pgsql: Fix a bunch of bad grammar in the docs: "<link>, which see for

neilc@postgresql.org (Neil Conway) writes:

Log Message:
-----------
Fix a bunch of bad grammar in the docs: "<link>, which see for more
information" is un-good English.

I beg to differ.

regards, tom lane

On Wed, 2007-16-05 at 15:10 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:

I beg to differ.

On what grounds?

-Neil

"Neil Conway" <neilc@samurai.com> writes:

On Wed, 2007-16-05 at 15:10 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:

I beg to differ.

On what grounds?

"which see" is an unusual formulation but it's actually pretty standard. You
see it a lot in older texts. IIRC it's used heavily in the TeX book.

It's probably not a bad idea to avoid it though given that many readers will
indeed be surprised by it.

--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

Gregory Stark wrote:

"Neil Conway" <neilc@samurai.com> writes:

On Wed, 2007-16-05 at 15:10 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:

I beg to differ.

On what grounds?

"which see" is an unusual formulation but it's actually pretty standard. You
see it a lot in older texts. IIRC it's used heavily in the TeX book.

It's probably not a bad idea to avoid it though given that many readers will
indeed be surprised by it.

yes indeed - looks pretty weird to me at least (as a non native speaker)

Stefan

On Wed, 2007-16-05 at 20:49 +0100, Gregory Stark wrote:

"which see" is an unusual formulation but it's actually pretty standard. You
see it a lot in older texts.

Interesting, I've never run across it before. It certainly sounds
awkward to me, but I can revert the change if people would like.

-Neil

Neil Conway wrote:

On Wed, 2007-16-05 at 20:49 +0100, Gregory Stark wrote:

"which see" is an unusual formulation but it's actually pretty standard. You
see it a lot in older texts.

Interesting, I've never run across it before. It certainly sounds
awkward to me, but I can revert the change if people would like.

I don't care either way because the new wording seems OK too, but I as a
non-native speaker found the construct very natural and easy to
understand. It also maps into the latin q.v. verbatim.

--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support

Neil Conway wrote:

On Wed, 2007-16-05 at 20:49 +0100, Gregory Stark wrote:

"which see" is an unusual formulation but it's actually pretty standard. You
see it a lot in older texts.

Interesting, I've never run across it before. It certainly sounds
awkward to me, but I can revert the change if people would like.

I've never seen it before, and it certainly sounds wrong to my ears.
Greg would probably argue that I can't string two sentences together
myself though, so who am I to comment? :-)

Regards, Dave

On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 04:11:11PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:

Neil Conway wrote:

On Wed, 2007-16-05 at 20:49 +0100, Gregory Stark wrote:

"which see" is an unusual formulation but it's actually pretty standard. You
see it a lot in older texts.

Interesting, I've never run across it before. It certainly sounds
awkward to me, but I can revert the change if people would like.

I don't care either way because the new wording seems OK too, but I as a
non-native speaker found the construct very natural and easy to
understand. It also maps into the latin q.v. verbatim.

Perhaps this is something that sounds better to non-native english
speakers than it does to native. I hadn't run across the original, but
it certainly grates on my ears. I vote keep the new version.
--
Jim Nasby decibel@decibel.org
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)