Timeline for Is it correct that "etc." can not be used together in a sentence with "for example" and "such as"?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 15, 2020 at 7:40 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| S Sep 9, 2018 at 3:36 | history | suggested | user282000 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Actually, in Wikipedia it’s not “delete” but “denote”
|
| Sep 9, 2018 at 2:25 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Sep 9, 2018 at 3:36 | |||||
| Jan 5, 2012 at 1:59 | vote | accept | simplebeing | ||
| Jan 5, 2012 at 1:59 | vote | accept | simplebeing | ||
| Jan 5, 2012 at 1:59 | |||||
| Jan 5, 2012 at 1:58 | history | bounty ended | simplebeing | ||
| Jan 1, 2012 at 15:57 | comment | added | FumbleFingers | Agree completely. I think etc. is normally unsuitable in contexts where the reader can't reasonably be expected to mentally append a few more items to the list. The main exception to that being where the writer knows that perfectly well, and is just supercilliously showing off the fact that he knows of more items that he's not going to bother listing. | |
| Dec 29, 2011 at 15:33 | comment | added | Lynn | I believe that they meant you delete the last part of the sentence and replace it with etc. But since I was quoting it directly, I didn't want to change their wording. Maybe we could put a (sic) on it? | |
| Dec 29, 2011 at 12:35 | comment | added | Tim Lymington | I'm really not clear what Wikipedia means by delete there. My first thought was denote, but that's probably not right. Maybe replace? | |
| Dec 29, 2011 at 7:33 | history | rollback | Lynn |
Rollback to Revision 2
|
|
| Dec 27, 2011 at 12:20 | history | edited | Tim Lymington | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
we don't have to follow Wiki's mistakes
|
| Dec 25, 2011 at 15:05 | history | edited | Lynn | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
typo
|
| Dec 25, 2011 at 6:46 | history | answered | Lynn | CC BY-SA 3.0 |