[clang] Clarify use of contractions in diagnostic messages (PR #116803)

[via cfe-commits]

Sirraide wrote:

> this is something I've heard many times over the years when talking about writing to a multilingual audience.

Hmm, I don’t know if there are any linguistic studies about this off the top of my head (I can only speak from my personal experience of never having encountered someone who’s had problem w/ contractions, despite having talked to a lot of people whose first language wasn’t English), but my reaction to stuff like that there is a lot of nonsensical linguistic ‘advice’ out there... (nonsense in that it is not at all based on how language actually works or on how people actually talk; think things like ‘you shouldn’t end a sentence with a preposition’, which is, to put it bluntly, abject nonsense perpetrated by would-be grammarians who thought it sensible to apply Latin grammar to English, despite the two being completely different languages that diverged millenia ago)–sorry if I sound a bit mean here (also not talking about you here btw; that was mostly directed towards English teachers who don’t actually know English grammar...), but anyone with a background with linguistics will tell you that we have to put up w/ a lot of nonsense...

So basically, if we actually get complaints from people that our diagnostics (or documentation, etc.) are confusing because they contain contractions, then sure, it’d make perfect sense to do something about it, but I have a feeling the confusing part about C++ compiler diagnostics are generally not the contractions ;Þ

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/116803