Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 08:10:05 -0700 (PDT) From: "T. William Wells" <bill@twwells.com> To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: kern/27429: 'dependant' is a misspelling Message-ID: <200105191510.f4JFA5g99622@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The following reply was made to PR kern/27429; it has been noted by GNATS. From: "T. William Wells" <bill@twwells.com> To: bde@zeta.org.au (Bruce Evans) Cc: freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: kern/27429: 'dependant' is a misspelling Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 10:58:23 -0400 (EDT) > The above URL says that this form is archaic. The Oxford English > Dictionary (a 20+ volume 1972 edition on dead trees) gives more details. > This form started being archaic about 1800... It says that the first meaning for this form is archaic. The other, as in "these are my dependants" is still correct, even if not the most common spelling. > > 3) Some of the examples were for "independant", which rather > > definitely is not a word. > > Similarly for "consistant", "existant", "inadvertant", "persistant", > etc. There were only 37 lines with these in the whole src tree on > 1996/10/25 according to some saved grep output from that date. Bletch. Oh well...I wouldn't worry too much about any of them, unless they show up in program output. Still, it'd be nice to fix them. Spelling wars on bugs@freebsd.org? :) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-bugs" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200105191510.f4JFA5g99622>