Timeline for Do some respected reference works contain real errors (as opposed to contrasting analyses)?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 7, 2023 at 18:49 | history | edited | Sven Yargs | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Corrected some inconsistent punctuation and italicized a book title.
|
| Jun 15, 2020 at 7:40 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:38 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://english.stackexchange.com/ with https://english.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Feb 5, 2015 at 6:16 | history | edited | Sven Yargs | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Added a missing open parenthesis and added italics to a word used as word and to a book title.
|
| Feb 1, 2015 at 14:30 | comment | added | Edwin Ashworth | @Sven Yargs That's been filched for my 'undersupported / unsupported answer comeback' comment class. You may see it again:-) (though almost certainly not after your answers). | |
| Feb 1, 2015 at 14:06 | comment | added | Andrew Leach♦ | It's also worth adding that OED is happy to list preventative as neither incorrect nor obsolete, with citations from 1655 to the present. This particular pair may be indicative of a US/Br split, and that could be the reason for MW's apparent confusion. | |
| Feb 1, 2015 at 9:37 | comment | added | Sven Yargs | Serious reference works are obviously not to be dismissed lightly. But I'm a fan of confirmation from multiple sources, of research into alternative explanations, and of cautiousness when it comes to laying down the law. | |
| Feb 1, 2015 at 9:26 | comment | added | Edwin Ashworth | Thanks for the work here, Sven. I believe that 'But it says in X that ...'needs the caveat 'X has been known to be wrong'. (I'm not trying to start a witch-hunt, just demolishing a shibboleth). | |
| Feb 1, 2015 at 0:47 | history | answered | Sven Yargs | CC BY-SA 3.0 |