{"thread":{"id":"53616","subject":"Standardizing on Oxford English","startedAt":"2020-06-05T05:34:35Z","lastAt":"2020-06-08T00:28:18Z","messageCount":4,"participants":["Varun Varada","Konstantin Ryabitsev","brian m. carlson"],"isPatch":false,"patchVersion":null,"patchTotal":null},"messages":[{"id":"399165","messageId":"CAD2i4DCyovfV78rXwH+B+tNOeDM7rJCHWSCPFOiCv7mVR+56ew@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"53616","inReplyTo":null,"subject":"Standardizing on Oxford English","fromName":"Varun Varada","fromEmail":"varuncvarada@gmail.com","sentAt":"2020-06-05T05:34:21Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-05T05:34:35Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"varuncvarada@gmail.com","avatar":null},"body":"Hello,\n\nI noticed the Documentation/SubmittingPatches file reads:\n\n> We prefer to gradually reconcile the inconsistencies in favor of US English\n\nMay I ask why? US English is highly idiosyncratic, illogical, and used\nby a minority of the English-speaking population of the world (see\nhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_and_British_English_spelling_differences).\nSince British English has its own idiosyncrasies, why not use Oxford\nEnglish, the most international English that is used by millions of\nthe world? It is used by practically every international organization\n(such as the UN, ISO, IEC, BIPM, NATO, etc.), taught in practically\nevery school in non-native-English-speaking countries (and even\nnative-English-speaking ones), and used by myriad publications (e.g.,\nNature) and people around the world. Given the inherently\ninternational nature of the Git project, it makes complete sense to\nfollow suit.\n\nRegards,\nVarun\n"},{"id":"399212","messageId":"20200605194437.au5vcy2wpcwi65md@chatter.i7.local","threadId":"53616","inReplyTo":"CAD2i4DCyovfV78rXwH+B+tNOeDM7rJCHWSCPFOiCv7mVR+56ew@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Standardizing on Oxford English","fromName":"Konstantin Ryabitsev","fromEmail":"konstantin@linuxfoundation.org","sentAt":"2020-06-05T19:44:37Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-05T19:44:43Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"konstantin@linuxfoundation.org","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/7cb8827c6de56e1bd2dea16508c6708aa43feed3bf3813bcdacecdf96ceadd79?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"On Fri, Jun 05, 2020 at 12:34:21AM -0500, Varun Varada wrote:\n> Hello,\n> \n> I noticed the Documentation/SubmittingPatches file reads:\n> \n> > We prefer to gradually reconcile the inconsistencies in favor of US English\n> \n> May I ask why? \n\nTraditionally, the \"GNU C\" locale expects that the character set used \nfor all output should be in \"us-ascii\" -- a choice dictated by \nhistorical encoding standards. The most logical language to use when \nwriting in something called \"us-ascii\" is \"US English.\" :)\n\nThis has little current day relevance, but projects with code histories \nspanning decades tend to stick with whatever the expectation is for the \n\"C\" locale as their default language.\n\n> US English is highly idiosyncratic, illogical, and used\n> by a minority of the English-speaking population of the world (see\n> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_and_British_English_spelling_differences).\n\nYou could try being Canadian and sit on both of those chairs at the same \ntime. Then you can use both \"colour\" and \"authorization\" in the same \ntext. :)\n\nI think that since git was \"born\" in the US (courtesy of a \nSwedish-speaking Finnish immigrant), it makes sense for it to continue \nto use US-English as the internal default. There's already a way to \ncause it to output your preferred version of English by setting your \nlocale appropriately.\n\n-K\n"},{"id":"399222","messageId":"20200605232413.GG6569@camp.crustytoothpaste.net","threadId":"53616","inReplyTo":"CAD2i4DCyovfV78rXwH+B+tNOeDM7rJCHWSCPFOiCv7mVR+56ew@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Standardizing on Oxford English","fromName":"brian m. carlson","fromEmail":"sandals@crustytoothpaste.net","sentAt":"2020-06-05T23:24:13Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-05T23:24:21Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"sandals@crustytoothpaste.net","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/497054?v=4"},"body":"On 2020-06-05 at 05:34:21, Varun Varada wrote:\n> Hello,\n> \n> I noticed the Documentation/SubmittingPatches file reads:\n> \n> > We prefer to gradually reconcile the inconsistencies in favor of US English\n> \n> May I ask why? US English is highly idiosyncratic, illogical, and used\n> by a minority of the English-speaking population of the world (see\n> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_and_British_English_spelling_differences).\n> Since British English has its own idiosyncrasies, why not use Oxford\n> English, the most international English that is used by millions of\n> the world? It is used by practically every international organization\n> (such as the UN, ISO, IEC, BIPM, NATO, etc.), taught in practically\n> every school in non-native-English-speaking countries (and even\n> native-English-speaking ones), and used by myriad publications (e.g.,\n> Nature) and people around the world. Given the inherently\n> international nature of the Git project, it makes complete sense to\n> follow suit.\n\nI should point out that many of your arguments about U.S. English are\ntrue of English in general.  As a native U.S. English speaker who also\nknows Spanish and French, I can confidently say that even French, which\nmany find difficult, has a mostly regular correspondence between letters\nand sounds, and, overall, a reasonably consistent set of rules for verb\nconjugations, albeit with many irregular verbs.  English, in any form,\nhas none of that.  It is, as languages go, highly irregular.\n\nI didn't write the text in question, but I suspect the reason is\npracticality: most open source projects use U.S. English, and most\ncontributors to Git are able to write the U.S. variety.  It's hard for\nme personally to write Oxford English because I have never written or\nspoken it, and when I need to consult a reference, the one I have is\nfrom the University of Chicago, not Oxford.  I suspect many Canadians\nand second-language speakers from at least parts of the Americas are\nmore likely to be familiar with the U.S. variety than Oxford or British\nEnglish, although I don't know for certain.\n\nThis isn't a defense of U.S. English (after all, I wrote the first\nparagraph), but just an acknowledgement of the way things are.  This\nproject is all about practicality rather than purity; to quote from\nCodingGuidelines:\n\n   Again, we live in the real world, and it is sometimes a\n   judgement call, the decision based more on real world\n   constraints people face than what the paper standard says.\n-- \nbrian m. carlson: Houston, Texas, US\nOpenPGP: https://keybase.io/bk2204\n"},{"id":"399268","messageId":"CAD2i4DD8-iWi4WCCQyVuyy_oHzOxKqAXmcM82qWJdfx=kGn_bQ@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"53616","inReplyTo":"20200605232413.GG6569@camp.crustytoothpaste.net","subject":"Re: Standardizing on Oxford English","fromName":"Varun Varada","fromEmail":"varuncvarada@gmail.com","sentAt":"2020-06-08T00:28:03Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-08T00:28:18Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"varuncvarada@gmail.com","avatar":null},"body":"On Fri, 5 Jun 2020 at 18:24, brian m. carlson\n<sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> wrote:\n>\n> I should point out that many of your arguments about U.S. English are\n> true of English in general.  As a native U.S. English speaker who also\n> knows Spanish and French, I can confidently say that even French, which\n> many find difficult, has a mostly regular correspondence between letters\n> and sounds, and, overall, a reasonably consistent set of rules for verb\n> conjugations, albeit with many irregular verbs.  English, in any form,\n> has none of that.  It is, as languages go, highly irregular.\n\nAgreed, as I'm a native US English who knows French as well. But I\nguess my point is that out of all of the varieties, Oxford English is\nthe most prevalent, international, and etymologically correct, which\nis why I suggested it.\n\n>\n> I didn't write the text in question, but I suspect the reason is\n> practicality: most open source projects use U.S. English, and most\n> contributors to Git are able to write the U.S. variety.  It's hard for\n> me personally to write Oxford English because I have never written or\n> spoken it, and when I need to consult a reference, the one I have is\n> from the University of Chicago, not Oxford.  I suspect many Canadians\n> and second-language speakers from at least parts of the Americas are\n> more likely to be familiar with the U.S. variety than Oxford or British\n> English, although I don't know for certain.\n\nThe reference for Oxford is the first spelling on lexico.com, which is\na very widely-used resource. Canadian English is essentially identical\nto Oxford except for the -yze set of words, for which Oxford maintains\nthe etymologically correct -yse endings. And second-language speakers\nlearn Oxford by and large, though many from Brazil apparently end up\njust moving to the US to learn English, where they necessarily learn\nUS English.\n\nHowever, I never found the guidance of doing what other people are\ndoing a convincing one, especially when the alternatives are more\nlogical/convincing/\"better\". Though I do recognize Konstantin's point\nthat the project is decades old.\n\n> This isn't a defense of U.S. English (after all, I wrote the first\n> paragraph), but just an acknowledgement of the way things are.  This\n> project is all about practicality rather than purity; to quote from\n> CodingGuidelines:\n>\n>    Again, we live in the real world, and it is sometimes a\n>    judgement call, the decision based more on real world\n>    constraints people face than what the paper standard says.\n> --\n\nWhile I somewhat sympathize with the sentiment, from the text, it\nseemed like things were in a mixed state, so I wanted to suggest\npicking the standard that makes the most international sense. As the\nusual guidance goes: when faced with two choices of relatively equal\ndifficulty, choose the one that makes the most sense long-term.\n\nVarun\n"}]}