Re: emacs-28 2c6a94c5b8: ; Correct the meaning of "cf." in tips.texi

[Štěpán Němec]

On Fri, 29 Jul 2022 01:49:13 -0700
Stefan Kangas wrote:

> Štěpán Němec <stepnem@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>     ; Correct the meaning of "cf." in tips.texi
>>
>>     Cf. e.g. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cf.
>>
>>     * doc/lispref/tips.texi (Documentation Tips): Correct the meaning of
>>     "cf.".
>> ---
>>  doc/lispref/tips.texi | 2 +-
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/doc/lispref/tips.texi b/doc/lispref/tips.texi
>> index a3f49c19bc..eddbbfe8b9 100644
>> --- a/doc/lispref/tips.texi
>> +++ b/doc/lispref/tips.texi
>> @@ -845,7 +845,7 @@ find an alternate phrasing that conveys the meaning.
>>  @item
>>  Try to avoid using abbreviations such as ``e.g.'' (for ``for
>>  example''), ``i.e.'' (for ``that is''), ``no.'' (for ``number''),
>> -``cf.'' (for ``in contrast to'') and ``w.r.t.'' (for ``with respect
>> +``cf.'' (for ``compare''/``see also'') and ``w.r.t.'' (for ``with respect
>>  to'') as much as possible.  It is almost always clearer and easier to
>>  read the expanded version.@footnote{We do use these occasionally, but
>>  try not to overdo it.}
>
> I'm not sure about this change:
>
> - I don't think "see also" is correct.
>
> - In Bug#40011, I quote Writing for Computer Science by Justin Zobel
>   (2004), which says:
>
>     "It is often tempting to use abbreviations such as 'no.', 'i.e.',
>     'e.g.' 'c.f.' and 'w.r.t.'  These save little space on the page,
>     but slow readers down.  It is almost always desirable to expand
>     these abbreviations, to 'number', 'that is', 'for example',
>     'compared with' (or more accurately 'in contrast to', since that
>     is the sense in which 'c.f.' should be used), and 'with respect
>     to', or synonyms of these expressions.

Giving "in contrast to" as the (only) expansion felt obviously strange
to me both etymologically (the abbreviation comes from Latin for
"compare") and semantically (how it has been typically used in English),
so I thought it was more likely to be an oversight, and my change likely
uncontroversial.

I have no idea about the book you quote.

In any case, it might not be terribly important to dwell on the single
best cf. expansion, given that the main message of the paragraph in
tips.texi is "let's try to avoid these abbreviations in the docs".

If you want to be really scientific about this, I suggest checking a
quality English corpus rather than a book or a few people's (native
speakers or not) opinion.

Nevertheless, in retrospect I see I should have checked the revision
history and the bug (I usually do, but see my first paragraph above)
and I do apologize for not doing so.

I hope this is not going to become one of those emacs-devel threads.

-- 
Štěpán