| From: | Gavin Flower <GavinFlower(at)archidevsys(dot)co(dot)nz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: First-draft release notes for next week's back-branch releases |
| Date: | 2016-05-08 22:29:45 |
| Message-ID: | 31db1bed-88a5-8fd0-db24-e63810a7fabf@archidevsys.co.nz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 09/05/16 10:22, Tom Lane wrote:
> Gavin Flower <GavinFlower(at)archidevsys(dot)co(dot)nz> writes:
>> On 09/05/16 08:56, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Hmm, "which see" is perfectly good English to my knowledge, and I'm not
>>> sure that other possible ways of wording this would be less awkward.
>> To me the phrase "which see" is plain weird, at least in this context!
>> Is this some American usage I've not heard on TV nor films???
> Don't think so. AFAIK it's a translation of the Latin "q.v." (quod vide),
> and is used in more or less the same way. It's not hard to find examples
> by googling.
>
> regards, tom lane
Well I've come across many examples of examples of bad grammar, so
finding an example of usage in Google is not proof the usage is valid!
Even at best, it doesn't flow and is awkward.
Cheers,
Gavin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2016-05-08 23:46:46 | Re: A population of population counts |
| Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2016-05-08 22:24:36 | Re: pg9.6 segfault using simple query (related to use fk for join estimates) |