On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 09:06:00AM +0100, Jason McIntyre wrote: > On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 03:21:56AM +0100, Larry Hynes wrote: > > This is a minor quibble, and possibly a purely personal one, but > > 'priorly' is not really in common usage. > > > > Index: smtpd.conf.5 > > =================================================================== > > RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.sbin/smtpd/smtpd.conf.5,v > > retrieving revision 1.127 > > diff -u -p -r1.127 smtpd.conf.5 > > --- smtpd.conf.5 11 Aug 2015 21:57:24 -0000 1.127 > > +++ smtpd.conf.5 13 Aug 2015 02:13:00 -0000 > > @@ -635,7 +635,7 @@ able to establish an SMTP session. > > .Ic secure > > may be specified to provide both STARTTLS and SMTPS services. > > Host certificates may be used for these connections, > > -and must be priorly declared using the pki directive. > > +and must be declared beforehand using the pki directive. > > If > > .Ic pki > > is specified, > > > > hmm. > > it's hard to gauge whether something is or is not in common usage in > general. not in common usage for yourself, i'd suggest. > > i don;t know, but i'd guess that you're probably right that this form is > less in use nowadays. it's not in my learner's dictionary (compiled > according to word frequency). it is in oed marked as late 18th century > origin. > > but whether to change it? > > - it's clear, as far as i'm concerned. > - even if you've never heard the term, you'll understand it if you know > "prior". > - why demote words just because they're less in use? > > i say let author's prerogative stand (by which i mean i don;t plan to > change this). >
I'm not really emotional about "priorly", I like "previously" better. I think the only reason for this choice was that I was tired, could not recall "previously" and when priorly popped in my mind, look(1) told me that it was a real word ;-) -- Gilles Chehade https://www.poolp.org @poolpOrg
