|This is Mathglot's talk page, where you can send messages and comments to Mathglot.|
My editing tips.
Neg adj.[change source]
In the article, gender, you made several improvements, but one of your changes was to change "easy to misunderstand" to "hard to understand" -- a change that, I think, was not an improvement. You edit summary for this change was, "Negative adj. is simper than negative adjectival prefix." While this is true, it would apply only in cases where the change was to something with the same meaning, such as removing a double negation ("Not untrue statement" --> "true statement"). In this case, however, "easy to misunderstand" and "hard to understand" do not have the same meaning. Your thoughts? Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 23:20, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comment. You are presumably referring to Mathglot (talk) 06:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC) . For me, the two phrases have the same meaning, but the version lacking a negative prefix is simpler (literally simpler: 'understand' instead of 'misunderstand') and clearer. If they do not have the same meaning for you, can you please define each phrase for me, so I can try and see it from your PoV?
- I'll add a thought. If I say "quantum physics is hard to understand", that's probably an objective truth for non-physicists like myself. But to misunderstand something refers to the psychology of interpretation. The dicdef is: "to misunderstand is to understand incorrectly, while thinking to have understood correctly". Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)