To non-native English writers: expunging the solecism "This allows to do something."

To non-native English writers: expunging the solecism "This allows to do something."

[Alan Mackenzie]

Hello, Emacs.

For some time I have been irritated by sentences of the form "This
allows to do something" in our source and documentation.

Such a sentence formation is NOT ENGLISH.  The verb "allow" absolutely
requires a direct object, not an infinitive verb.  This direct object
can be one of various things:

(i) The person or other agent being allowed, followed by an infinitive
  verb:

    "This allows YOU to do something."
    "This allows EMACS to do something."

(ii) The activity being allowed, as a gerund:

    "This allows DOING something."
    "This allows THE DOING OF something."

(iii) The object of the activity being allowed, followed by a passive
  voice infinitive verb:

    "This allows SOMETHING to be done."

Depending on the exact sentence, the best formulation can be any of
these three alternatives.  Nothing about natural languages is simple.

The same considerations also apply to "permit", "enable", and "prevent"
(although the preposition after "prevent" is always "from", never "to").

I have done my best to expunge these solecisms from our source and
documentation files (including NEWS).  PLEASE take care to avoid adding
any new ones!

Thanks!

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

Re: To non-native English writers: expunging the solecism "This allows to do something."

[Marcin Borkowski]

On 2016-01-24, at 22:06, Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> wrote:

> The same considerations also apply to "permit", "enable", and "prevent"
> (although the preposition after "prevent" is always "from", never "to").
>
> I have done my best to expunge these solecisms from our source and
> documentation files (including NEWS).  PLEASE take care to avoid adding
> any new ones!

Thank you for writing this.  I'm a non-native user of English, and I may
have messed this up.  I'll try to remember about this.

> [...]  Nothing about natural languages is simple.

"- In many languages, double negative means positive, but there is no
language in which a double positive means negative.
- Yeah, sure."

(SCNR;-))

>
> Thanks!


-- 
Marcin Borkowski
http://octd.wmi.amu.edu.pl/en/Marcin_Borkowski
Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science
Adam Mickiewicz University

Re: To non-native English writers: expunging the solecism "This allows to do something."

[Stephen Berman]

On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 21:06:02 +0000 Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> wrote:

> For some time I have been irritated by sentences of the form "This
> allows to do something" in our source and documentation.
>
> Such a sentence formation is NOT ENGLISH.  The verb "allow" absolutely
> requires a direct object, not an infinitive verb.  This direct object
> can be one of various things:
[...]
> The same considerations also apply to "permit", "enable", and "prevent"
> (although the preposition after "prevent" is always "from", never "to").
>
> I have done my best to expunge these solecisms from our source and
> documentation files (including NEWS).  PLEASE take care to avoid adding
> any new ones!

You missed some instances, which I found by running rgrep on the Emacs
source tree with this regexp (without the quotes):

"[^-]\(allow\|enable\|permit\|prevent\|require\)[^-de ]* to "

This does, however, also return several false positives, most of them
with "require" (one is written as `require' and one or two of the others
should probably be quoted like that).  I don't have time in the next few
days to commit a fix for these, so if you do, please go ahead.

Steve Berman

Re: To non-native English writers: expunging the solecism "This allows to do something."

[Alan Mackenzie]

Hello, Steve.

On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 11:54:04PM +0100, Stephen Berman wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 21:06:02 +0000 Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> wrote:

> > For some time I have been irritated by sentences of the form "This
> > allows to do something" in our source and documentation.

> > Such a sentence formation is NOT ENGLISH.  The verb "allow" absolutely
> > requires a direct object, not an infinitive verb.  This direct object
> > can be one of various things:
> [...]
> > The same considerations also apply to "permit", "enable", and "prevent"
> > (although the preposition after "prevent" is always "from", never "to").

> > I have done my best to expunge these solecisms from our source and
> > documentation files (including NEWS).  PLEASE take care to avoid adding
> > any new ones!

> You missed some instances, which I found by running rgrep on the Emacs
> source tree with this regexp (without the quotes):

> "[^-]\(allow\|enable\|permit\|prevent\|require\)[^-de ]* to "

Yes, I'd overlooked "require"; but there are instances of "requires to"
which are OK.  The regexp I ended up using was:

    '\b\(require\|allow\|prevent\|permit\|enable\)s\? to\b'

, and some fancy playing around with -A1 and -B1 flags to grep to find
instances (and there were a few) where the verb is at the end of a line
and the "to" at the beginning of the next line (modulo comment markers,
etc.).

> This does, however, also return several false positives, most of them
> with "require" (one is written as `require' and one or two of the others
> should probably be quoted like that).  I don't have time in the next few
> days to commit a fix for these, so if you do, please go ahead.

Well, I've knocked down quite a few more instances.  I can't guarantee
there're none left, of course, but there aren't many.

> Steve Berman

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

Re: To non-native English writers: expunging the solecism "This allows to do something."

[Phillip Lord]

Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> writes:
>
>> You missed some instances, which I found by running rgrep on the Emacs
>> source tree with this regexp (without the quotes):
>
>> "[^-]\(allow\|enable\|permit\|prevent\|require\)[^-de ]* to "
>
> Yes, I'd overlooked "require"; but there are instances of "requires to"
> which are OK.  The regexp I ended up using was:
>
>     '\b\(require\|allow\|prevent\|permit\|enable\)s\? to\b'
>
> , and some fancy playing around with -A1 and -B1 flags to grep to find
> instances (and there were a few) where the verb is at the end of a line
> and the "to" at the beginning of the next line (modulo comment markers,
> etc.).
>
>> This does, however, also return several false positives, most of them
>> with "require" (one is written as `require' and one or two of the others
>> should probably be quoted like that).  I don't have time in the next few
>> days to commit a fix for these, so if you do, please go ahead.
>
> Well, I've knocked down quite a few more instances.  I can't guarantee
> there're none left, of course, but there aren't many.


Can't we build this into checkdoc in some form?

Phil

Re: To non-native English writers: expunging the solecism "This allows to do something."

[Stephen Berman]

On Mon, 25 Jan 2016 12:51:56 +0000 Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> wrote:

> On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 11:54:04PM +0100, Stephen Berman wrote:
>
>> You missed some instances, which I found by running rgrep on the Emacs
>> source tree with this regexp (without the quotes):
>
>> "[^-]\(allow\|enable\|permit\|prevent\|require\)[^-de ]* to "
>
> Yes, I'd overlooked "require"; but there are instances of "requires to"
> which are OK.  The regexp I ended up using was:
>
>     '\b\(require\|allow\|prevent\|permit\|enable\)s\? to\b'

Ah, this is better than mine in that it also find cases where the verb
is at bol or "to" at eol; yet ...

> , and some fancy playing around with -A1 and -B1 flags to grep to find
> instances (and there were a few) where the verb is at the end of a line
> and the "to" at the beginning of the next line (modulo comment markers,
> etc.).
>
>> This does, however, also return several false positives, most of them
>> with "require" (one is written as `require' and one or two of the others
>> should probably be quoted like that).  I don't have time in the next few
>> days to commit a fix for these, so if you do, please go ahead.
>
> Well, I've knocked down quite a few more instances.  I can't guarantee
> there're none left, of course, but there aren't many.

... your regexp misses cases of "allowing to", "requiring to", which
there are a handful of (and I didn't try using -A1 and -B1):

./etc/ORG-NEWS:1602:     =org-attach-method= now supports a new method =lns=, allowing to
./lisp/ruler-mode.el:122:Also allowing to visually change `tab-stop-list' setting using
./lisp/org/ox.el:3470:;; `org-export-with-backend' is a function allowing to locally use
./lisp/org/ChangeLog.1:10415:	(org-element--current-element): Fix bug requiring to parse a quote
./lisp/org/ChangeLog.1:14844:	Check `org-protected' property before allowing to match a footnote.
./lisp/org/ChangeLog.1:17233:	(org-re-property): New function allowing to build a regexp to
./doc/lispref/text.texi:1376:allowing to undo them as a group.  By default, commands
./doc/lispref/markers.texi:343:Most functions that create markers, without an argument allowing to
./doc/emacs/frames.texi:1013:with the mouse, thus allowing to easily resize adjacent windows.

I think that's it (don't worry, I won't try looking for more ;-).

Steve Berman

Re: To non-native English writers: expunging the solecism "This allows to do something."

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

  > This does, however, also return several false positives, most of them
  > with "require" (one is written as `require' and one or two of the others
  > should probably be quoted like that).

I don't know for certain what you found, but "require to do" has the
same English usage rules as "permit to do" or "allow to do": the
entity that will do it must be stated.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (gnu.org, fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (internethalloffame.org)
Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.

Re: To non-native English writers: expunging the solecism "This allows to do something."

[Stephen Berman]

On Mon, 25 Jan 2016 10:35:55 -0500 Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> wrote:

> [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
> [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
> [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
>
>   > This does, however, also return several false positives, most of them
>   > with "require" (one is written as `require' and one or two of the others
>   > should probably be quoted like that).
>
> I don't know for certain what you found, but "require to do" has the
> same English usage rules as "permit to do" or "allow to do": the
> entity that will do it must be stated.

Several of the false positives are use-mention ambiguities arising
because "require" isn't quoted as `require', e.g.:

./lisp/ChangeLog.2:3416:	Use require to load x-mouse.
./lisp/ChangeLog.17:23939:	Tweak requires to silence compiler.
./lisp/ChangeLog.11:1159:	* calc/calc.el: Move require to end of file.

(The latter is of course not even syntactically an instance of the
solecism ("to end" is not an infinitive), but was caught by the regexp's
wide net.)

The object of "require" can also be relativized, leading to another
false positive, in fact, one found several times in the Emacs sources,
since it occurs in the GFDL appended to every info manual:

./info/todo-mode.info:1946:     material this License requires to appear in the title page.  For

(Though this usage is different from the typical solecisms, since the
object here is not agentive.)

Sometimes the object of "require" can be elided, if it's clear from the
context; this is quite common in "ChangeLog-Speak" and leads to another
false positive:

./lisp/gnus/ChangeLog.3:7094:	(time-date): Require to make some autoload issues on XEmacs go away.

But this is not an instance of the solecism, since the infinitive is not
the complement of "require" but an adverbial purpose clause (like the
first two false positives above).

Steve Berman

RE: To non-native English writers: expunging the solecism "This allows to do something."

[Drew Adams]

>     "This allows YOU to do something."
>     "This allows EMACS to do something."

Also: "This lets you do something."
 
>     "This allows SOMETHING to be done."

Also: "This lets SOMETHING be done."

Re: To non-native English writers: expunging the solecism "This allows to do something."

[Rostislav Svoboda]

> "this allows to do something"
> Such a sentence formation is NOT ENGLISH.

Well :)
Wait for about 30 - 35 years at will be.

Except that I'm not sure if you're aware of it but a large portion of
readers of your email has difficulties with meaning of:
  expunging
  solecism
  gerund
  take care to
  direct object

In contrast to that, meaning of both expressions:
  this allows to do something
  this allows [...] to do something
is quite clear. Nobody needs to google for it, even if it is not
Oxford English from the end of 20th century.

Thanks :)

Re: To non-native English writers: expunging the solecism "This allows to do something."

[Rostislav Svoboda]

> Except that I'm not sure if you're aware of it but a large portion of
> readers of your email has difficulties with meaning of:
>   expunging
>   solecism
>   gerund
>   take care to
>   direct object

Add
     passive voice infinitive verb
to the list above.

Re: To non-native English writers: expunging the solecism "This allows to do something."

[Alan Mackenzie]

Hello, Rostislav.

On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 04:13:17PM +0100, Rostislav Svoboda wrote:
> > "this allows to do something"
> > Such a sentence formation is NOT ENGLISH.

> Well :)
> Wait for about 30 - 35 years at will be.

That is my fear, which is partly why I'm doing something small to help
prevent it.  ;-)

> Except that I'm not sure if you're aware of it but a large portion of
> readers of your email has difficulties with meaning of:
>   expunging
>   solecism
>   gerund
>   take care to
>   direct object

Most of these terms (and also "passive voice infinitive verb") were used
in contexts where their meanings were illustrated.  "Take care to" is an
everyday English idiom.  It is true that even a lot of English native
speakers won't know what a "solecism" or a "gerund" is, but the
emacs-devel group consists largely of people who enjoy using precise
technical terms.

Also when posting here, I deliberately don't simplify my English, partly
because that would be patronising, and would hinder me in getting my
exact meaning across.  Many, possibly most, of the non-native English
writers on the group have a very good mastery of the language.
(Incidentally, the language spoken where I live is not English.)

> In contrast to that, meaning of both expressions:
>   this allows to do something
>   this allows [...] to do something
> is quite clear. Nobody needs to google for it, even if it is not
> Oxford English from the end of 20th century.

The first of these is incorrect, even if its meaning may be clear.  In
the comments and documentation, we strive to use correct English, not
merely to make our meaning clear.

> Thanks :)

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

Re: To non-native English writers: expunging the solecism "This allows to do something."

[Michael Albinus]

Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> writes:

> (Incidentally, the language spoken where I live is not English.)

Bavarian, I suppose. I don't understand it at all.

Best regards, Michael.

Re: To non-native English writers: expunging the solecism "This allows to do something."

[Paul Eggert]

On 01/25/2016 07:13 AM, Rostislav Svoboda wrote:
> In contrast to that, meaning of both expressions:
>    this allows to do something
>    this allows [...] to do something
> is quite clear.

That may be, but English grammar is not entirely laissez faire. For 
non-native-English writers a good source for what constructions are 
allowed is:

http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/allow

Just to make your head spin a bit more, “allows to” is OK when followed 
by an indirect object, even though the “to” could often be omitted in 
that case. For example:

"So far the object is not only lawful, but it is the mere exercise of a 
right which the law allows to every individual."

This is from Alexander Hamilton's 1791 opinion as to the 
constitutionality of the Bank of the United States. I wonder: would 
Hamilton have said the same thing about the GPL?

Re: To non-native English writers: expunging the solecism "This allows to do something."

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

  > "So far the object is not only lawful, but it is the mere exercise of a 
  > right which the law allows to every individual."

This is a different construction, since "to" is a preposition, not a
part of an infinitive.  Note also that "allows" here has a direct
object, "a right".


-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (gnu.org, fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (internethalloffame.org)
Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.

Re: To non-native English writers: expunging the solecism "This allows to do something."

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

  > For some time I have been irritated by sentences of the form "This
  > allows to do something" in our source and documentation.

  > Such a sentence formation is NOT ENGLISH.

That's true.  In addition, that formation is unclear
because it fails to say who or what will do the thing.

The right way to write it is this way

  > (i) The person or other agent being allowed, followed by an infinitive
  >   verb:

  >     "This allows YOU to do something."
  >     "This allows EMACS to do something."

because it explicitly states who or what will do the thing.

These three constructions

      > "This allows DOING something."
      > "This allows THE DOING OF something."
      > "This allows SOMETHING to be done."

are correct English, but they share the problem of failing
to clarify who or what will do it.

  > The same considerations also apply to "permit", "enable", and "prevent"

That's right.  The point that we want to state who or what will be
permitted, enabled or prevented applies to them too.

Please everyone, fix these constructions to state the subject
and follow correct English.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (gnu.org, fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (internethalloffame.org)
Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.

Re: To non-native English writers: expunging the solecism "This allows to do something."

[Rostislav Svoboda]

> In addition, that formation is unclear
> because it fails to say who or what will do the thing.

For Slavic language natives like me and Marcin, constructions like
"This allows to do something" work perfectly well.
Sorry guys :)
We simply don't find it to be that important to specify who or what
will do things. You know... lazy evaluation at it's best :)

> > Well :)
> > Wait for about 30 - 35 years at will be.
>
> That is my fear, which is partly why I'm doing something small to help
> prevent it.  ;-)

That's an uphill struggle, Alan :) Besides, believe me there's nothing
to fear about :) Free your mind! :)

Bost

Re: To non-native English writers: expunging the solecism "This allows to do something."

[Yuri Khan]

On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 10:55 PM, Rostislav Svoboda
<rostislav.svoboda@gmail.com> wrote:

> For Slavic language natives like me and Marcin, constructions like
> "This allows to do something" work perfectly well.
> Sorry guys :)
> We simply don't find it to be that important to specify who or what
> will do things. You know... lazy evaluation at it's best :)

Yes, and it may be a reason we can agree that something should be done
and never get around to actually doing it, because everybody assumes
someone else will.

English has grammar that enforces[1] specification of the doer — let’s
not throw away its benefits.

[1]: would enforce, given a good linter


> That's an uphill struggle, Alan :) Besides, believe me there's nothing
> to fear about :) Free your mind! :)

I, for one, welcome our grammar nazi overlords. Alan, please continue
to educate us about proper use of English when occasion arises.

Re: To non-native English writers: expunging the solecism "This allows to do something."

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

  > For Slavic language natives like me and Marcin, constructions like
  > "This allows to do something" work perfectly well.
  > Sorry guys :)

Don't take a sloppy attitude towards work on Emacs.
We all make mistakes, but we must at least try to avoid them.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (gnu.org, fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (internethalloffame.org)
Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.

Re: To non-native English writers: expunging the solecism "This allows to do something."

[Rostislav Svoboda]

>   > For Slavic language natives like me and Marcin, constructions like
>   > "This allows to do something" work perfectly well.
>   > Sorry guys :)
>
> Don't take a sloppy attitude towards work on Emacs.
> We all make mistakes, but we must at least try to avoid them.

It has nothing to do with sloppiness.
It's just like English has some quirks. Your part of this planet find
them important, mine does not.
It's like accusing English natives of being sloppy because they don't
add the -es ending when saying 'two fish'.

:)

Guys, can you get your head around it?

Re: To non-native English writers: expunging the solecism "This allows to do something."

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

  > It's just like English has some quirks. Your part of this planet find
  > them important, mine does not.

We consider them important.  Not only that, but many readers will find
the text easier to read if the standard rules are followed.  We are
not going to abandon these style rules, just as we will not abandon
the GNU coding style.

Please follow these rules when writing text for inclusion in GNU
programs.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (gnu.org, fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (internethalloffame.org)
Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.

Re: To non-native English writers: expunging the solecism "This allows to do something."

[Mathieu Lirzin]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

> are correct English, but they share the problem of failing
> to clarify who or what will do it.
>
>   > The same considerations also apply to "permit", "enable", and "prevent"
>
> That's right.  The point that we want to state who or what will be
> permitted, enabled or prevented applies to them too.
>
> Please everyone, fix these constructions to state the subject
> and follow correct English.

As a non-native english speaker, I feel bad when I read such injunctions
from you or Alan.

When stating such thing, it would be nice to acknowledge that it can be
difficult to write correct english especially when it isn't your primary
language.  Otherwise you feed a power relationship between contributors,
which is already strong enough.

What about creating some documentation about common english mistakes to
avoid, instead of urging people to not make them?  How would you feel if
the same injuctions were made about correctly using Git or anything you
are not comfortable at?

--
Mathieu Lirzin

Re: To non-native English writers: expunging the solecism "This allows to do something."

[Xue Fuqiao]

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 7:14 AM, Mathieu Lirzin <mthl@gnu.org> wrote:
>
> What about creating some documentation about common english mistakes to
> avoid, instead of urging people to not make them?

Sounds like a good idea.  Maybe they can be added to
admin/notes/documentation.

BTW, GCC also has some conventions of spelling and terminology:
https://gcc.gnu.org/codingconventions.html#Spelling

Re: To non-native English writers: expunging the solecism "This allows to do something."

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

  > As a non-native english speaker, I feel bad when I read such injunctions
  > from you or Alan.

I am sorry that you feel bad, but I did not mean this as personal
criticism of you, or anyone.  It is a matter of style of how we write.
You don't need to feel criticized.

If you try your best to follow these rules, it is no grave problem if
you sometimes make mistakes.  Everyone makes mistakes, and you don't
need to feel bad about them.  Other developers will fix them.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (gnu.org, fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (internethalloffame.org)
Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.

Re: To non-native English writers: expunging the solecism "This allows to do something."

[Alan Mackenzie]

Mello, Mathieu.

On Tue, 26 Jan 2016, Mathieu Lirzin wrote:

> Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

> As a non-native english speaker, I feel bad when I read such injunctions
> from you [RMS] or Alan.

I apologise for this.  My intention was to point out (and fix) a common 
error, so as to make people aware of it.

> When stating such thing, it would be nice to acknowledge that it can be
> difficult to write correct english especially when it isn't your primary
> language.  Otherwise you feed a power relationship between contributors,
> which is already strong enough.

Again, apologies.  I understand the difficulties in writing in a foreign 
language (I'm a native English speaker living in Germany), and it is 
really hard to get exactly right, far harder than making program source 
work correctly.

Was there anything else about my first post I could have done better, so 
as to avoid the misunderstanding about power relationships?

> What about creating some documentation about common english mistakes to
> avoid, instead of urging people to not make them?  How would you feel if
> the same injuctions were made about correctly using Git or anything you
> are not comfortable at?

Well, I have quite often asked for help with git and have been grateful 
for the help offered.  I think (or I hope), that if my written German 
were criticised the way I criticised "allows to ...", I would accept the 
corrections and try to write Geman better in the future.

> --
> Mathieu Lirzin
>
-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

Re: To non-native English writers: expunging the solecism "This allows to do something."

[Mathieu Lirzin]

Hello Alan,

Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> writes:
> On Tue, 26 Jan 2016, Mathieu Lirzin wrote:
>
>> As a non-native english speaker, I feel bad when I read such injunctions
>> from you [RMS] or Alan.
>
> I apologise for this.  My intention was to point out (and fix) a
> common error, so as to make people aware of it.

No problem.  I understand and agree with the objective.

In order to achieve this IMO a message in a mailing list is not
sufficient.  It would be helpful to have a short documentation
referencing common english mistakes that could arise in change logs or
comments, with the associated correction.  This would complement the GCS
and could be used as a ref-card by non-native english speakers.

>> When stating such thing, it would be nice to acknowledge that it can be
>> difficult to write correct english especially when it isn't your primary
>> language.  Otherwise you feed a power relationship between contributors,
>> which is already strong enough.
>
> Again, apologies.  I understand the difficulties in writing in a
> foreign language (I'm a native English speaker living in Germany), and
> it is really hard to get exactly right, far harder than making program
> source work correctly.
>
> Was there anything else about my first post I could have done better,
> so as to avoid the misunderstanding about power relationships?

You did a great job at explaining what the correct rule is.  However IMO
it would have been better to avoid using CAPS-LOCK or saying that you
were irritated.  OTOH when reading your first email, I have considered
that correcting mistakes made by others was not fun which allowed “you”
to grumble.  ;)

What made me react, was the resonance effect following it.

>> What about creating some documentation about common english mistakes to
>> avoid, instead of urging people to not make them?  How would you feel if
>> the same injuctions were made about correctly using Git or anything you
>> are not comfortable at?
>
> Well, I have quite often asked for help with git and have been
> grateful for the help offered.  I think (or I hope), that if my
> written German were criticised the way I criticised "allows to ...", I
> would accept the corrections and try to write Geman better in the
> future.

Ideally this is the expected reaction. but when several skilled people
converge on the idea that these mistakes should not be done without
using oratorical cautions, others can be refrained from trying to
improve.

Thanks for taking the time to answer.

--
Mathieu Lirzin