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

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

Modified Files:
--------------
pgsql/doc/src/sgml:
ddl.sgml (r1.74 -> r1.75)
(http://developer.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/doc/src/sgml/ddl.sgml.diff?r1=1.74&r2=1.75)
pgsql/doc/src/sgml/ref:
alter_role.sgml (r1.7 -> r1.8)
(http://developer.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/doc/src/sgml/ref/alter_role.sgml.diff?r1=1.7&r2=1.8)
alter_user.sgml (r1.42 -> r1.43)
(http://developer.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/doc/src/sgml/ref/alter_user.sgml.diff?r1=1.42&r2=1.43)
begin.sgml (r1.35 -> r1.36)
(http://developer.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/doc/src/sgml/ref/begin.sgml.diff?r1=1.35&r2=1.36)
create_group.sgml (r1.17 -> r1.18)
(http://developer.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/doc/src/sgml/ref/create_group.sgml.diff?r1=1.17&r2=1.18)
create_user.sgml (r1.39 -> r1.40)
(http://developer.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/doc/src/sgml/ref/create_user.sgml.diff?r1=1.39&r2=1.40)
createlang.sgml (r1.40 -> r1.41)
(http://developer.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/doc/src/sgml/ref/createlang.sgml.diff?r1=1.40&r2=1.41)
drop_group.sgml (r1.13 -> r1.14)
(http://developer.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/doc/src/sgml/ref/drop_group.sgml.diff?r1=1.13&r2=1.14)
drop_user.sgml (r1.23 -> r1.24)
(http://developer.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/doc/src/sgml/ref/drop_user.sgml.diff?r1=1.23&r2=1.24)

neilc(at)postgresql(dot)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(at)samurai(dot)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(at)samurai(dot)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(at)decibel(dot)org
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)