Bug 30749

Shill said on Sep 22, 2001 at 16:08:33:
> 
> In the handbook's section 14.3:
> http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/x13973.html
> 
> "After adding the driver(s) you need to your kernel configuration file"
> -> delete "you need" (?)

What's wrong with it as it stands?  (I'm not sure whether, strictly
speaking, a "which" is required before "you need" but it's common
usage as it is.)

- R

> Shill said on Sep 22, 2001 at 16:08:33:
> > 
> > In the handbook's section 14.3:
> > http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/x13973.html
> > 
> > "After adding the driver(s) you need to your kernel configuration file"
> > -> delete "you need" (?)
 
> What's wrong with it as it stands?  (I'm not sure whether, strictly
> speaking, a "which" is required before "you need" but it's common
> usage as it is.)




AFAIK, you are correct.

"the driver(s) you need" contains an identifying (also: defining, restrictive) 
relative clause; that is, you speak of **certain** drivers (the driver(s) you 
need).  **Object** relative pronouns are often omitted in an informal style.

<possible reason for Shill's difficulty>
The whole sentence, "[adding [the driver you need] [to you kernel 
configuration file]]", **might** sound ambiguous, ie might also be interpreted 
 as "[adding the driver [you need to your kernel configuration file]]"; 
however, considering the syntactic features of the constituents, viz the 
constructions the verb "(to) need" can be used in, I can see no syntactic or 
semantic ambiguity.  I would say the sentence sounds good. :-)

Just my 0.02 Euro

-- Salvo

Salvo Bartolotta wrote:
> 
> > Shill said on Sep 22, 2001 at 16:08:33:
> > >
> > > In the handbook's section 14.3:
> > > http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/x13973.html
> > >
> > > "After adding the driver(s) you need to your kernel configuration file"
> > > -> delete "you need" (?)
> 
> > What's wrong with it as it stands?  (I'm not sure whether, strictly
> > speaking, a "which" is required before "you need" but it's common
> > usage as it is.)
> 
> AFAIK, you are correct.
> 
> "the driver(s) you need" contains an identifying (also: defining, restrictive)
> relative clause; that is, you speak of **certain** drivers (the driver(s) you
> need).  **Object** relative pronouns are often omitted in an informal style.
> 
> <possible reason for Shill's difficulty>
> The whole sentence, "[adding [the driver you need] [to you kernel
> configuration file]]", **might** sound ambiguous, ie might also be interpreted
>  as "[adding the driver [you need to your kernel configuration file]]";
> however, considering the syntactic features of the constituents, viz the
> constructions the verb "(to) need" can be used in, I can see no syntactic or
> semantic ambiguity.  I would say the sentence sounds good. :-)
> 
> Just my 0.02 Euro
> 
> -- Salvo

Oooooooh, now I understand. You see, what confused me was
the "you need/you will need" occurence. I immediately
thought: "copy/paste mistake" and convinced myself the
sentence was ungrammatical.

"After adding the driver(s) you need to your kernel
configuration file, you will need to recompile your kernel."

Sorry for the false negative :)

Scrive Shill <shill@free.fr>:

> Salvo Bartolotta wrote:
> > 
> > > Shill said on Sep 22, 2001 at 16:08:33:
> > > >
> > > > In the handbook's section 14.3:
> > > >
> http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/x13973.html
> > > >
> > > > "After adding the driver(s) you need to your kernel configuration
> file"
> > > > -> delete "you need" (?)
> > 
> > > What's wrong with it as it stands?  (I'm not sure whether, strictly
> > > speaking, a "which" is required before "you need" but it's common
> > > usage as it is.)
> > 
> > AFAIK, you are correct.
> > 
> > "the driver(s) you need" contains an identifying (also: defining,
> restrictive)
> > relative clause; that is, you speak of **certain** drivers (the
> driver(s) you
> > need).  **Object** relative pronouns are often omitted in an informal
> style.
> > 
> > <possible reason for Shill's difficulty>
> > The whole sentence, "[adding [the driver you need] [to you kernel
> > configuration file]]", **might** sound ambiguous, ie might also be
> interpreted
> >  as "[adding the driver [you need to your kernel configuration
> file]]";
> > however, considering the syntactic features of the constituents, viz
> the
> > constructions the verb "(to) need" can be used in, I can see no
> syntactic or
> > semantic ambiguity.  I would say the sentence sounds good. :-)
> > 
> > Just my 0.02 Euro
> > 
> > -- Salvo
> 
> Oooooooh, now I understand. You see, what confused me was
> the "you need/you will need" occurence. I immediately
> thought: "copy/paste mistake" and convinced myself the
> sentence was ungrammatical.
> 
> "After adding the driver(s) you need to your kernel
> configuration file, you will need to recompile your kernel."
> 
> Sorry for the false negative :)
 



Yep, "need" is used in two different transitive constructions, the sentence 
being correct.  However, to avoid repetition one might try:

-- [...] you must recompile [...]   
-- [...] you [will] have to recompile [...]
-- [...] it is time to recompile [...]     
-- [...] you are ready to [...]/you are ready for recompilation...
-- [...] you recompile [...]  # "timeless" simple present       
-- [...] just/please recompile [...]
-- [...] you will/would be so kind as to recompile [...]
-- [...] go recompile your kernel!! [After recompiling] As you were!  
-- [...] thou  shalt  recompile  thy  kernel.
 
Since it is a matter of taste, I am afraid we have no decision power... :-)

-- Salvo

Comment 5 Murray Stokely 2001-09-24 08:00:37 UTC

State Changed
From-To: open->closed

And the winning sentence was..   

"After adding the requisite driver(s) to your kernel configuration 
file, you will need to recompile your kernel." 

Thanks for the submission.