On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 16:56:06 +0800, Ganbold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Remko Lodder wrote: >> On Mon, July 14, 2008 10:08 am, Ganbold wrote: >>> Tom Rhodes wrote: >>>> Revision Changes Path >>>> 1.324 +293 -829 >>>> doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/security/chapter.sgml >>> >>> Tom, >>> I think you meant: >>> >>> <para>At this point, both networks should be available and >>> seem to be part of the same network. Most likely both >>> networks are protected by a firewall, as they should be. To >>> - allow traffic to flow between them, rules need to be added >>> + allow traffic flow between them, rules need to be added >> >> I think the current line is right. "Traffic to flow" means that it "can >> happen", traffic flow means that it happends... > > You are right, probably I have just misunderstood the whole sentence's > meaning while translating :)
In a way, both 'versions' are right. They carry slightly different nuances, but the core meaning is the same. In ``to allow traffic to flow between them'', the sentence emphasizes traffic's ability `to flow' between the networks. In `to allow traffic flow', the term `traffic flow' becomes a compound noun[1]; one whose existence signals something we are interested in. Ultimately, it's a matter of the author's writing style, and of the precise meaning he/she wants to convey. In our case, I don't think it's worth worrying a lot about :) _______________________________________________ cvs-all@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
