Re: eglot manual suggestions

["Mark H. David" <mhd@yv.org>]

Native English speaker and grammar nerd here. Wow, these are some interesting English fine points. FWIW, Robert is 100% right on with all these changes IMHO.
-mhd

----- Original message -----
From: Robert Pluim <rpluim@gmail.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
Subject: Re: eglot manual suggestions
Date: Monday, October 24, 2022 10:56 AM

>>>>> On Mon, 24 Oct 2022 20:03:23 +0300, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> said:

    >> From: Robert Pluim <rpluim@gmail.com>
    >> Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2022 18:00:35 +0200
    >> 
    >> Normally, Iʼd just commit this, but I feel the Grammar Dragon has been
    >> poked enough for one week. I care not a whit if these are
    >> characterised as 'style changes' or 'grammar corrections', but I feel
    >> they are improvements.

    Eli> In general, LGTM, thanks.  However, ...

    >> -Eglot uses the Emacs's project management infrastructure to figure out
    >> +Eglot uses the Emacs project management infrastructure to figure out

    Eli> Is "Emacs's" really wrong?

"Emacsʼs" is not, but "the Emacsʼs" is. We can drop the "the" and
retain "Emacsʼs" if you prefer

    >> -This section provides a reference of the most commonly used Eglot
    >> +This section provides a reference for the most commonly used Eglot

    Eli> Is "reference of" incorrect?

Itʼs unusual. Here "reference" is used as "a list that you can refer
to", which to me implies "for". But Iʼm not wedded to it

    >> -To have Eglot stay away of some Emacs feature, add that feature's
    >> +To have Eglot stay away from some Emacs feature, add that feature's

    Eli> "Stay away of" is incorrect?

Yes

    >> -If possible, we recommend to use these configuration files that are
    >> +If possible, we recommend to use those configuration files that are
    >> independent of Eglot and Emacs; they have the advantage that they will
    >> work with other LSP clients as well.
    >> 
    >> If you do need to provide Emacs-specific configuration for a language
    >> -server, we recommend to define the appropriate value in the
    >> +server, we recommend defining the appropriate value in the

    Eli> Here, you contradict yourself: if "recommend to use" is OK, then why
    Eli> "recommend to define" isn't?

That just means I missed the first one :-)

    Eli> And AFAIU, both forms are correct English.

Possibly, but verb + gerund is more common and reads better.

    Eli> Also, why "those" in preference to "these"?

Because weʼre referring to files that are not Emacs configuration
files, hence "those" emphasises their otherness: "Donʼt use these, use
*those*"

Robert
--