From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jonathan Nieder Subject: Re: OT: Re: [PATCH 08/15] gitdiffcore(7): fix awkward wording Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 07:56:52 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: References: <20080703013733.BIF31353@m4500-01.uchicago.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Chris Shoemaker To: git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Jul 03 15:07:16 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1KEOVg-0001lY-Pm for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2008 15:06:05 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759511AbYGCM44 (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Jul 2008 08:56:56 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1761223AbYGCM4z (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Jul 2008 08:56:55 -0400 Received: from smtp02.uchicago.edu ([128.135.12.75]:38795 "EHLO smtp02.uchicago.edu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1761204AbYGCM4y (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Jul 2008 08:56:54 -0400 Received: from harper.uchicago.edu (harper.uchicago.edu [128.135.12.7]) by smtp02.uchicago.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m63Cuqr4026556; Thu, 3 Jul 2008 07:56:52 -0500 Received: from localhost (jrnieder@localhost) by harper.uchicago.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id m63Cuqcx028852; Thu, 3 Jul 2008 07:56:52 -0500 (CDT) X-Authentication-Warning: harper.uchicago.edu: jrnieder owned process doing -bs In-Reply-To: <20080703013733.BIF31353@m4500-01.uchicago.edu> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: [Junio: sorry for the duplicate message. It occured to me too late that a clarification might fix some confusion for the rest of the readers of the list, too.] Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jonathan Nieder writes: > >>> The phrase "diff outputs" sounds awkward to my ear (I think >>> "output" is meant to be used as a substantive noun.) >> >> Ack! that phrase made no sense. If you know what I meant and >> what it's called, I'd like to know :) >> >> Thanks, >> Jonathan > > As a bistander to this exchange, I am confused. Who is acking whose > comment here? I wrote: > Sorry, I meant something to the same effect as "Agh". I should have > just gone to sleep. But perhaps more important for my meaning is that by "that phrase" I meant the phrase "substantive noun". I meant that "output" is a sort of fluid substance and so is rarely supposed to be plural unless outputs with different qualities are being discussed, but the phrase "substantive noun" conveys none of that at all. In fact, I think the phrase "substantive noun" just means "noun". Hence my dismay at not making any sense. Sorry about the confusion. Jonathan