From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Alan Mackenzie Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: To non-native English writers: expunging the solecism "This allows to do something." Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 16:18:49 +0000 Message-ID: <20160125161849.GC4500@acm.fritz.box> References: <20160124210602.GA7711@acm.fritz.box> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1453738604 3968 80.91.229.3 (25 Jan 2016 16:16:44 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 16:16:44 +0000 (UTC) Cc: "emacs-devel@gnu.org Development" To: Rostislav Svoboda Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Jan 25 17:16:35 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1aNjog-0001HL-9G for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 25 Jan 2016 17:16:34 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:39486 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aNjof-0000Lb-Kj for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 25 Jan 2016 11:16:33 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:51443) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aNjob-0000Gd-5L for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 25 Jan 2016 11:16:30 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aNjoW-0005sA-3G for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 25 Jan 2016 11:16:29 -0500 Original-Received: from mail.muc.de ([193.149.48.3]:54546) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aNjoV-0005rl-QJ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 25 Jan 2016 11:16:24 -0500 Original-Received: (qmail 74436 invoked by uid 3782); 25 Jan 2016 16:16:22 -0000 Original-Received: from acm.muc.de (p548A43AD.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.138.67.173]) by colin.muc.de (tmda-ofmipd) with ESMTP; Mon, 25 Jan 2016 17:16:22 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 25132 invoked by uid 1000); 25 Jan 2016 16:18:49 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) X-Delivery-Agent: TMDA/1.1.12 (Macallan) X-Primary-Address: acm@muc.de X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: FreeBSD 9.x X-Received-From: 193.149.48.3 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:198788 Archived-At: 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).