From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Apr 19 18:42:54 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE38416A4CE; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 18:42:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailout1.pacific.net.au (mailout1.pacific.net.au [61.8.0.84]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BB0243D48; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 18:42:54 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from bde@zeta.org.au) Received: from mailproxy2.pacific.net.au (mailproxy2.pacific.net.au [61.8.0.87])i3K1gf4u001385; Tue, 20 Apr 2004 11:42:41 +1000 Received: from gamplex.bde.org (katana.zip.com.au [61.8.7.246]) i3K1gXHW027652; Tue, 20 Apr 2004 11:42:39 +1000 Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 11:42:33 +1000 (EST) From: Bruce Evans X-X-Sender: bde@gamplex.bde.org To: John Baldwin In-Reply-To: <200404191135.37983.john@baldwin.cx> Message-ID: <20040420105054.H752@gamplex.bde.org> References: <00f401c4232b$8700d0c0$7890a8c0@dyndns.org> <20040417101206.N16280@gamplex.bde.org> <20040417131617.GD465@submonkey.net> <200404191135.37983.john@baldwin.cx> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: "current @FreeBSD.org" cc: arch@FreeBSD.org cc: Ceri Davies Subject: Re: bin/41071: make NO to NO_ transition patch X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 01:42:55 -0000 On Mon, 19 Apr 2004, John Baldwin wrote: > On Saturday 17 April 2004 09:16 am, Ceri Davies wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 17, 2004 at 10:19:58AM +1000, Bruce Evans wrote: > > > For a more modest task, try fixing the English spelling of "nothing" > > > to "no thing" and "consistent" to "consistant". > > > > There's noway that could be considered the same thing. Your reply notwithstanding, they (fixing non-broken spelling of no*) are considered the same thing, but "consistant" is just a spelling error. > > (Disclaimer: I really don't care which way this falls out). > > FWIW, nothing and nobody are special cases much like cannot and are certainly > the exception, not the rule. Phrases such as 'no one', 'no cars', 'no code', > 'no libraries', 'no binaries', 'no comments', 'no bikesheds', 'no spam', 'no > pets', etc. abound and all have 'no' as a separate word rather than as a > compound word. They are exceptions which prove the rule. Words in common use get combined. This has already happened for 'nothing', 'nobody' and 'NOMAN', etc., and is starting to happen for 'no one'. NOMAN was presumably a combined word to begin with so that it is easier to type. Bruce