> You are right, but I'm going to change it to: > > In theory, it is like the <command>make</command> command, but without > <command>make</command>'s wrinkles. > > It will be a part of my next commit.
It was used in the README and obviously copied across, albeit with some editing, but that's really not an excuse. I like the "theory"! ;-) > > http://www.wsj.com/articles/there-is-no-proper-english-1426258286?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsThird If one reads between the lines, it's clear that is a long standing debate. It's also clear that author's explicit pronouncements of what is or is not "proper" are no more than personal opinions, no matter how forcefully expressed. "Huckleberry Finn" was a scandal when published. The English language reflects British Isles history of invasions. First the Anglo-Saxon invasion pushed earlier Celtic languages to the peripheries. English always has had an historically "plattdeutsch", Low German or Low Saxon, grammar with borrowed words, many introduced from French after the Norman Conquest. Some even from the British Raj. With respect to vocanulary: "The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary." James Nicoll See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Nicoll -- Paul Rogers [email protected] Rogers' Second Law: "Everything you do communicates." (I do not personally endorse any additions after this line. TANSTAAFL :-) -- http://www.fastmail.com - Same, same, but different... -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
