Hi Branden, On 1/9/23 00:08, G. Branden Robinson wrote: > Hi Alex, > > At 2023-01-07T20:47:20+0100, Alejandro Colomar wrote: >> See a few comments below (as you asked in another email). >>>> +The Linux >>>> +.I man-pages >> >> The Linux man-pages is a singular noun that denominates the project. >> Using it as a plural noun that refers to the pages contained in it >> sounds weird. > > In English this is a slippery area. In U.S. English nouns referring to > collections tend to be singularized, whereas in Commonwealth English > they tend to the plural, but exceptions are seen in both dialects[1] and > the meaning is usually clear. Ahh, didn't know that about Commonwealth English. I'm way more used to US English (and the man-pages also uses US). > >> I find the new wording more confusing than the original. > > I'll recast, then. > >>>> +organize section 3 into subsections >>>>   that reflect the complex structure of the standard C library >>>> -and its many implementations: >>>> +and its many implementations. >>>> +.IR libc 's >>>> +difficult history frequently makes it a poor example to follow >>>> +in design, >>>> +implementation, >>>> +and presentation. >>>>   .IP \(bu 3 >>>>   3const >>>>   .IP \(bu >>>> @@ -87,11 +93,6 @@ and its many implementations: >>>>   .IP \(bu >>>>   3type >>>>   .PP >> >> The list of subsections seems more connected to "organize section 3 >> into subsections", rather than with the comment about libc's >> organization being crap. I think that is fine after reading the list, >> stating that what you just read is crap, but necessary crap due to >> libc's history. > > It read more poorly to me that way. My presentation was grounded on my > recollection that we agreed that these new subsections of yours would > not be necessary if the standard C library were not (1) huge and (2) > disorganized. I still agree on that. However, think about a reader: it when it's reading the list, it needs to remember that you said two paragraphs above that you were going to show a list. If the list is shown right after you say you're going to show it, there's less cognitive load, isn't it? Cheers, Alex > > I'll take another crack at it, supplying a bit more motivation but > trying not to recapitulate our discussion, which doesn't demand that > degree of preservation. :P > > Regards, > Branden > > [1] https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=877 --