[PATCH] netlink.7, tcp.7: tfix: s/acknowledgment/acknowledgement

[PATCH] netlink.7, tcp.7: tfix: s/acknowledgment/acknowledgement

[Alejandro Colomar]

Signed-off-by: Alejandro Colomar <alx.manpages@gmail.com>
---
 man7/netlink.7 |  8 ++++----
 man7/tcp.7     | 10 +++++-----
 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

diff --git a/man7/netlink.7 b/man7/netlink.7
index 6559d4d96..f10582d79 100644
--- a/man7/netlink.7
+++ b/man7/netlink.7
@@ -221,7 +221,7 @@ The message is part of a multipart message terminated by
 .BR NLMSG_DONE .
 T}
 NLM_F_ACK:T{
-Request for an acknowledgment on success.
+Request for an acknowledgement on success.
 T}
 NLM_F_ECHO:T{
 Echo this request.
@@ -315,7 +315,7 @@ For reliable transfer the sender can request an
 acknowledgement from the receiver by setting the
 .B NLM_F_ACK
 flag.
-An acknowledgment is an
+An acknowledgement is an
 .B NLMSG_ERROR
 packet with the error field set to 0.
 The application must generate acknowledgements for
@@ -494,11 +494,11 @@ is sent to user space via an ancillary data.
 .BR NETLINK_CAP_ACK " (since Linux 4.2)"
 .\"	commit 0a6a3a23ea6efde079a5b77688541a98bf202721
 .\"	Author: Christophe Ricard <christophe.ricard@gmail.com>
-The kernel may fail to allocate the necessary room for the acknowledgment
+The kernel may fail to allocate the necessary room for the acknowledgement
 message back to user space.
 This option trims off the payload of the original netlink message.
 The netlink message header is still included, so the user can guess from the
-sequence number which message triggered the acknowledgment.
+sequence number which message triggered the acknowledgement.
 .SH VERSIONS
 The socket interface to netlink first appeared Linux 2.2.
 .PP
diff --git a/man7/tcp.7 b/man7/tcp.7
index d6836f3a8..8b78cb6e1 100644
--- a/man7/tcp.7
+++ b/man7/tcp.7
@@ -264,22 +264,22 @@ meaning that the option is disabled.
 Control the Appropriate Byte Count (ABC), defined in RFC 3465.
 ABC is a way of increasing the congestion window
 .RI ( cwnd )
-more slowly in response to partial acknowledgments.
+more slowly in response to partial acknowledgements.
 Possible values are:
 .RS
 .IP 0 3
 increase
 .I cwnd
-once per acknowledgment (no ABC)
+once per acknowledgement (no ABC)
 .IP 1
 increase
 .I cwnd
-once per acknowledgment of full sized segment
+once per acknowledgement of full sized segment
 .IP 2
 allow increase
 .I cwnd
-by two if acknowledgment is
-of two segments to compensate for delayed acknowledgments.
+by two if acknowledgement is
+of two segments to compensate for delayed acknowledgements.
 .RE
 .TP
 .IR tcp_abort_on_overflow " (Boolean; default: disabled; since Linux 2.4)"
-- 
2.29.2

Re: [PATCH] netlink.7, tcp.7: tfix: s/acknowledgment/acknowledgement

[Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)]

Hi Alex,

On 1/7/21 5:55 PM, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Alejandro Colomar <alx.manpages@gmail.com>

Take a look at

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=acknowledgment%2Cacknowledgement&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=5&smoothing=3

and compare American English vs British English using the drop-down.

When I inherited man-pages in 2004, it was a hodge-podge mix of 
American vs British spelling. My native spelling is the latter,
but I value consistency and felt that things needed to be
standardized on one or other, and in computing, American is the
norm so that is what I settled on.hodge-podge

I'm largely at piece with American spelling these days (it 
is the spelling I use in most of my writing), but I guess
the one point that still bothers me are the American spellings
"acknowledgment" and "judgment". They just feel wrong.

However, I now learned from the Ngrams that even in British
English, the spelling without "e" was historically the norm.
So it seems that it is British English that has changed, 
not American English!

I was about to say that I must decline this patch. And then
I thought I'd take a look at the POSIX standard. It seems
to largely follow American spelling (e.g., "color", "canceled",
"recognize", "analog").[1] But, it uses "acknowledgement"!
(There are even a couple of instances of "judgement" in 
the standard.) It seems like others like to have the
extra "e' in those words...

So, I'm not sure what to do with this patch. 

Thanks,

Michael

[1] It's also worth noting that there is a gradual movement
toward American spellings even in British English.


> ---
>  man7/netlink.7 |  8 ++++----
>  man7/tcp.7     | 10 +++++-----
>  2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/man7/netlink.7 b/man7/netlink.7
> index 6559d4d96..f10582d79 100644
> --- a/man7/netlink.7
> +++ b/man7/netlink.7
> @@ -221,7 +221,7 @@ The message is part of a multipart message terminated by
>  .BR NLMSG_DONE .
>  T}
>  NLM_F_ACK:T{
> -Request for an acknowledgment on success.
> +Request for an acknowledgement on success.
>  T}
>  NLM_F_ECHO:T{
>  Echo this request.
> @@ -315,7 +315,7 @@ For reliable transfer the sender can request an
>  acknowledgement from the receiver by setting the
>  .B NLM_F_ACK
>  flag.
> -An acknowledgment is an
> +An acknowledgement is an
>  .B NLMSG_ERROR
>  packet with the error field set to 0.
>  The application must generate acknowledgements for
> @@ -494,11 +494,11 @@ is sent to user space via an ancillary data.
>  .BR NETLINK_CAP_ACK " (since Linux 4.2)"
>  .\"	commit 0a6a3a23ea6efde079a5b77688541a98bf202721
>  .\"	Author: Christophe Ricard <christophe.ricard@gmail.com>
> -The kernel may fail to allocate the necessary room for the acknowledgment
> +The kernel may fail to allocate the necessary room for the acknowledgement
>  message back to user space.
>  This option trims off the payload of the original netlink message.
>  The netlink message header is still included, so the user can guess from the
> -sequence number which message triggered the acknowledgment.
> +sequence number which message triggered the acknowledgement.
>  .SH VERSIONS
>  The socket interface to netlink first appeared Linux 2.2.
>  .PP
> diff --git a/man7/tcp.7 b/man7/tcp.7
> index d6836f3a8..8b78cb6e1 100644
> --- a/man7/tcp.7
> +++ b/man7/tcp.7
> @@ -264,22 +264,22 @@ meaning that the option is disabled.
>  Control the Appropriate Byte Count (ABC), defined in RFC 3465.
>  ABC is a way of increasing the congestion window
>  .RI ( cwnd )
> -more slowly in response to partial acknowledgments.
> +more slowly in response to partial acknowledgements.
>  Possible values are:
>  .RS
>  .IP 0 3
>  increase
>  .I cwnd
> -once per acknowledgment (no ABC)
> +once per acknowledgement (no ABC)
>  .IP 1
>  increase
>  .I cwnd
> -once per acknowledgment of full sized segment
> +once per acknowledgement of full sized segment
>  .IP 2
>  allow increase
>  .I cwnd
> -by two if acknowledgment is
> -of two segments to compensate for delayed acknowledgments.
> +by two if acknowledgement is
> +of two segments to compensate for delayed acknowledgements.
>  .RE
>  .TP
>  .IR tcp_abort_on_overflow " (Boolean; default: disabled; since Linux 2.4)"
> 


-- 
Michael Kerrisk
Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/
Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/

Re: [PATCH] netlink.7, tcp.7: tfix: s/acknowledgment/acknowledgement

[Alejandro Colomar (man-pages)]

On 1/8/21 11:29 AM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> Hi Alex,
> 
> On 1/7/21 5:55 PM, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Alejandro Colomar <alx.manpages@gmail.com>
> 
> Take a look at
> 
> https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=acknowledgment%2Cacknowledgement&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=5&smoothing=3
> 
> and compare American English vs British English using the drop-down.
> 
> When I inherited man-pages in 2004, it was a hodge-podge mix of 
> American vs British spelling. My native spelling is the latter,
> but I value consistency and felt that things needed to be
> standardized on one or other, and in computing, American is the
> norm so that is what I settled on.hodge-podge
> 
> I'm largely at piece with American spelling these days (it 
> is the spelling I use in most of my writing), but I guess
> the one point that still bothers me are the American spellings
> "acknowledgment" and "judgment". They just feel wrong.

Yup

> 
> However, I now learned from the Ngrams that even in British
> English, the spelling without "e" was historically the norm.
> So it seems that it is British English that has changed, 
> not American English!
> 
> I was about to say that I must decline this patch. And then
> I thought I'd take a look at the POSIX standard. It seems
> to largely follow American spelling (e.g., "color", "canceled",
> "recognize", "analog").[1] But, it uses "acknowledgement"!
> (There are even a couple of instances of "judgement" in 
> the standard.) It seems like others like to have the
> extra "e' in those words...
> 
> So, I'm not sure what to do with this patch. 

Hey Michael,

D'oh, I thought it was a typo! :-)

American English surprises me.

Yes I prefer American English, but I've also learn_ed_ British at
school, (and learnt American through the internet), so I have a weird
hodge-podge in my head too :p

I guess many people though it was a typo from the data you put.  Also see:

$ grep -r acknowledgement \
  |wc -l;
grep: man7/.hostname.7.swp: binary file matches
69
$ grep -r acknowledgment \
  |wc -l;
23

Nevertheless, I prefer American too, so I'd invert the patch.
What about s/acknowledgement/acknowledgment/?

Cheers,

Alex

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Michael
> 
> [1] It's also worth noting that there is a gradual movement
> toward American spellings even in British English.
> 
> 
>> ---
>>  man7/netlink.7 |  8 ++++----
>>  man7/tcp.7     | 10 +++++-----
>>  2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/man7/netlink.7 b/man7/netlink.7
>> index 6559d4d96..f10582d79 100644
>> --- a/man7/netlink.7
>> +++ b/man7/netlink.7
>> @@ -221,7 +221,7 @@ The message is part of a multipart message terminated by
>>  .BR NLMSG_DONE .
>>  T}
>>  NLM_F_ACK:T{
>> -Request for an acknowledgment on success.
>> +Request for an acknowledgement on success.
>>  T}
>>  NLM_F_ECHO:T{
>>  Echo this request.
>> @@ -315,7 +315,7 @@ For reliable transfer the sender can request an
>>  acknowledgement from the receiver by setting the
>>  .B NLM_F_ACK
>>  flag.
>> -An acknowledgment is an
>> +An acknowledgement is an
>>  .B NLMSG_ERROR
>>  packet with the error field set to 0.
>>  The application must generate acknowledgements for
>> @@ -494,11 +494,11 @@ is sent to user space via an ancillary data.
>>  .BR NETLINK_CAP_ACK " (since Linux 4.2)"
>>  .\"	commit 0a6a3a23ea6efde079a5b77688541a98bf202721
>>  .\"	Author: Christophe Ricard <christophe.ricard@gmail.com>
>> -The kernel may fail to allocate the necessary room for the acknowledgment
>> +The kernel may fail to allocate the necessary room for the acknowledgement
>>  message back to user space.
>>  This option trims off the payload of the original netlink message.
>>  The netlink message header is still included, so the user can guess from the
>> -sequence number which message triggered the acknowledgment.
>> +sequence number which message triggered the acknowledgement.
>>  .SH VERSIONS
>>  The socket interface to netlink first appeared Linux 2.2.
>>  .PP
>> diff --git a/man7/tcp.7 b/man7/tcp.7
>> index d6836f3a8..8b78cb6e1 100644
>> --- a/man7/tcp.7
>> +++ b/man7/tcp.7
>> @@ -264,22 +264,22 @@ meaning that the option is disabled.
>>  Control the Appropriate Byte Count (ABC), defined in RFC 3465.
>>  ABC is a way of increasing the congestion window
>>  .RI ( cwnd )
>> -more slowly in response to partial acknowledgments.
>> +more slowly in response to partial acknowledgements.
>>  Possible values are:
>>  .RS
>>  .IP 0 3
>>  increase
>>  .I cwnd
>> -once per acknowledgment (no ABC)
>> +once per acknowledgement (no ABC)
>>  .IP 1
>>  increase
>>  .I cwnd
>> -once per acknowledgment of full sized segment
>> +once per acknowledgement of full sized segment
>>  .IP 2
>>  allow increase
>>  .I cwnd
>> -by two if acknowledgment is
>> -of two segments to compensate for delayed acknowledgments.
>> +by two if acknowledgement is
>> +of two segments to compensate for delayed acknowledgements.
>>  .RE
>>  .TP
>>  .IR tcp_abort_on_overflow " (Boolean; default: disabled; since Linux 2.4)"
>>
> 
> 

-- 
Alejandro Colomar
Linux man-pages comaintainer; https://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/
http://www.alejandro-colomar.es/

Re: [PATCH] netlink.7, tcp.7: tfix: s/acknowledgment/acknowledgement

[Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)]

Hello Alex,

On 1/8/21 12:36 PM, Alejandro Colomar (man-pages) wrote:
> 
> On 1/8/21 11:29 AM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
>> Hi Alex,
>>
>> On 1/7/21 5:55 PM, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
>>> Signed-off-by: Alejandro Colomar <alx.manpages@gmail.com>
>>
>> Take a look at
>>
>> https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=acknowledgment%2Cacknowledgement&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=5&smoothing=3
>>
>> and compare American English vs British English using the drop-down.
>>
>> When I inherited man-pages in 2004, it was a hodge-podge mix of 
>> American vs British spelling. My native spelling is the latter,
>> but I value consistency and felt that things needed to be
>> standardized on one or other, and in computing, American is the
>> norm so that is what I settled on.hodge-podge
>>
>> I'm largely at piece with American spelling these days (it 
>> is the spelling I use in most of my writing), but I guess
>> the one point that still bothers me are the American spellings
>> "acknowledgment" and "judgment". They just feel wrong.
> 
> Yup
> 
>>
>> However, I now learned from the Ngrams that even in British
>> English, the spelling without "e" was historically the norm.
>> So it seems that it is British English that has changed, 
>> not American English!
>>
>> I was about to say that I must decline this patch. And then
>> I thought I'd take a look at the POSIX standard. It seems
>> to largely follow American spelling (e.g., "color", "canceled",
>> "recognize", "analog").[1] But, it uses "acknowledgement"!
>> (There are even a couple of instances of "judgement" in 
>> the standard.) It seems like others like to have the
>> extra "e' in those words...
>>
>> So, I'm not sure what to do with this patch. 
> 
> Hey Michael,
> 
> D'oh, I thought it was a typo! :-)
> 
> American English surprises me.
> 
> Yes I prefer American English, but I've also learn_ed_ British at
> school, (and learnt American through the internet), so I have a weird
> hodge-podge in my head too :p
> 
> I guess many people though it was a typo from the data you put.  Also see:
> 
> $ grep -r acknowledgement \
>   |wc -l;
> grep: man7/.hostname.7.swp: binary file matches
> 69
> $ grep -r acknowledgment \
>   |wc -l;
> 23

Okay -- this gets weirder and weirder. Look more closely
at what the grep found. Those instances of 'acknowledgement'
are almost all in the page comments containing BSD licenses!

I thought to myself, that's strange: because BSD is from 
California... Maybe some enthusiastic person did a
global edit in the distant past to change this to British
spelling in the Linux manual pages. But, it doesn't seem that
way. I grepped a few thousand header files that I've assembled
over the years from various OSes, and in the BSD licenses,
the vast majority use 'acknowledgement'. A few use
'acknowledgment', but I suspect that those were changed
after importing from other places.

It seems that the underground spelling resistance was strong
at Berkeley.

> Nevertheless, I prefer American too, so I'd invert the patch.
> What about s/acknowledgement/acknowledgment/?
So, I still don't know what to do. I never much liked
the "American" "*dgment", but:

(1) That seems to have been the historical form that 
    British English moved away from.

(2) A couple of "American" groups (BSD, POSIX) use
    the "British" spelling.

Cheers,

Michael

PS I want to join the spelling resistance :-)

-- 
Michael Kerrisk
Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/
Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/

Re: [PATCH] netlink.7, tcp.7: tfix: s/acknowledgment/acknowledgement

[Alejandro Colomar (man-pages)]

On 1/8/21 2:23 PM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> Hello Alex,
> 
> On 1/8/21 12:36 PM, Alejandro Colomar (man-pages) wrote:
>>
>> On 1/8/21 11:29 AM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
>>> Hi Alex,
>>>
>>> On 1/7/21 5:55 PM, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
>>>> Signed-off-by: Alejandro Colomar <alx.manpages@gmail.com>
>>>
>>> Take a look at
>>>
>>> https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=acknowledgment%2Cacknowledgement&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=5&smoothing=3
>>>
>>> and compare American English vs British English using the drop-down.
>>>
>>> When I inherited man-pages in 2004, it was a hodge-podge mix of 
>>> American vs British spelling. My native spelling is the latter,
>>> but I value consistency and felt that things needed to be
>>> standardized on one or other, and in computing, American is the
>>> norm so that is what I settled on.hodge-podge
>>>
>>> I'm largely at piece with American spelling these days (it 
>>> is the spelling I use in most of my writing), but I guess
>>> the one point that still bothers me are the American spellings
>>> "acknowledgment" and "judgment". They just feel wrong.
>>
>> Yup
>>
>>>
>>> However, I now learned from the Ngrams that even in British
>>> English, the spelling without "e" was historically the norm.
>>> So it seems that it is British English that has changed, 
>>> not American English!
>>>
>>> I was about to say that I must decline this patch. And then
>>> I thought I'd take a look at the POSIX standard. It seems
>>> to largely follow American spelling (e.g., "color", "canceled",
>>> "recognize", "analog").[1] But, it uses "acknowledgement"!
>>> (There are even a couple of instances of "judgement" in 
>>> the standard.) It seems like others like to have the
>>> extra "e' in those words...
>>>
>>> So, I'm not sure what to do with this patch. 
>>
>> Hey Michael,
>>
>> D'oh, I thought it was a typo! :-)
>>
>> American English surprises me.
>>
>> Yes I prefer American English, but I've also learn_ed_ British at
>> school, (and learnt American through the internet), so I have a weird
>> hodge-podge in my head too :p
>>
>> I guess many people though it was a typo from the data you put.  Also see:
>>
>> $ grep -r acknowledgement \
>>   |wc -l;
>> grep: man7/.hostname.7.swp: binary file matches
>> 69
>> $ grep -r acknowledgment \
>>   |wc -l;
>> 23
> 
> Okay -- this gets weirder and weirder. Look more closely
> at what the grep found. Those instances of 'acknowledgement'
> are almost all in the page comments containing BSD licenses!
> 
> I thought to myself, that's strange: because BSD is from 
> California... Maybe some enthusiastic person did a
> global edit in the distant past to change this to British
> spelling in the Linux manual pages. But, it doesn't seem that
> way. I grepped a few thousand header files that I've assembled
> over the years from various OSes, and in the BSD licenses,
> the vast majority use 'acknowledgement'. A few use
> 'acknowledgment', but I suspect that those were changed
> after importing from other places.
> 
> It seems that the underground spelling resistance was strong
> at Berkeley.
> 
>> Nevertheless, I prefer American too, so I'd invert the patch.
>> What about s/acknowledgement/acknowledgment/?
> So, I still don't know what to do. I never much liked
> the "American" "*dgment", but:
> 
> (1) That seems to have been the historical form that 
>     British English moved away from.
> 
> (2) A couple of "American" groups (BSD, POSIX) use
>     the "British" spelling.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Michael
> 
> PS I want to join the spelling resistance :-)

Hello Michael,

That made me think about it again, and well, a language isn't what books
say, but what people actually use.  That's something I learnt from the
Catalan language, which some institutions constantly try to normalize
differently than common usage, and it's weird, very very weird.

So, if most people use *dgement, I'd say the word is correctly spelled
*dgement.

But we need a common spelling, because I was searching in vim for the
word, and it was very weird because I knew the word was there, but it
didn't show it to me.  I had to manually move to the line to see that it
was written differently, on the same page! :/

So I hereby insist on my initial patch :-}

Cheers,

Alex


-- 
Alejandro Colomar
Linux man-pages comaintainer; https://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/
http://www.alejandro-colomar.es/

Ping: [PATCH] netlink.7, tcp.7: tfix: s/acknowledgment/acknowledgement

[Alejandro Colomar (man-pages)]

Hi Michael,

Ping!

And now I noticed, while searching for this email:
Debian uses "acknowledgement" too :p

[
From: "Debian Bug Tracking System" <owner@bugs.debian.org>
To: Alejandro Colomar <alx.manpages@gmail.com>
Subject: Bug#978945: Acknowledgement (thunderbird: Message subwindow tilts
 (resizes in a loop))
]

Kind regards,

Alex

On 1/8/21 2:34 PM, Alejandro Colomar (man-pages) wrote:
> On 1/8/21 2:23 PM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
>> Hello Alex,
>>
>> On 1/8/21 12:36 PM, Alejandro Colomar (man-pages) wrote:
>>>
>>> On 1/8/21 11:29 AM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
>>>> Hi Alex,
>>>>
>>>> On 1/7/21 5:55 PM, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Alejandro Colomar <alx.manpages@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>> Take a look at
>>>>
>>>> https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=acknowledgment%2Cacknowledgement&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=5&smoothing=3
>>>>
>>>> and compare American English vs British English using the drop-down.
>>>>
>>>> When I inherited man-pages in 2004, it was a hodge-podge mix of 
>>>> American vs British spelling. My native spelling is the latter,
>>>> but I value consistency and felt that things needed to be
>>>> standardized on one or other, and in computing, American is the
>>>> norm so that is what I settled on.hodge-podge
>>>>
>>>> I'm largely at piece with American spelling these days (it 
>>>> is the spelling I use in most of my writing), but I guess
>>>> the one point that still bothers me are the American spellings
>>>> "acknowledgment" and "judgment". They just feel wrong.
>>>
>>> Yup
>>>
>>>>
>>>> However, I now learned from the Ngrams that even in British
>>>> English, the spelling without "e" was historically the norm.
>>>> So it seems that it is British English that has changed, 
>>>> not American English!
>>>>
>>>> I was about to say that I must decline this patch. And then
>>>> I thought I'd take a look at the POSIX standard. It seems
>>>> to largely follow American spelling (e.g., "color", "canceled",
>>>> "recognize", "analog").[1] But, it uses "acknowledgement"!
>>>> (There are even a couple of instances of "judgement" in 
>>>> the standard.) It seems like others like to have the
>>>> extra "e' in those words...
>>>>
>>>> So, I'm not sure what to do with this patch. 
>>>
>>> Hey Michael,
>>>
>>> D'oh, I thought it was a typo! :-)
>>>
>>> American English surprises me.
>>>
>>> Yes I prefer American English, but I've also learn_ed_ British at
>>> school, (and learnt American through the internet), so I have a weird
>>> hodge-podge in my head too :p
>>>
>>> I guess many people though it was a typo from the data you put.  Also see:
>>>
>>> $ grep -r acknowledgement \
>>>   |wc -l;
>>> grep: man7/.hostname.7.swp: binary file matches
>>> 69
>>> $ grep -r acknowledgment \
>>>   |wc -l;
>>> 23
>>
>> Okay -- this gets weirder and weirder. Look more closely
>> at what the grep found. Those instances of 'acknowledgement'
>> are almost all in the page comments containing BSD licenses!
>>
>> I thought to myself, that's strange: because BSD is from 
>> California... Maybe some enthusiastic person did a
>> global edit in the distant past to change this to British
>> spelling in the Linux manual pages. But, it doesn't seem that
>> way. I grepped a few thousand header files that I've assembled
>> over the years from various OSes, and in the BSD licenses,
>> the vast majority use 'acknowledgement'. A few use
>> 'acknowledgment', but I suspect that those were changed
>> after importing from other places.
>>
>> It seems that the underground spelling resistance was strong
>> at Berkeley.
>>
>>> Nevertheless, I prefer American too, so I'd invert the patch.
>>> What about s/acknowledgement/acknowledgment/?
>> So, I still don't know what to do. I never much liked
>> the "American" "*dgment", but:
>>
>> (1) That seems to have been the historical form that 
>>     British English moved away from.
>>
>> (2) A couple of "American" groups (BSD, POSIX) use
>>     the "British" spelling.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Michael
>>
>> PS I want to join the spelling resistance :-)
> 
> Hello Michael,
> 
> That made me think about it again, and well, a language isn't what books
> say, but what people actually use.  That's something I learnt from the
> Catalan language, which some institutions constantly try to normalize
> differently than common usage, and it's weird, very very weird.
> 
> So, if most people use *dgement, I'd say the word is correctly spelled
> *dgement.
> 
> But we need a common spelling, because I was searching in vim for the
> word, and it was very weird because I knew the word was there, but it
> didn't show it to me.  I had to manually move to the line to see that it
> was written differently, on the same page! :/
> 
> So I hereby insist on my initial patch :-}
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Alex
> 
> 


-- 
Alejandro Colomar
Linux man-pages comaintainer; https://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/
http://www.alejandro-colomar.es/

Re: Ping: [PATCH] netlink.7, tcp.7: tfix: s/acknowledgment/acknowledgement

[Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)]

On 1/18/21 4:33 PM, Alejandro Colomar (man-pages) wrote:
> Hi Michael,
> 
> Ping!
> 
> And now I noticed, while searching for this email:
> Debian uses "acknowledgement" too :p
> 
> [
> From: "Debian Bug Tracking System" <owner@bugs.debian.org>
> To: Alejandro Colomar <alx.manpages@gmail.com>
> Subject: Bug#978945: Acknowledgement (thunderbird: Message subwindow tilts
>  (resizes in a loop))
> ]
Hi Alex,

Thanks for the ping. I applied the patch, and added a note to
man-pages(7).

Cheers,

Michael

-- 
Michael Kerrisk
Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/
Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/