Timeline for A question about the proper usage of articles
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
36 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 24, 2017 at 14:13 | vote | accept | Giorgi | ||
| Apr 23, 2017 at 9:33 | comment | added | Giorgi | "Proper" involves the meaning of the norm--namely, that there are norms you must follow if you want to communicate with others, as well as with yourself, in this language rather than something else. Therefore, "proper" according to the norms that exclusively make it possible for the reader and the author, in this case, to communicate on the same subject matter in a specific language. | |
| Apr 23, 2017 at 3:09 | review | Close votes | |||
| Apr 27, 2017 at 3:01 | |||||
| Apr 23, 2017 at 2:54 | comment | added | curiousdannii | "Proper" according to who exactly? | |
| Apr 22, 2017 at 13:28 | history | edited | Giorgi | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body
|
| Apr 21, 2017 at 22:54 | answer | added | EditingFrank | timeline score: 0 | |
| Apr 21, 2017 at 16:40 | history | reopened |
Centaurus Chenmunka Papa Poule Drew Hellion |
||
| Apr 21, 2017 at 15:57 | history | edited | Giorgi | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 93 characters in body
|
| Apr 21, 2017 at 13:10 | review | Reopen votes | |||
| Apr 21, 2017 at 16:40 | |||||
| Apr 21, 2017 at 12:51 | history | edited | Giorgi | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
I followed the suggestion requiring to edit the question.
|
| Apr 20, 2017 at 10:56 | comment | added | Giorgi | @tchrist As a matter of fact: the question was put on hold and then closed under the category, primarily oppinion based, not the current one. | |
| Apr 20, 2017 at 0:31 | history | closed | tchrist♦ | Not suitable for this site | |
| Apr 20, 2017 at 0:31 | history | reopened | tchrist♦ | ||
| Apr 19, 2017 at 22:24 | comment | added | aparente001 | Mechanical problems: basic grammar and usage. | |
| Apr 19, 2017 at 15:43 | comment | added | Cerberus - Reinstate Monica | The question is fine, clear, and answerable. I agree with Aparente that the articles are used properly and as intended. | |
| Apr 19, 2017 at 15:33 | history | edited | Giorgi | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body
|
| Apr 19, 2017 at 13:52 | history | edited | Giorgi | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 4 characters in body
|
| Apr 19, 2017 at 13:43 | comment | added | Giorgi | Your comments help. I thought about this version too. Could you clarify what you meant by the mechanical problems? Actually, this is just a working title. My main interest was when publishing this if the sequence of the articles has actually supported the explained meaning. I was/am primarily interested in how the articles work there. | |
| Apr 12, 2017 at 14:42 | comment | added | aparente001 | The most basic fix of the proposed title would be "Is the 'Problem of Perception' Really a Problem of Perception?" but I still think it could be improved. At any rate, that would fix the obvious mechanical problems. | |
| Apr 12, 2017 at 14:40 | comment | added | aparente001 | Giorgi, you can pre-post a question in Meta and ask for assistance editing the question to fit the customs of the site. | |
| Apr 12, 2017 at 12:38 | comment | added | Giorgi | perhaps, but it is closed for other not this reason, which is fact. sadly, my current experience here is that people entitled to close a question do not bother to follow the meaning of what is asked. | |
| Apr 10, 2017 at 23:25 | comment | added | aparente001 | The question could also be closed as seeking proofreading. | |
| Apr 10, 2017 at 11:35 | comment | added | Giorgi | By this I would like to elaborate on my previous comment. The idea in question is that the concept of the Problem of Perception as is (in epistemological literature) is due to erroneous ways of thinking about perception. This is not 'a matter of opinion' but a matter of research. Again my question was whether the articles sequence support that idea in the working title. Here an obvious answer is yes or no, not 'a matter of opinion'. | |
| Apr 10, 2017 at 10:34 | comment | added | Giorgi | My question was not supposed to be considered on the matter of its theoretical soundness but with respect to its grammatical aspect. I clearly stated that the question is about the proper usage of articles--whether the articles support the intended meaning or not. The obvious answer here is either yes or no rather than 'it is primarily opinion-based'. The latter just conflates the two aspects, confusion. | |
| Apr 10, 2017 at 10:27 | history | edited | Giorgi | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 32 characters in body
|
| Apr 9, 2017 at 5:02 | comment | added | aparente001 | The title would be correct with lower case articles "a" and "the." However, I don't care for it; I don't think it conveys very well the concept you explained. | |
| Apr 8, 2017 at 17:47 | review | Reopen votes | |||
| Apr 8, 2017 at 20:33 | |||||
| Apr 8, 2017 at 17:45 | history | edited | Giorgi | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
I contracted the text.
|
| Apr 8, 2017 at 17:32 | history | edited | Giorgi | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
I reworded the text as it has been suggested by the stuff
|
| S Apr 8, 2017 at 17:22 | history | suggested | Ashok Goli | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
changed title
|
| Apr 8, 2017 at 16:16 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Apr 8, 2017 at 17:22 | |||||
| Apr 8, 2017 at 16:16 | history | closed |
FumbleFingers tchrist♦ |
Opinion-based | |
| S Apr 8, 2017 at 16:15 | history | edited | tchrist♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 9 characters in body
|
| Apr 8, 2017 at 16:14 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Apr 8, 2017 at 16:15 | |||||
| Apr 8, 2017 at 16:02 | review | First posts | |||
| Apr 8, 2017 at 16:17 | |||||
| Apr 8, 2017 at 15:59 | history | asked | Giorgi | CC BY-SA 3.0 |