Timeline for Is ”what there is a reason to do” a valid construct?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 27, 2014 at 7:21 | history | edited | oerkelens | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 4 characters in body
|
| Oct 27, 2014 at 6:07 | comment | added | user50720 | I also enlarged on this at ell.stackexchange.com/q/37779/8712 | |
| Oct 27, 2014 at 5:54 | comment | added | user50720 |
Thank you again. Would you please check by the what follows? What does this refer to?
|
|
| Jul 25, 2014 at 9:22 | comment | added | oerkelens | @LePressentiment I added a bit, including an extra example. Hope it clears things up a bit. | |
| Jul 25, 2014 at 9:21 | history | edited | oerkelens | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 450 characters in body
|
| Jul 25, 2014 at 8:42 | comment | added | user50720 | +1. Thanks. Would you please explain in more on detail why this is 'essentially not (very) different from these examples'? I now apprehend the meaning of my sentence, but I still find the construction confusing. Will you please to respond in your answer, and not as comments? | |
| Jul 21, 2014 at 17:13 | comment | added | Edwin Ashworth | ... 'What there is a reason to do is different from what should be done, all things considered' would more normally be phrased along these lines: 'The fact that reasons can be found for doing something doesn't guarantee that it's the wisest course of action'. | |
| Jul 21, 2014 at 8:24 | history | answered | oerkelens | CC BY-SA 3.0 |