Timeline for Use of "to catch up"
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 15, 2020 at 7:40 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Feb 4, 2019 at 11:15 | comment | added | painfulenglish | @Mari-LouA You are of course right, sorry about that and the changes to the question. I clearly should have thought about this more before posting. | |
| Feb 4, 2019 at 11:13 | history | edited | painfulenglish | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
updated title and removed reference to passive voice.
|
| Feb 4, 2019 at 9:40 | comment | added | Mari-Lou A | You need to revise the passive voice, the 2nd example is not passive. See english.stackexchange.com/a/552/44619 | |
| Feb 4, 2019 at 9:33 | comment | added | Mari-Lou A | You SHOULD NOT change the question after a user has spent time answering the original question with its original examples. It is disrespectful to the user who answered, their answer now appears strange and unrelated | |
| Feb 4, 2019 at 6:26 | history | edited | painfulenglish | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 42 characters in body
|
| Feb 3, 2019 at 16:59 | history | edited | painfulenglish | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 7 characters in body
|
| Feb 3, 2019 at 16:58 | comment | added | BoldBen | The passive equivalent of "she earned her promotion" would be " "her promotion was earned by her". The reason is that, in reality, she did the earning and the payment was what was earned, changing from the active to the passive voice does not change the relationship between the two parties. The same thing happens when we say "John visited Susan" or "Susan was visited by John". Whichever way we say it it was still John's finger on Susan's doorbell. | |
| Feb 3, 2019 at 16:55 | history | edited | painfulenglish | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 48 characters in body
|
| Feb 3, 2019 at 16:53 | comment | added | painfulenglish | @JanusBahsJacquet You might be right. I changed the example. | |
| Feb 3, 2019 at 16:45 | comment | added | Janus Bahs Jacquet | “He was caught up by her [on the latest news]” is not a meaningful sentence to me. If I hadn’t had the context of the immediately preceding example, I wouldn’t have had the faintest idea what it was supposed to mean. Can you clarify where you’ve come across this usage? I’m guessing it’s a dialectal feature of sorts; at least I’ve never heard or seen it before. | |
| Feb 3, 2019 at 16:11 | answer | added | TimR | timeline score: 1 | |
| Feb 3, 2019 at 15:42 | history | edited | painfulenglish | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Clarified questions, added example.
|
| Feb 3, 2019 at 15:27 | comment | added | lbf | Can you refine the question you are asking. | |
| Feb 3, 2019 at 14:28 | comment | added | Mari-Lou A | I think, some speakers are more likely to say that someone was brought up to speed when referring to news/gossip/latest developments | |
| Feb 3, 2019 at 13:46 | history | asked | painfulenglish | CC BY-SA 4.0 |