[ietf-nntp] Fwd: New NNTP standard in Working Group Last Call

[Ruud H.G. van Tol]

Toen ik Clive D.W. Feather kietelde, kwam er dit uit:
> Russ Allbery:

>> 8.4  'case sensistive'
>> -> 'case-sensitive'
>
> It doesn't matter how much you try, there's always one slips through.

Part of the trying is putting the URL in the group. :)


There are double-spellings, like 'recognise' and 'recognize', and
there are instances of 'xxx which' that can be changed to either
'xxx that' or 'xxx, which'.  But I think that they are all right
as they are.


>> 8.4.1  'and not including either the "." CRLF terminating the response
>> nor any "." added for "byte-stuffing" purposes'
>> -> The meaning is clear, but is "not ... either ... nor any" OK? (I
>> would use 'or' in stead of 'nor' there.)
>
> This led me to think. I don't want to say "and includes neither the [dot
> CRLF] nor any [stuffing dot]" because I think it will be misunderstood.
> On the other hand, changing the "nor" to "or" didn't look quite right
> to me.

It must be because I'm Dutch, Mondriaan and such. Though we have 'stacked
negations' here as well, also to bridge parts of sentences. Not as strong
as in Afrikaans (ek sal nie gaan nie, I won't go). Dutch and Afrikaans
share a lot of origin, medieval Dutch: Het ne gesciet mi nemmermeer,
That will never happen to me again. Current Dutch: Ik maak nooit geen
fouten: I never make no mistakes. So Dutch are not allergic to them
but they do itch 'm easily.

Maybe the 'nor' in 'not including either yolks nor whites' is less common
than the one in 'not including either yolks, because bla blabla bla
blablabla bla, nor whites', because of the length of the bridge.


> <http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=nor> offers me an out:
>
>     However, when a verb is negated by not or never, and is followed by
>     a verb phrase that is also to be negated (but not an entire clause),
>     either or or nor can be used: He will not permit the change, or
>     (or nor) even consider it.
>
> I'm going to leave it for now, but may come back to it.

OK.

-- 
Affijn, Ruud