cvs commit: doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/disks chapter.sgml

[John Baldwin]

On 07-May-2003 David Schultz wrote:
> On Wed, May 07, 2003, Hiten Pandya wrote:
>> On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 11:00:18PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
>> > > Actually, and according to my dictionary, irrelevant is more correct
>> > > here.
>> > 
>> > That wasn't my actual question. :) Let me rephrase. "Given that these two
>> > words basically mean the same thing in context, what was the overwhelming
>> > necessity of this change?" If the reason was, "To make the meaning
>> > slightly more accurate," then we can argue the merits based on that... I'm
>> > just curious.
>> 
>>      Two reasons:
>> 
>>              a) Use simple english which everyone can understand.
>>              Many people from the far east etc do not understand such
>>              words, while they can undersand ``useless'' or
>>              ''irrelevant''.  This is also the same reason for my
>>              "automatic to automagic" change.
>>              
>>              b) The 'insignificant' meaning of the word `moot' is
>>              secondary, while it's primary meaning is the opposite
> 
> I don't think that there's any requirement that FreeBSD
> documentation read like a Henry James novel.  Some people have
> colorful writing styles that involve words such as
> ``automagical'', ``moot'', and ``kludge'', and I'm not convinced
> that this is a problem.  Documentation isn't my domain, so I won't
> stick my nose into this any further, but unless our translators
> and other non-native English speakers have major qualms about
> this kind of detail, I do consider this to be gratuitous.

Agreed.  automagical is a favorite word of several folks and does
have a slightly different connotation from just 'automatic'. :)

-- 

John Baldwin <jhb at FreeBSD.org>  <><  http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/
"Power Users Use the Power to Serve!"  -  http://www.FreeBSD.org/