it needed to be changed?
> 
> Is it the correct Emacs’ or Emacs’s? which is recommended use?

I'm not sure, but "Emacs" is not necessarily plural, whereas
"functions" is.

bug#32037: simplify possessive form's "functions' definitions"

[Glenn Morris]

Van L wrote:

> Is it the correct Emacs' or Emacs's? which is recommended use?

admin/notes/documentation:

  ** To indicate possession, write Emacs's rather than Emacs'.

bug#32037: simplify possessive form's "functions' definitions"

[Robert Pluim]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>>  @findex * @r{(multiplication)}
>>  The third line of the example consists of the body of the function
>> -definition.  (Most functions' definitions, of course, are longer than
>> +definition.  (Most function definitions, of course, are longer than
>>  this.)  In this function, the body is the list, @code{(* 7 number)}, which
>>  says to multiply the value of @var{number} by 7.  (In Emacs Lisp,
>>  @code{*} is the function for multiplication, just as @code{+} is the
>
> Thanks, but AFAIK the original wording is perfectly correct English
> (if not more correct).  Why did you think it needed to be changed?

The original is fine. I wish there was less going around changing
perfectly good sentences in our documentation (as opposed to editing
for clarity).

Robert

bug#32037: simplify possessive form's "functions' definitions"

[Eli Zaretskii]

tags 32037 notabug
thanks

> From: Robert Pluim <rpluim@gmail.com>
> Cc: Van L <van@scratch.space>,  32037@debbugs.gnu.org
> Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2018 21:59:58 +0200
> 
> > Thanks, but AFAIK the original wording is perfectly correct English
> > (if not more correct).  Why did you think it needed to be changed?
> 
> The original is fine. I wish there was less going around changing
> perfectly good sentences in our documentation (as opposed to editing
> for clarity).

Agreed, closing.