I disagree with the suggestion that the previous forms are "wrong" or "incorrect", to use the terms of the PR title and commit messages. Many of these changes are stylistic preferences, or stem from misinterpretations of what the original meant to say. (The two corrections that are indisputable have already been contributed in earlier PRs, namely #73 and #75.)
Mind you, I'm not saying that the new forms are incorrect — they're legitimate changes that can be argued for as alternative formulations of the same ideas. What I object to is their description as objective corrections of incorrect text, as opposed to subjective stylistic edits. The exception would be "except as historical examples", where the change to "except from historical examples" seems to me to deviate from the intended meaning of the current text.
I disagree with the suggestion that the previous forms are "wrong" or "incorrect", to use the terms of the PR title and commit messages. Many of these changes are stylistic preferences, or stem from misinterpretations of what the original meant to say. (The two corrections that are indisputable have already been contributed in earlier PRs, namely #73 and #75.)
Mind you, I'm not saying that the new forms are incorrect — they're legitimate changes that can be argued for as alternative formulations of the same ideas. What I object to is their description as objective corrections of incorrect text, as opposed to subjective stylistic edits. The exception would be "except as historical examples", where the change to "except from historical examples" seems to me to deviate from the intended meaning of the current text.