Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2010 12:30:16 -0600 From: Tom Judge <tom@tomjudge.com> To: Jason Helfman <jhelfman@e-e.com> Cc: John McCall <biomedsoftware@gmail.com>, freebsd-doc@freebsd.org Subject: Re: typo in manual first paragraph Message-ID: <4CF93738.6000109@tomjudge.com> In-Reply-To: <20101203175130.GA36869@eggman.experts-exchange.com> References: <AANLkTin5zWRPBZXR2giBsWsjWaW0=M_nE%2BMmzaHC7kz=@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTi=JPW6UZPRtmaQsOEAF-ANx1aP6PAYhOKLXGUEh@mail.gmail.com> <201012020855.33264.jhb@freebsd.org> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1012022037120.71816@wonkity.com> <20101203175130.GA36869@eggman.experts-exchange.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Perspective note: My reply is interpretation of someone who was taught en_UK rather than en_US. On 12/03/2010 11:51 AM, Jason Helfman wrote: > On Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 08:41:35PM -0700, Warren Block thus spake: >> On Thu, 2 Dec 2010, John Baldwin wrote: >> >>> On Thursday, December 02, 2010 3:37:16 am Sergey Kandaurov wrote: >>>> On 2 December 2010 06:14, John McCall <biomedsoftware@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> I think you mean "broad"..........not board >>>>> >>>>> ............"Working through this section requires little more than >>>>> the >>>>> desire to explore, and the ability to take on board new concepts as >>>>> they are >>>>> introduced. >>>> >>>> I'm not a native speaker, but "take on board" in this context >>>> stands for me as "understand, take in mind, accept smth.". >>> >>> I agree, but given that it is a bit idiomatic and confusing, it might >>> be best >>> to reword the sentence. I would say s/take on board/tackle/, but I'm >>> not >>> sure 'tackle' is any less confusing. I do find the current wording a >>> bit >>> awkard, but 'take on board' is a bit 'stronger' than simply >>> 'understand' as >>> it implies that the task requires some work (e.g. taking on a new >>> task at a >>> job). Maybe 'embrace' would work. >> >> The original is confusing because "take on" and "on board" conflict. > I'm not sure how the terms conflict to "take on board" is a perfectly valid construct and used in day to day life. I.e: I hope you take on board what we have spoken about in this meeting. > Insert humble opinion: > > I've brought this up on #bsdports, but I will relay it here. I would say > "take on" vs. "take on board" isn't an issue of conflict. However, > "take on board" adds no additional clarity to the phrase "take on". I'm not sure I agree with this issue of clarity. For one the meaning of "take on" and "take on board" are very different. These would be defined in en_UK as: take on - To over come an issue - http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/take_on take on board - To learn about the topic being discussed. - http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/take_on_board > This is how I would re-word it: > > "Working through this section requires little more than a desire to > explore, > and ability to take on new concepts as they are introduced." > If we are going to complete the disambiguation of this I would use: "Working through this section requires no more than a desire to explore new things, and the ability to take on new concepts as they are introduced." Tom -- TJU13-ARIN
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4CF93738.6000109>