Thread

1. Doc patch "only relevant" -> "relevant only"

   Karl O. Pinc <kop@meme.com> — 2012-10-17T03:24:06Z

   Hi,
   
   As long as I'm sending in trivial fixes
   to the docs here's a bit of wording that's been bugging me.
   
   In a number of places the docs read "only relevant",
   this patch reverses this to read "relevant only".
   
   I believe this reads better because it quickly
   answers the question "is what?" with "is relevant",
   making the sentence less of a strain to read.
   "Only relevant" would be better if you really wanted
   to emphasize the "only", which I don't think is called
   for.
   
   (Sending in such trivial patches makes me feel like
   I'm bikeshedding.  Feel free to ignore them without comment.)
   
   Regards,
   
   Karl <kop@meme.com>
   Free Software:  "You don't pay back, you pay forward."
                    -- Robert A. Heinlein
   
   

2. Re: Doc patch "only relevant" -> "relevant only"

   Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> — 2012-10-17T13:19:58Z

   On 10/16/2012 11:24 PM, Karl O. Pinc wrote:
   > Hi,
   >
   > As long as I'm sending in trivial fixes
   > to the docs here's a bit of wording that's been bugging me.
   >
   > In a number of places the docs read "only relevant",
   > this patch reverses this to read "relevant only".
   >
   > I believe this reads better because it quickly
   > answers the question "is what?" with "is relevant",
   > making the sentence less of a strain to read.
   > "Only relevant" would be better if you really wanted
   > to emphasize the "only", which I don't think is called
   > for.
   >
   > (Sending in such trivial patches makes me feel like
   > I'm bikeshedding.  Feel free to ignore them without comment.)
   >
   >
   
   This doesn't appear to correct any ambiguity, nor any grammatical error. 
   I find these sentences perfectly readable as they are. Not everything in 
   the docs conforms to my personal style either, but I'm not in favor of 
   taking this sort of patch which is just a matter of substituting your 
   stylistic judgment for that for the original author. If we do that we'll 
   never stop.
   
   cheers
   
   andrew
   
   
   

3. Re: Doc patch "only relevant" -> "relevant only"

   Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams@2ndquadrant.com> — 2012-10-17T17:19:47Z

   At 2012-10-17 09:19:58 -0400, andrew@dunslane.net wrote:
   >
   > This doesn't appear to correct any ambiguity, nor any grammatical
   > error.
   
   FWIW, it's quite standard and uncontroversial "good writing" advice to
   push "only" as far right as it can go. It does correct an ambiguity,
   but in this case the ambiguity is silly and harmless, so fixing it
   seems like nitpicking when you read the patch.
   
   -- Abhijit
   
   P.S. I would fix it anyway.
   
   
   

4. Re: Doc patch "only relevant" -> "relevant only"

   Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> — 2012-11-12T03:55:49Z

   On Tue, 2012-10-16 at 22:24 -0500, Karl O. Pinc wrote:
   > In a number of places the docs read "only relevant",
   > this patch reverses this to read "relevant only".
   
   committed