Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 7 May 2003 11:25:28 -0700
From:      Hiten Pandya <hmp@FreeBSD.ORG>
To:        John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org>
Cc:        cvs-doc@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: cvs commit: doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/disks chapter.sgml
Message-ID:  <20030507182528.GA91008@perrin.int.nxad.com>
In-Reply-To: <XFMail.20030507130410.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
References:  <20030507084829.GB15496@HAL9000.homeunix.com> <XFMail.20030507130410.jhb@FreeBSD.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 01:04:10PM -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
> 
> On 07-May-2003 David Schultz wrote:
> > On Wed, May 07, 2003, Hiten Pandya wrote:
> >> On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 11:00:18PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
> >> > > Actually, and according to my dictionary, irrelevant is more correct
> >> > > here.
> >> > 
> >> > That wasn't my actual question. :) Let me rephrase. "Given that these two
> >> > words basically mean the same thing in context, what was the overwhelming
> >> > necessity of this change?" If the reason was, "To make the meaning
> >> > slightly more accurate," then we can argue the merits based on that... I'm
> >> > just curious.
> >> 
> >>      Two reasons:
> >> 
> >>              a) Use simple english which everyone can understand.
> >>              Many people from the far east etc do not understand such
> >>              words, while they can undersand ``useless'' or
> >>              ''irrelevant''.  This is also the same reason for my
> >>              "automatic to automagic" change.
> >>              
> >>              b) The 'insignificant' meaning of the word `moot' is
> >>              secondary, while it's primary meaning is the opposite
> > 
> > I don't think that there's any requirement that FreeBSD
> > documentation read like a Henry James novel.  Some people have
> > colorful writing styles that involve words such as
> > ``automagical'', ``moot'', and ``kludge'', and I'm not convinced
> > that this is a problem.  Documentation isn't my domain, so I won't
> > stick my nose into this any further, but unless our translators
> > and other non-native English speakers have major qualms about
> > this kind of detail, I do consider this to be gratuitous.
> 
> Agreed.  automagical is a favorite word of several folks and does
> have a slightly different connotation from just 'automatic'. :)

	OK.  I give up.  I have answered atleast 20 mails regarding
	these two commits.  If this upsets a lot of committers, than I
	apologise for this well-intentioned commit of mine.

	Thanks for the advise.  I will keep it in mind.
	Cheers.
		
		-- Hiten (hmp@FreeBSD.ORG)



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030507182528.GA91008>