From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Kastrup Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 19:48:29 +0200 Message-ID: <85d4vhlh8y.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> References: <20071014142826.8caa0a9f.chriscool@tuxfamily.org> <854pgtonp5.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <200710141709.51579.chriscool@tuxfamily.org> <4712400C.2080900@lsrfire.ath.cx> <85y7e5ll38.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <522E90CF-FC15-472F-B0A8-91C310CAF9BF@wincent.com> <471250BC.7070307@trolltech.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Christian Couder , Wincent Colaiuta , =?iso-8859-1?Q?Ren=E9?= Scharfe , Junio Hamano , Johannes Schindelin , git@vger.kernel.org To: Marius Storm-Olsen X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Oct 14 19:49:20 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Ih7ZJ-0005U2-VI for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Sun, 14 Oct 2007 19:48:02 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758269AbXJNRrj (ORCPT ); Sun, 14 Oct 2007 13:47:39 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1758254AbXJNRrj (ORCPT ); Sun, 14 Oct 2007 13:47:39 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]:58861 "EHLO fencepost.gnu.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758157AbXJNRrh (ORCPT ); Sun, 14 Oct 2007 13:47:37 -0400 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lola.goethe.zz) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Ih7Yt-0004eY-RG; Sun, 14 Oct 2007 13:47:36 -0400 Received: by lola.goethe.zz (Postfix, from userid 1002) id 58D7A1C4CE11; Sun, 14 Oct 2007 19:48:29 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <471250BC.7070307@trolltech.com> (Marius Storm-Olsen's message of "Sun\, 14 Oct 2007 19\:24\:12 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1.50 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Marius Storm-Olsen writes: > Wincent Colaiuta said the following on 14.10.2007 18:35: > >> "undecided" sounds good to me. It should be clear to non-native >> speakers of English (at least, clearer than "dunno"). > > What about just "unknown"? I tend to nitpick to the degree of silliness when my own suggestions are concerned, but "unknown" sounds to me like the state _before_ the test. If a person says he is "undecided" about something that means that he _has_ thought about it already. "Undecidable" might bring this distinction across more strongly, but it is a more complicated word and it insinuates that it is _impossible_ to come to a decision regardless of the spent effort. "unknown" clearly is much better than "dunno" though even if my own favorite would be "undecided". -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum