[PATCH] doc: minor grammar fixes in counterexamples section

[Nick Gasson]

While I was reading this section of the documentation I noticed a few
minor grammar mistakes and typos, fixed below.

* doc/bison.texi: Minor fixes in counterexamples section.
---
 doc/bison.texi | 10 +++++-----
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/doc/bison.texi b/doc/bison.texi
index 67494d3578c7..997cdd320906 100644
--- a/doc/bison.texi
+++ b/doc/bison.texi
@@ -9965,10 +9965,10 @@ very documentation.  To solve a conflict, one must 
understand it: when does
 it occur?  Is it because of a flaw in the grammar?  Is it rather because
 LR(1) cannot cope with this grammar?
 
-On difficulty is that conflicts occur in the @emph{automaton}, and it can be
-tricky to related them to issues in the @emph{grammar} itself.  With
-experience and patience, analysis the detailed description of the automaton
-(@pxref{Understanding}) allows to find example strings that reach these 
conflicts.
+One difficulty is that conflicts occur in the @emph{automaton}, and it can be
+tricky to relate them to issues in the @emph{grammar} itself.  With
+experience and patience, analysis of the detailed description of the automaton
+(@pxref{Understanding}) allows one to find example strings that reach these 
conflicts.
 
 That task is made much easier thanks to the generation of counterexamples,
 initially developed by Chinawat Isradisaikul and Andrew Myers
@@ -10121,7 +10121,7 @@ sequence.y:8.3-45: @dwarning{warning}: rule useless in 
parser due to conflicts [
 
 Each of these three conflicts, again, prove that the grammar is ambiguous.
 For instance, the second conflict (the reduce/reduce one) shows that the
-grammar accept the empty input in two different ways.
+grammar accepts the empty input in two different ways.
 
 @sp 1
 
-- 
2.28.0