Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.bugs.dist > #820314 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-04-23 22:30 +0200 |
| Last post | 2017-04-26 12:10 +0200 |
| Articles | 3 — 2 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.bugs.dist
Bug#861025: "sangs" should not be in the English dictionary Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org> - 2017-04-23 22:30 +0200
Bug#861025: "sangs" should not be in the English dictionary Don Armstrong <don@debian.org> - 2017-04-25 00:10 +0200
Bug#861025: "sangs" should not be in the English dictionary Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org> - 2017-04-26 12:10 +0200
| From | Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-23 22:30 +0200 |
| Subject | Bug#861025: "sangs" should not be in the English dictionary |
| Message-ID | <tzwiR-4TQ-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
Package: scowl
Version: 2017.01.22-1
Severity: normal
The English dictionary includes the word "sangs". I can't find any
evidence suggesting that this is a word in English, based on several
different dictionaries. ("sang" is a word, but not one with a plural
like that.)
-- System Information:
Debian Release: 9.0
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: amd64
(x86_64)
Kernel: Linux 4.9.0-2-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=C.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=C.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)
-- no debconf information
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Don Armstrong <don@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-25 00:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <tzUlc-4gQ-29@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #820314 |
Control: retitle -1 sangs should be no lower than -80, probably -95, not -35
Control: tag -1 pending
On Sun, 23 Apr 2017, Josh Triplett wrote:
> The English dictionary includes the word "sangs". I can't find any
> evidence suggesting that this is a word in English, based on several
> different dictionaries. ("sang" is a word, but not one with a plural
> like that.)
Apparently, sang is the common name for /Panax quinquefolius/, and its
plural is sangs.
However, that's so obscure that it while it's reasonable to be in
-insane or possibly -huge, it definitely should not be in -35 where it
is currently.
https://git.donarmstrong.com/deb_pkgs/scowl.git/c/4d4ec is the fix for it.
--
Don Armstrong https://www.donarmstrong.com
I'm wrong to criticize the valor of your brave men. It's important to
die for one's country when it means being the subject of a king who
wears a ruffled collar or a pleated one.
-- Cyrano de Bergerac
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-26 12:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <tAs3v-Rc-19@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #820578 |
On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 03:05:31PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> Control: retitle -1 sangs should be no lower than -80, probably -95, not -35
> Control: tag -1 pending
>
> On Sun, 23 Apr 2017, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > The English dictionary includes the word "sangs". I can't find any
> > evidence suggesting that this is a word in English, based on several
> > different dictionaries. ("sang" is a word, but not one with a plural
> > like that.)
>
> Apparently, sang is the common name for /Panax quinquefolius/, and its
> plural is sangs.
Interesting. I can find a little bit of evidence of that on Wikipedia,
but none in any dictionary I could source.
> However, that's so obscure that it while it's reasonable to be in
> -insane or possibly -huge, it definitely should not be in -35 where it
> is currently.
Seems fair. Thanks!
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.bugs.dist
csiph-web