Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 2 Dec 2010 20:41:35 -0700 (MST)
From:      Warren Block <wblock@wonkity.com>
To:        John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org>
Cc:        John McCall <biomedsoftware@gmail.com>, freebsd-doc@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: typo in manual first paragraph
Message-ID:  <alpine.BSF.2.00.1012022037120.71816@wonkity.com>
In-Reply-To: <201012020855.33264.jhb@freebsd.org>
References:  <AANLkTin5zWRPBZXR2giBsWsjWaW0=M_nE%2BMmzaHC7kz=@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTi=JPW6UZPRtmaQsOEAF-ANx1aP6PAYhOKLXGUEh@mail.gmail.com> <201012020855.33264.jhb@freebsd.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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.

"Accept" isn't a terrible replacement.




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.00.1012022037120.71816>