Discussion:
[PATCH] Reword sentences that contain psuedo-English "resp."
(too old to reply)
Andrew Eikum
2012-10-15 14:41:50 UTC
Permalink
As you likely know, Arch Linux is in the process of moving to systemd.
So I was reading through the various systemd docs and quickly became
baffled by this new abbreviation "resp.", which I've never seen before
in my English-mother-tongue life.

Some quick Googling turned up a reference:
<http://www.transblawg.eu/index.php?/archives/870-Resp.-and-other-non-existent-English-wordsNicht-existente-englische-Woerter.html>

I guess it's a literal translation of the German "beziehungsweise", but
English doesn't work the same way. The word "respectively" is used
exclusively to provide an ordering connection between two lists. E.g.
"the prefixes k, M, and G refer to kilo-, mega-, and giga-,
respectively." It is also never abbreviated to "resp." So the sentence
"Sets the default output resp. error output for all services and
sockets" makes no sense to a natural English speaker.

This patch removes all instances of "resp." in the man pages and
replaces them with sentences which are much more clear and, hopefully,
grammatically valid. In almost all instances, it was simply replacing
"resp." with "or," which the original author could probably just do in
the future to avoid this problem.

The only other instances of "resp." are in the src/ subtree, which I
don't feel privileged to correct.
---
man/daemon.xml | 2 +-
man/journalctl.xml | 8 ++---
man/os-release.xml | 2 +-
man/sd-daemon.xml | 2 +-
man/sd-readahead.xml | 2 +-
man/sd_booted.xml | 2 +-
man/sd_is_fifo.xml | 2 +-
man/sd_journal_next.xml | 2 +-
man/sd_listen_fds.xml | 2 +-
man/sd_notify.xml | 2 +-
man/sd_readahead.xml | 2 +-
man/systemd-ask-password-console.service.xml | 4 +--
man/systemd-cat.xml | 2 +-
man/systemd-cgtop.xml | 12 +++----
man/systemd-inhibit.xml | 5 +--
man/systemd.exec.xml | 18 +++++------
man/systemd.journal-fields.xml | 4 +--
man/systemd.kill.xml | 2 +-
man/systemd.service.xml | 2 +-
man/systemd.socket.xml | 16 +++++-----
man/systemd.swap.xml | 4 +--
man/systemd.unit.xml | 18 +++++------
man/systemd.xml | 48 ++++++++++++++--------------
23 files changed, 82 insertions(+), 81 deletions(-)
Lennart Poettering
2012-10-15 15:59:35 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 15.10.12 09:41, Andrew Eikum (***@codeweavers.com) wrote:

Heya,
Post by Andrew Eikum
As you likely know, Arch Linux is in the process of moving to systemd.
So I was reading through the various systemd docs and quickly became
baffled by this new abbreviation "resp.", which I've never seen before
in my English-mother-tongue life.
<http://www.transblawg.eu/index.php?/archives/870-Resp.-and-other-non-existent-English-wordsNicht-existente-englische-Woerter.html>
I guess it's a literal translation of the German "beziehungsweise", but
English doesn't work the same way. The word "respectively" is used
exclusively to provide an ordering connection between two lists. E.g.
"the prefixes k, M, and G refer to kilo-, mega-, and giga-,
respectively." It is also never abbreviated to "resp." So the sentence
"Sets the default output resp. error output for all services and
sockets" makes no sense to a natural English speaker.
This patch removes all instances of "resp." in the man pages and
replaces them with sentences which are much more clear and, hopefully,
grammatically valid. In almost all instances, it was simply replacing
"resp." with "or," which the original author could probably just do in
the future to avoid this problem.
The only other instances of "resp." are in the src/ subtree, which I
don't feel privileged to correct.
<term><option>--until=</option></term>
<listitem><para>Start showing entries
- newer or of the specified date,
- resp. older or of the specified
+ newer than the specified date,
+ or older than the specified
Hmmm, as I understood the text you linked this usage is actually
correct, as "resp." means "each separately in the order mentioned",
which is precisely what is meant here. The diff doesn't show it, but
this section is about both --since= and --until, hence we explain the
meaning of --since= first, and then of --until=, and link this with
"resp.".

So, now I am really confused, what's really right and wrong here? ;-)
Post by Andrew Eikum
<literal>tomorrow</literal> are
understood, which refer to 00:00:00 of
the day before the current day, the
- current day, resp the day after the
+ current day, or the day after the
same here: we first list the possible strings, and then their meanings,
in the same order.
Post by Andrew Eikum
current day. <literal>now</literal>
refers to the current time. Finally,
relative times may be specified,
prefixed with <literal>-</literal> or
<literal>+</literal>, referring to
- times before resp. after the current
+ times before or after the current
time.</para></listitem>
here too.
Post by Andrew Eikum
</varlistentry>
diff --git a/man/os-release.xml b/man/os-release.xml
index 5e34a88..b39f95a 100644
--- a/man/os-release.xml
+++ b/man/os-release.xml
@@ -280,7 +280,7 @@
"About this system" UIs behind links
with captions such as "About this
Operating System", "Obtain Support"
- resp. "Report a Bug". The values should
+ or "Report a Bug". The values should
Same here...
Post by Andrew Eikum
be in <ulink
url="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986">RFC3986
format</ulink>, and should be
diff --git a/man/sd-daemon.xml b/man/sd-daemon.xml
index 1e1734a..8d1986d 100644
--- a/man/sd-daemon.xml
+++ b/man/sd-daemon.xml
@@ -139,7 +139,7 @@
check the liberally licensed reference implementation
<ulink url="http://cgit.freedesktop.org/systemd/systemd/plain/src/libsystemd-daemon/sd-daemon.c"/>
- resp. <ulink url="http://cgit.freedesktop.org/systemd/systemd/plain/src/systemd/sd-daemon.h"/></para>
+ or <ulink
url="http://cgit.freedesktop.org/systemd/systemd/plain/src/systemd/sd-daemon.h"/></para>
This one is really an incorrect usage of resp. afaics.
Post by Andrew Eikum
<para>The four calls return the number of entries
advanced/set back on success or a negative errno-style
- error code. When the end (resp. beginning) of the journal
+ error code. When the end (or beginning) of the
journal
This appears to be correct usage of "resp", again as this describes
sd_journal_next, as well as sd_journal_resp.

Lennart
--
Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc.
Andrew Eikum
2012-10-15 16:14:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lennart Poettering
Hmmm, as I understood the text you linked this usage is actually
correct, as "resp." means "each separately in the order mentioned",
which is precisely what is meant here. The diff doesn't show it, but
this section is about both --since= and --until, hence we explain the
meaning of --since= first, and then of --until=, and link this with
"resp.".
So, now I am really confused, what's really right and wrong here? ;-)
The trouble is "resp." isn't used in English, ever. Your software is
the only place I've run across it, and I had no idea what you were
trying to say. The link I gave shows that other German speakers make
the same error, so it seems to be a common mis-translation.

The word "respectively" is never abbreviated and, as far as I can
think, only used at the end of a (implied) sequence of two lists. You
can see some places in the diff where I switched it to use the whole
word correctly.

The following examples are wrong, and I would have no idea what they
meant without the blog I linked:
"Increase, resp. decrease refresh delay"
"Increase, respectively decrease the refresh delay"

Switching "resp." with "or" makes it make sense:
"Increase or decrease refresh delay"

And you could go further and use "respectively" to explicitly point
out the relationship between two lists:
"+, -: Increase or decrease refresh delay, respectively"

But it is never "resp." and it never replaces the "or".

Hope this clears up what I meant :)

Andrew
Tom Gundersen
2012-10-15 16:57:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Eikum
The trouble is "resp." isn't used in English, ever.
For what it is worth, "resp." is commonly used in mathematics. I don't
know about technical writing in general though.

-t
Colin Guthrie
2012-10-15 17:15:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Gundersen
Post by Andrew Eikum
The trouble is "resp." isn't used in English, ever.
For what it is worth, "resp." is commonly used in mathematics. I don't
know about technical writing in general though.
Yeah I've seen it plenty times while going through university, so while
it might not be used in prose, I've never had an issue with this kind of
abbreviation being used in documentation and have always understood it's
meaning.

That said, the German abbreviation doesn't necessarily translate
directly into an English one, so if there is any doubt just don't
abbreviate it.

As a general rule, I would be against replacing it with a simple "or" as
that really can change the meaning. This is technical documentation and
thus syntax more aligned to common prose is not always desirable.

Col
--
Colin Guthrie
gmane(at)colin.guthr.ie
http://colin.guthr.ie/

Day Job:
Tribalogic Limited http://www.tribalogic.net/
Open Source:
Mageia Contributor http://www.mageia.org/
PulseAudio Hacker http://www.pulseaudio.org/
Trac Hacker http://trac.edgewall.org/
Dave Reisner
2012-10-15 17:35:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Colin Guthrie
Post by Tom Gundersen
Post by Andrew Eikum
The trouble is "resp." isn't used in English, ever.
For what it is worth, "resp." is commonly used in mathematics. I don't
know about technical writing in general though.
Yeah I've seen it plenty times while going through university, so while
it might not be used in prose, I've never had an issue with this kind of
abbreviation being used in documentation and have always understood it's
meaning.
That said, the German abbreviation doesn't necessarily translate
directly into an English one, so if there is any doubt just don't
abbreviate it.
As a general rule, I would be against replacing it with a simple "or" as
that really can change the meaning. This is technical documentation and
thus syntax more aligned to common prose is not always desirable.
Sure, that's all well and good, but if the documentation is written in
English, and native English speaking people have to go out of their way
to figure out what it is means, isn't that a sign that perhaps it should
be revised?

Personally, I think its entirely the wrong usage of the word,
abbreviated or not.

"Start showing entries newer or of the specified date, resp. older or of
the specified date"

Perhaps simply be written as:

"Show entries since or until the specified date."

This makes sense to me, because you're reusing well known words that
were picked for the options themselves.

If you wanted to hang onto the word "respectively", write it as:

"Show entries newer or older than the specified date, respectively."

I don't believe that using "respectively" as a conjunction is
grammatically correct.

dave
Lennart Poettering
2012-10-15 18:26:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Reisner
Post by Colin Guthrie
Post by Tom Gundersen
Post by Andrew Eikum
The trouble is "resp." isn't used in English, ever.
For what it is worth, "resp." is commonly used in mathematics. I don't
know about technical writing in general though.
Yeah I've seen it plenty times while going through university, so while
it might not be used in prose, I've never had an issue with this kind of
abbreviation being used in documentation and have always understood it's
meaning.
That said, the German abbreviation doesn't necessarily translate
directly into an English one, so if there is any doubt just don't
abbreviate it.
As a general rule, I would be against replacing it with a simple "or" as
that really can change the meaning. This is technical documentation and
thus syntax more aligned to common prose is not always desirable.
Sure, that's all well and good, but if the documentation is written in
English, and native English speaking people have to go out of their way
to figure out what it is means, isn't that a sign that perhaps it should
be revised?
Personally, I think its entirely the wrong usage of the word,
abbreviated or not.
"Start showing entries newer or of the specified date, resp. older or of
the specified date"
"Show entries since or until the specified date."
I deliberately didn't use "since" and "until" in the explanation, to
clarify that the date comparison is ">=" instead of ">" and "<= instead
of "<", respectively.

So, here's what I'd propose:

--since=, --until=
Show entries newer or of the specified date, or
older or of the specified date, respectively.

Does that make sense to you?
Post by Dave Reisner
"Show entries newer or older than the specified date, respectively."
I don't believe that using "respectively" as a conjunction is
grammatically correct.
Yeah, the problems appear to be: the German "bzw." is an infix, the
english "respectively" is a postfix. And the abbreviation "resp."
doesn't appear to be common and hence should better be avoided...

Lennart
--
Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc.
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
2012-10-15 18:35:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lennart Poettering
Post by Dave Reisner
Post by Colin Guthrie
Post by Tom Gundersen
Post by Andrew Eikum
The trouble is "resp." isn't used in English, ever.
For what it is worth, "resp." is commonly used in mathematics. I don't
know about technical writing in general though.
Yeah I've seen it plenty times while going through university, so while
it might not be used in prose, I've never had an issue with this kind of
abbreviation being used in documentation and have always understood it's
meaning.
That said, the German abbreviation doesn't necessarily translate
directly into an English one, so if there is any doubt just don't
abbreviate it.
As a general rule, I would be against replacing it with a simple "or" as
that really can change the meaning. This is technical documentation and
thus syntax more aligned to common prose is not always desirable.
Sure, that's all well and good, but if the documentation is written in
English, and native English speaking people have to go out of their way
to figure out what it is means, isn't that a sign that perhaps it should
be revised?
Personally, I think its entirely the wrong usage of the word,
abbreviated or not.
"Start showing entries newer or of the specified date, resp. older or of
the specified date"
"Show entries since or until the specified date."
I deliberately didn't use "since" and "until" in the explanation, to
clarify that the date comparison is ">=" instead of ">" and "<= instead
of "<", respectively.
--since=, --until=
Show entries newer or of the specified date, or
older or of the specified date, respectively.
Does that make sense to you?
I don't think that 'of' can be applied to 'date'. Also 'or older or'
doesn't sound right. What about:

Show entries on or newer than the specified date, and
on or older than the specified date, respectively.

Zbyszek
Post by Lennart Poettering
Post by Dave Reisner
"Show entries newer or older than the specified date, respectively."
I don't believe that using "respectively" as a conjunction is
grammatically correct.
Yeah, the problems appear to be: the German "bzw." is an infix, the
english "respectively" is a postfix. And the abbreviation "resp."
doesn't appear to be common and hence should better be avoided...
Lennart
--
Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc.
_______________________________________________
systemd-devel mailing list
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Dave Reisner
2012-10-15 18:36:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lennart Poettering
Post by Dave Reisner
Post by Colin Guthrie
Post by Tom Gundersen
Post by Andrew Eikum
The trouble is "resp." isn't used in English, ever.
For what it is worth, "resp." is commonly used in mathematics. I don't
know about technical writing in general though.
Yeah I've seen it plenty times while going through university, so while
it might not be used in prose, I've never had an issue with this kind of
abbreviation being used in documentation and have always understood it's
meaning.
That said, the German abbreviation doesn't necessarily translate
directly into an English one, so if there is any doubt just don't
abbreviate it.
As a general rule, I would be against replacing it with a simple "or" as
that really can change the meaning. This is technical documentation and
thus syntax more aligned to common prose is not always desirable.
Sure, that's all well and good, but if the documentation is written in
English, and native English speaking people have to go out of their way
to figure out what it is means, isn't that a sign that perhaps it should
be revised?
Personally, I think its entirely the wrong usage of the word,
abbreviated or not.
"Start showing entries newer or of the specified date, resp. older or of
the specified date"
"Show entries since or until the specified date."
I deliberately didn't use "since" and "until" in the explanation, to
clarify that the date comparison is ">=" instead of ">" and "<= instead
of "<", respectively.
--since=, --until=
Show entries newer or of the specified date, or
older or of the specified date, respectively.
Does that make sense to you?
replace "or of" with "than" and I give it a +1.
Post by Lennart Poettering
Post by Dave Reisner
"Show entries newer or older than the specified date, respectively."
I don't believe that using "respectively" as a conjunction is
grammatically correct.
Yeah, the problems appear to be: the German "bzw." is an infix, the
english "respectively" is a postfix. And the abbreviation "resp."
doesn't appear to be common and hence should better be avoided...
The joy of language... I'm enjoying a dose of the reverse being stuck in
Zurich for a little while.

d
Colin Guthrie
2012-10-15 18:45:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Reisner
Personally, I think its entirely the wrong usage of the word,
abbreviated or not.
"Start showing entries newer or of the specified date, resp. older or of
the specified date"
"Show entries since or until the specified date."
This makes sense to me, because you're reusing well known words that
were picked for the options themselves.
"Show entries newer or older than the specified date, respectively."
In this context, with this simple description taken in isolation, I'd
struggle to disagree, but then how do consistently differentiate between
a section of documentation regarding two similar (but likely opposite)
arguments vs. differing syntax of a single argument's value? Using "or"
to describe different syntaxes of a single argument and "respectively"
to differentiate the two arguments themselves fits well in my option and
I certainly don't feel it is jarring or hard to understand (although
perhaps I'm biased due to having been exposed to this structure in
technical papers and such in the past?).

Overall, I think consistently using "respectively" (or even resp.) in
the way done already aids clarity overall. That means it should be
generally avoided in the general case when not talking about two
arguments, but that's not overly difficult IMO.

FWIW, I also think the bike shed should be blue. :p (IOW, I don't really
care that much!)

Col
--
Colin Guthrie
gmane(at)colin.guthr.ie
http://colin.guthr.ie/

Day Job:
Tribalogic Limited http://www.tribalogic.net/
Open Source:
Mageia Contributor http://www.mageia.org/
PulseAudio Hacker http://www.pulseaudio.org/
Trac Hacker http://trac.edgewall.org/
Andrew Eikum
2012-10-15 17:41:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Colin Guthrie
Post by Tom Gundersen
Post by Andrew Eikum
The trouble is "resp." isn't used in English, ever.
For what it is worth, "resp." is commonly used in mathematics. I don't
know about technical writing in general though.
Yeah I've seen it plenty times while going through university, so while
it might not be used in prose, I've never had an issue with this kind of
abbreviation being used in documentation and have always understood it's
meaning.
Counter-anecdote: In the course of using Linux since 2007 and going
through a four-year computer science degree including several classes
in cryptography and discrete mathematics, I've never seen the "word"
once. Maybe it's something that doesn't often filter over to the US,
where we get much less influence from other languages.

Before about 8 this morning, you could have swapped "resp." with
"beziehungsweise" and it would have held exactly the same meaning to
me (that is, none at all). Quoting from the link in the patch:

"""
Now I have read a query from someone on a forum with a German member
whose English is very good. However, he keeps including the
abbreviation 'resp.' in his postings, and English speakers can't make
sense of it.
"""

Indeed, I couldn't.
Post by Colin Guthrie
That said, the German abbreviation doesn't necessarily translate
directly into an English one, so if there is any doubt just don't
abbreviate it.
This helps, but it's still a bizarre use of the word "respectively." I
found a similar occurrence in seteuid(2), and it reads very strangely,
although I could at least figure out its meaning, probably. The
abbreviation could mean anything: respecting? with respect to?
respectively? respectfully? ...resplendent?
Post by Colin Guthrie
As a general rule, I would be against replacing it with a simple "or" as
that really can change the meaning. This is technical documentation and
thus syntax more aligned to common prose is not always desirable.
The fix there is to replace "resp." with "or" and append
"respectively" to the end of the sentence. I chose to do that or not
in my patch with discretion, where I thought it might help
disambiguate the meaning. We could definitely use that construction in
every case, if you preferred.

Andrew
Lennart Poettering
2012-10-15 18:21:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Colin Guthrie
Post by Tom Gundersen
Post by Andrew Eikum
The trouble is "resp." isn't used in English, ever.
For what it is worth, "resp." is commonly used in mathematics. I don't
know about technical writing in general though.
Yeah I've seen it plenty times while going through university, so while
it might not be used in prose, I've never had an issue with this kind of
abbreviation being used in documentation and have always understood it's
meaning.
That said, the German abbreviation doesn't necessarily translate
directly into an English one, so if there is any doubt just don't
abbreviate it.
Actually the text Andrew listed got one thing wrong too: the loser
meaning of "bzw." in the German language is actually wrong in German
too. People just use it that way, because German is too hard a language
for the German population itself...

So, as I see it the correct German usage of "bzw." within a sentence
does actually translate 1:1 to the English usage of "respectively" at
the end of a sentence. Except that Germans don't know their own
language...
Post by Colin Guthrie
As a general rule, I would be against replacing it with a simple "or" as
that really can change the meaning. This is technical documentation and
thus syntax more aligned to common prose is not always desirable.
Yes, I actually used "resp." here for a reason, to clarify that the
order of explanations is the same as the order of
strings/items/directives/words that came first...

Lennart
--
Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc.
Lennart Poettering
2012-10-15 18:13:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Eikum
Post by Lennart Poettering
Hmmm, as I understood the text you linked this usage is actually
correct, as "resp." means "each separately in the order mentioned",
which is precisely what is meant here. The diff doesn't show it, but
this section is about both --since= and --until, hence we explain the
meaning of --since= first, and then of --until=, and link this with
"resp.".
So, now I am really confused, what's really right and wrong here? ;-)
The trouble is "resp." isn't used in English, ever. Your software is
the only place I've run across it, and I had no idea what you were
trying to say. The link I gave shows that other German speakers make
the same error, so it seems to be a common mis-translation.
The word "respectively" is never abbreviated and, as far as I can
think, only used at the end of a (implied) sequence of two lists. You
can see some places in the diff where I switched it to use the whole
word correctly.
The following examples are wrong, and I would have no idea what they
"Increase, resp. decrease refresh delay"
"Increase, respectively decrease the refresh delay"
"Increase or decrease refresh delay"
And you could go further and use "respectively" to explicitly point
"+, -: Increase or decrease refresh delay, respectively"
But it is never "resp." and it never replaces the "or".
Hope this clears up what I meant :)
Ah, OK. Makes sense now.

I'd be happy to merge a patch:

- that replaces the cases where "resp." is entirely wrong by "or".

- and that replaces "resp." where there is a list of strings/items/directives/words
first by "respectively" at the end of the sentence.

Does that make sense to you?

Lennart
--
Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc.
Colin Guthrie
2012-10-15 16:20:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lennart Poettering
Heya,
Post by Andrew Eikum
As you likely know, Arch Linux is in the process of moving to systemd.
So I was reading through the various systemd docs and quickly became
baffled by this new abbreviation "resp.", which I've never seen before
in my English-mother-tongue life.
<http://www.transblawg.eu/index.php?/archives/870-Resp.-and-other-non-existent-English-wordsNicht-existente-englische-Woerter.html>
I guess it's a literal translation of the German "beziehungsweise", but
English doesn't work the same way. The word "respectively" is used
exclusively to provide an ordering connection between two lists. E.g.
"the prefixes k, M, and G refer to kilo-, mega-, and giga-,
respectively." It is also never abbreviated to "resp." So the sentence
"Sets the default output resp. error output for all services and
sockets" makes no sense to a natural English speaker.
This patch removes all instances of "resp." in the man pages and
replaces them with sentences which are much more clear and, hopefully,
grammatically valid. In almost all instances, it was simply replacing
"resp." with "or," which the original author could probably just do in
the future to avoid this problem.
The only other instances of "resp." are in the src/ subtree, which I
don't feel privileged to correct.
<term><option>--until=</option></term>
<listitem><para>Start showing entries
- newer or of the specified date,
- resp. older or of the specified
+ newer than the specified date,
+ or older than the specified
Hmmm, as I understood the text you linked this usage is actually
correct, as "resp." means "each separately in the order mentioned",
which is precisely what is meant here. The diff doesn't show it, but
this section is about both --since= and --until, hence we explain the
meaning of --since= first, and then of --until=, and link this with
"resp.".
I think using resp. is fine, but the wording above was still "weird"
(tho' I'm looking at it out of context, so feel free to ignore me!)

I think:

Start showing entries newer or of the specified date resp. older or of
the specified..

would IMO be better written as:

Start showing entries occurring on or after (resp. before) the specified
date.
Post by Lennart Poettering
So, now I am really confused, what's really right and wrong here? ;-)
Post by Andrew Eikum
<literal>tomorrow</literal> are
understood, which refer to 00:00:00 of
the day before the current day, the
- current day, resp the day after the
+ current day, or the day after the
same here: we first list the possible strings, and then their meanings,
in the same order.
Perhaps parenthesis could clarify some of the resp. usage here too?
Post by Lennart Poettering
Post by Andrew Eikum
<para>The four calls return the number of entries
advanced/set back on success or a negative errno-style
- error code. When the end (resp. beginning) of the journal
+ error code. When the end (or beginning) of the
journal
This appears to be correct usage of "resp", again as this describes
sd_journal_next, as well as sd_journal_resp.
Yes and I think resp. is better than an or here as it clearly defines
the differences between the two options outlined, rather than just a
"normal" 'or' that is in the sentence structure generally.

Col
--
Colin Guthrie
gmane(at)colin.guthr.ie
http://colin.guthr.ie/

Day Job:
Tribalogic Limited http://www.tribalogic.net/
Open Source:
Mageia Contributor http://www.mageia.org/
PulseAudio Hacker http://www.pulseaudio.org/
Trac Hacker http://trac.edgewall.org/
Andrew Eikum
2012-10-15 18:59:12 UTC
Permalink
As you likely know, Arch Linux is in the process of moving to systemd.
So I was reading through the various systemd docs and quickly became
baffled by this new abbreviation "resp.", which I've never seen before
in my English-mother-tongue life.

Some quick Googling turned up a reference:
<http://www.transblawg.eu/index.php?/archives/870-Resp.-and-other-non-existent-English-wordsNicht-existente-englische-Woerter.html>

I guess it's a literal translation of the German "Beziehungsweise", but
English doesn't work the same way. The word "respectively" is used
exclusively to provide an ordering connection between two lists. E.g.
"the prefixes k, M, and G refer to kilo-, mega-, and giga-,
respectively." It is also never abbreviated to "resp." So the sentence
"Sets the default output resp. error output for all services and
sockets" makes no sense to a natural English speaker.

This patch removes all instances of "resp." in the man pages and
replaces them with sentences which are much more clear and, hopefully,
grammatically valid. In almost all instances, it was simply replacing
"resp." with "or," which the original author (Lennart?) could probably
just do in the future.

The only other instances of "resp." are in the src/ subtree, which I
don't feel privileged to correct.

Signed-off-by: Andrew Eikum <***@codeweavers.com>

---
Post by Lennart Poettering
Does that make sense to you?
Yep, sounds good. I went through the patch and was more careful about
wording, to be sure the intent gets across. In one or two cases, I
just split out the two "tenses" entirely. Please give it a careful
once-over, but I think this should be good to go.

Thanks,
Andrew

man/daemon.xml | 2 +-
man/journalctl.xml | 14 +++----
man/os-release.xml | 4 +-
man/sd-daemon.xml | 2 +-
man/sd-readahead.xml | 2 +-
man/sd_booted.xml | 2 +-
man/sd_is_fifo.xml | 2 +-
man/sd_journal_next.xml | 4 +-
man/sd_listen_fds.xml | 2 +-
man/sd_notify.xml | 2 +-
man/sd_readahead.xml | 2 +-
man/systemd-ask-password-console.service.xml | 4 +-
man/systemd-cat.xml | 2 +-
man/systemd-cgtop.xml | 12 +++---
man/systemd-inhibit.xml | 5 ++-
man/systemd.exec.xml | 18 ++++-----
man/systemd.journal-fields.xml | 4 +-
man/systemd.kill.xml | 2 +-
man/systemd.service.xml | 4 +-
man/systemd.socket.xml | 22 +++++-----
man/systemd.swap.xml | 6 +--
man/systemd.unit.xml | 20 +++++-----
man/systemd.xml | 60 ++++++++++++++--------------
23 files changed, 100 insertions(+), 97 deletions(-)
Lennart Poettering
2012-10-15 22:37:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Eikum
As you likely know, Arch Linux is in the process of moving to systemd.
So I was reading through the various systemd docs and quickly became
baffled by this new abbreviation "resp.", which I've never seen before
in my English-mother-tongue life.
Applied! Thanks!

Lennart
--
Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc.
Loading...