[PATCH] CONTRIBUTING: tfix

[PATCH] CONTRIBUTING: tfix

[Thomas Voss]

---
 CONTRIBUTING | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/CONTRIBUTING b/CONTRIBUTING
index 8405f670d..59d980271 100644
--- a/CONTRIBUTING
+++ b/CONTRIBUTING
@@ -71,7 +71,7 @@ Description
 
              [patch] shmop.2: Add "(void *)" cast to RETURN VALUE
 
-       -  Sign your patch with "Signed-opff-by:".  Read about the "Developer's
+       -  Sign your patch with "Signed-off-by:".  Read about the "Developer's
           Certificate of Origin" at
           <https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst>.
           When appropriate, other tags documented in that file, such as
-- 
2.38.1

Re: [PATCH] CONTRIBUTING: tfix

[Alejandro Colomar]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 847 bytes --]

Hi Thomas,

On 11/18/22 10:17, Thomas Voss wrote:
> ---
>   CONTRIBUTING | 2 +-
>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/CONTRIBUTING b/CONTRIBUTING
> index 8405f670d..59d980271 100644
> --- a/CONTRIBUTING
> +++ b/CONTRIBUTING
> @@ -71,7 +71,7 @@ Description
>   
>                [patch] shmop.2: Add "(void *)" cast to RETURN VALUE
>   
> -       -  Sign your patch with "Signed-opff-by:".  Read about the "Developer's
> +       -  Sign your patch with "Signed-off-by:".  Read about the "Developer's

Oops.  Patch applied.  :)

Thanks,

Alex

>             Certificate of Origin" at
>             <https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst>.
>             When appropriate, other tags documented in that file, such as

-- 
<http://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

[PATCH] CONTRIBUTING: tfix

[Tom Schwindl]

Signed-off-by: Tom Schwindl <schwindl@posteo.de>
---
Hi all,

as I'm not a native speaker, I wonder if the "be" is correct in this context.
I haven't changed it for now because it's likely that it's just me who thinks
that this sounds awkward.

Kind Regards
---
 CONTRIBUTING | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/CONTRIBUTING b/CONTRIBUTING
index 3bb671eca417..45bc86a28a00 100644
--- a/CONTRIBUTING
+++ b/CONTRIBUTING
@@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ Description
            Cc: <linux-man@vger.kernel.org>
 
        Please CC any relevant developers and mailing lists that may know about
-       or be interestend in the discussion.  If your email discusses a feature
+       or be interested in the discussion.  If your email discusses a feature
        or change, and you know which developers added the feature or made the
        change that your email discusses, please CC them on the email; with
        luck they may review and comment on it.  If you don't know who the
-- 
2.39.2

Re: [PATCH] CONTRIBUTING: tfix

[Alejandro Colomar]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1381 bytes --]

Hi Tom,

On 3/9/23 08:39, Tom Schwindl wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Tom Schwindl <schwindl@posteo.de>

Patch applied.  Thanks.

> ---
> Hi all,
> 
> as I'm not a native speaker, I wonder if the "be" is correct in this context.
> I haven't changed it for now because it's likely that it's just me who thinks
> that this sounds awkward.

I don't know.  It sounds good to me, but I'm not native either.  Let's see
if others manifest.  :)

Cheers,

Alex

> 
> Kind Regards
> ---
>  CONTRIBUTING | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/CONTRIBUTING b/CONTRIBUTING
> index 3bb671eca417..45bc86a28a00 100644
> --- a/CONTRIBUTING
> +++ b/CONTRIBUTING
> @@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ Description
>             Cc: <linux-man@vger.kernel.org>
>  
>         Please CC any relevant developers and mailing lists that may know about
> -       or be interestend in the discussion.  If your email discusses a feature
> +       or be interested in the discussion.  If your email discusses a feature
>         or change, and you know which developers added the feature or made the
>         change that your email discusses, please CC them on the email; with
>         luck they may review and comment on it.  If you don't know who the

-- 
<http://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>
GPG key fingerprint: A9348594CE31283A826FBDD8D57633D441E25BB5

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] CONTRIBUTING: tfix

[G. Branden Robinson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2130 bytes --]

[natural language grammar]

Hi Tom,

At 2023-03-09T07:39:00+0000, Tom Schwindl wrote:
> as I'm not a native speaker, I wonder if the "be" is correct in this
> context.  I haven't changed it for now because it's likely that it's
> just me who thinks that this sounds awkward.
[...]
>         Please CC any relevant developers and mailing lists that may
>         know about or be interested in the discussion.

In this respect, English is subject to mechanical analysis to resolve
the issue.  You will observe the presence of a coordinating conjunction
("and" or "or"; there are others but these are by far the most common).
You can decide the grammar of the sentence by eliminating one of the
branches of the conjunction.

...that (may (know about) or (be interested in) the discussion).

Possibly one of the sources of confusion here is that the conjunction is
applied after the modal auxiliary verb "may".

While that's not non-standard,[1] it does reveal that a recast to more
clearly apply the coordinating conjunction after the _sub_ordinating
conjunction "that", as follows.

...that (may know about) or (may be interested in) the discussion.

The fact that I need fewer pairs of parentheses to suggest the
recommended parse might indeed recommend it over the former alternative.

Do not underestimate the power of conjunction elimination; I frequently
use this tool to decide grammatical questions in my own writing.[2]  I
cannot think of a time that it has led me to an incorrect construction.

Lest anyone feel badly, I note that native English speakers often screw
up much simpler applications of coordinating conjunctions than this.

*Jackie and me are going to the beach.
*This discussion is to be kept between you and I.

Both are wrong, wrong, wrong, but you run into them all the time even in
attempts at formal writing (particularly the latter--people get anxious,
it seems, and think that this error somehow puts their text into a
higher register).

Regards,
Branden

[1] Example: "The market is full of things that you might need or want."
[2] which can get highfalutin' and florid, to say nothing of loquacious

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] CONTRIBUTING: tfix

[Tom Schwindl]

Hi Branden,

On Thu Mar 9, 2023 at 4:28 PM CET, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> [natural language grammar]
>
> Hi Tom,
>
> At 2023-03-09T07:39:00+0000, Tom Schwindl wrote:
> > as I'm not a native speaker, I wonder if the "be" is correct in this
> > context.  I haven't changed it for now because it's likely that it's
> > just me who thinks that this sounds awkward.
> [...]
> >         Please CC any relevant developers and mailing lists that may
> >         know about or be interested in the discussion.
>
> In this respect, English is subject to mechanical analysis to resolve
> the issue.  You will observe the presence of a coordinating conjunction
> ("and" or "or"; there are others but these are by far the most common).
> You can decide the grammar of the sentence by eliminating one of the
> branches of the conjunction.
>
> ...that (may (know about) or (be interested in) the discussion).
>
> Possibly one of the sources of confusion here is that the conjunction is
> applied after the modal auxiliary verb "may".
>
> While that's not non-standard,[1] it does reveal that a recast to more
> clearly apply the coordinating conjunction after the _sub_ordinating
> conjunction "that", as follows.
>
> ...that (may know about) or (may be interested in) the discussion.
>
> The fact that I need fewer pairs of parentheses to suggest the
> recommended parse might indeed recommend it over the former alternative.
>
> Do not underestimate the power of conjunction elimination; I frequently
> use this tool to decide grammatical questions in my own writing.[2]  I
> cannot think of a time that it has led me to an incorrect construction.
>
> Lest anyone feel badly, I note that native English speakers often screw
> up much simpler applications of coordinating conjunctions than this.
>
> *Jackie and me are going to the beach.
> *This discussion is to be kept between you and I.
>
> Both are wrong, wrong, wrong, but you run into them all the time even in
> attempts at formal writing (particularly the latter--people get anxious,
> it seems, and think that this error somehow puts their text into a
> higher register).
>
> Regards,
> Branden
>
> [1] Example: "The market is full of things that you might need or want."
> [2] which can get highfalutin' and florid, to say nothing of loquacious

Thanks for the thorough explanation! I really appreciate it.

-- 
Best Regards,
Tom Schwindl