-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 2011-01-06 19:37, Raphael Geissert wrote: > Russ Allbery wrote: >> While I agree with this message that idiomatic English would call for >> different phrasing in a lot of places, I think correcting "allows to" to >> "allows one to" would be acceptable, if not ideal, phrasing in every >> example given there. > > > This one was on my ToDo list and had the following temp commit: > +(?i)allows to||allows _object_ to > +(?i)requires to||requires _object_ to > +(?i)helps to||helps _object_ to > +(?i)permits to||permits _object_ to > > I don't remember why I wrote 'object' (now that I think about it should > probably be s/object/subject/) > > Not sure if using '_subject_' on the correction would be understood by > everyone. > > Cheers,
Personally I do not feel strongly about either solution, though I fear you might be right with people not understanding the "_subject_" notation. ~Niels -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJNKEZIAAoJEAVLu599gGRCgmgP/RM1XBgsCLdSjnsqGEllGVaU +ja9qyBVqenmMnVy91LLuFWrBuO/w6vnuH13lwdU6SYB5INW0F0fUQ9QiQiwsaiZ NfOQi7xRQYzmOF9rszog0tNBWoaZLiL20hlk+UyxFwVBO4pEoS0FIHOBiLk5PHKJ wArDe5t06WNa7UI0hvzkPfvLa2VCXnqv37Y5AdJMe7kooiM0iRmAfz3mdVMd5Tyg 4eQ5LEvBWCI0Jtessc5aEvMjgP9IpqELmUgswrQ39jDBZFFmDGluvM7ACFlkipsT GdI05nZgiUljCW1i9jlg5CJ9UivM0tWseeaDiqwlksU0HVVVGS3XNEufMUniV/pd tPOVsIeEQbMpDX4Z/3x5zwnVbh6H9mfIyWgHZWd8EuhFvbJIO0+qhwjSwsGV2RTn uqWXPx/PK19WNXvfonO/uhSL7Odz3jeMnovFXbZoiet6/A7QLht52z+DIbzES1CC b652orgA4cm3ISHldE0rtT9d+Q9paSWcIXJmS+DeflOGKufBAI5tTa5SDmD6dYKb 57RVGj0lu9Nwg4G9AY7sNOoMitaVpneIkiuGfvCezCNxJ7b1daMUd2vWTj1RIsPc V8N9i2aXqLDIbkuOcEnsJKtrqpQVuur2Fbvlzm0n56IU5fBULvzSdJ1803xliO57 uCe2bBiQttqpJ4Bp/mKa =S23h -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
