From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stephen Berman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#23746: 25.0.95; Doc fixes (grammar, typos, clarification) Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 11:20:43 +0200 Message-ID: <87eg818mxg.fsf@gmx.net> References: <87h9czoh5v.fsf@gmx.net> <83d1nnhfmu.fsf@gnu.org> <87d1nnofd2.fsf@gmx.net> <83bn37h6o0.fsf@gnu.org> <871t421e7w.fsf@gmx.net> <83vb1efd9v.fsf@gnu.org> <83mvmpg2dx.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1465809744 30766 80.91.229.3 (13 Jun 2016 09:22:24 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 09:22:24 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 23746@debbugs.gnu.org, Noam Postavsky To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Jun 13 11:22:19 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@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 1bCO4X-0000Sy-43 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 13 Jun 2016 11:22:17 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:54646 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bCO4W-00059T-FE for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 13 Jun 2016 05:22:16 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:43350) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bCO4N-00057o-Bq for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 13 Jun 2016 05:22:11 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bCO4I-00065I-67 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 13 Jun 2016 05:22:06 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:54445) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bCO4I-00065D-2k for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 13 Jun 2016 05:22:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bCO4H-0002cO-UH for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 13 Jun 2016 05:22:01 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Stephen Berman Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 09:22:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 23746 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 23746-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B23746.146580967310011 (code B ref 23746); Mon, 13 Jun 2016 09:22:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 23746) by debbugs.gnu.org; 13 Jun 2016 09:21:13 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38549 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bCO3V-0002bO-CP for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 13 Jun 2016 05:21:13 -0400 Original-Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.17.22]:52009) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bCO3T-0002b9-GJ for 23746@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 13 Jun 2016 05:21:12 -0400 Original-Received: from rosalinde ([89.245.110.136]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx101) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0Lpfas-1bfenL1EMI-00fOC9; Mon, 13 Jun 2016 11:20:45 +0200 In-Reply-To: <83mvmpg2dx.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Mon, 13 Jun 2016 07:04:58 +0300") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.95 (gnu/linux) X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:KaRlkDm/d/HPVsEAwyLp4gCn4zBobDKRKVsDRI0cH5U5xoHnUrC 9iaddAQT0opXoiIQs/dAaBBsGdfzsq8Ew4ozmvwxl8F0FbAzIRDlGnVYTWxjqthe/aXTfm8 OYLDyhbPsEsM/BxYN2yFhpqwIywvMcmgiSg/VfoNkYiocZjYnzyplPFkDZSFpKwLQOGWTqd TxIYXzkZZW0sRxmC0+xDQ== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:2HZZS8LRXk0=:DX+QcgPXzov0AY7AalRKld MB/W42Z1+kxTotYvY5j0j4lN5DFdQU+ZI8Od4k7gK7yaFwyNhUB9BGl19uhoxmdYvJ6twZuPc hJ2+s+7rCUkEj/7HgrAv9PrfXDNMKxoafJgWf89zB7sFxlpCSLHRia3rcWSbRwhJsfV5hsA0Z AkNjIRPDWyT01chHGbi/mdObb7XVNT9e/eDg9AzdQqJSib2deI4P4i1EbWvegF5CBBmgb4srr bP8prTsCt3EPmOSeOVwYy3iqrX0xq0ggExPp1QnNvsLjaY50H08iNqUWIAjzubwyUIXSNMrXn P/iCVMae9zDA0XRSah+gBDou98F88gRyV3nSDk3T453rRC84vP81yFlo7YQvgH4yg1t2fgXQt 4C17KBfPF0aoyiu2nHQPCj7qvbZyQRPk9ZOh1hGvOp5ufGfA7ppOyafCn1UZJlsN/HhzCuZ9F ppAln/lkcainVhiWugJSZIIxACUcb477qCUedlB6mtBoydCsf2biRwWx4HfBkd3/uIxvAxQnX k8TTJUivSD5ZEAtBYA+cmGHKdOnDu3NfFD5I+AdZg1v23lA1PJGPibI7yRaV+mZrsGQ3cnfNJ Sqydt9sLAS4h8q64v+/msz7pa8Oywmej6IObPfhvT9baXRlHZrPavzpLalwsl9tJCiBbzinn7 xQAl5SgCeyIc2iPCRZVP743NGbKoPRullPA9zjQ75krfH3gg6/DhZbBFvFlj9YeCaSa4mIEuj g6hQRFfVgsbJZU98z/RRBwkjDg4E+Dmx0cLDPXB4oQ8r+FnNI+qEIhhpkkfwoJv9384eBYYr X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 208.118.235.43 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "bug-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:119484 Archived-At: On Mon, 13 Jun 2016 07:04:58 +0300 Eli Zaretskii wrote: > Anyway, which part(s) are grammatically incorrect, and why? The Since I proposed the changes, I will try to explain why. > changes in question modified at least 3 different parts, all of them > seem to be stylistic changes. I wonder why stylistic matters should > cause this amount of bike-shedding. Here is the relevent diff again, with the three parts in question underlined: @@ -1382,12 +1382,13 @@ Process Buffers @end defun If the process's buffer is displayed in a window, your Lisp program -may wish telling the process the dimensions of that window, so that ^^^^^^^^^^^^ -the process could adapt its output to those dimensions, much as it ^^^^^ -adapts to the screen dimensions. The following functions allow to ^^^^^^^^ -communicate this kind of information to processes; however, not all ^^^^^^^^^^^ -systems support the underlying functionality, so it is best to provide -fallbacks, e.g., via command-line arguments or environment variables. +may wish to tell the process the dimensions of that window, so that ^^^^^^^^^^^^ +the process can adapt its output to those dimensions, much as it ^^^ +adapts to the screen dimensions. The following functions allow your ^^^^^^^^^^ +program to communicate this kind of information to processes; however, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ +not all systems support the underlying functionality, so it is best to +provide fallbacks, e.g., via command-line arguments or environment +variables. The line between grammaticality and stylistic variation isn't always clearcut, but I think there would be little or no disagreement among native speakers of the most widely spoken dialects of English (there may be dialects that differ, though I am not aware of any) regarding at least two of the three underlined parts above: "wish" and "allow" can both occur with non-finite clausal complements, but with differences: "wish" can occur only with a "to"-infinitive, usually without a subject, as in "I wish to go" but possibly also with one, as in "I wish you to go" or "I wish for you to go" (to me, the first sounds rather formal or archaic, the second sounds colloquial but possibly non-standard); in contrast, an "-ing" complement (with or without a subject), as in "I wish (you) going" is unacceptable. "Allow" can occur with a "to"-infinitive, but then only with a subject, as in "I allowed you to go" but not "I allowed to go" (unless the complement is passivized, as in "We were allowed to go"); in some cases a subjectless "-ing" complement is possible, as in "the header line allows sorting entries by clicking on column headers", where the understood subject of "sorting" is nonspecific, e.g., people in general, not some particular individual: "I allowed John going" is unacceptable (there may be some dialectal variation about this, but I'm not sure). These differences are grammatical in the sense that native speakers by and large agree on what's "right" and "wrong", regardless of context or stylistic register (though, again, there are gray areas). As for my suggestion to use "can" instead of "could", I suspect there may be less agreement about that: both entail possibility, but in the above context "can" sounds more natural (or appropriate) to me due to the present tense of the whole sentence, in contrast to the following: "If your program told the process the dimensions of the window, the process could adapt its output to those dimensions". But I think many native speakers would find either form perfectly acceptable in the above context. Steve Berman