Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

Thanks, we added a "Could" and a "the" to help clarify.


sort by: page size:

Not sure what you meant? Are you pointing out couldn't vs didn't? If so, I didn't really think about it, although now that you point it out, I think didn't would've been a better fit. I'll edit it, thanks!

Maybe the confusion could have been avoided if instead of:

> It would be great if this could be done...

codesushi42 would have said (emphasis mine):

> It would be great if this would be done...

Not that I think it was incorrect as it was, just a little ambiguous, I guess.


> > it isn't totally impossible.

> how about: "It's totally possible"

That completely changes the meaning.


Or could-have, which I think is more applicable in the sentence you're correcting. Or am I missing some obscure grammar rule?

I thought it was "Additions I would have benefited from" but then reading them it is clearly "Additions I have benefited from".

It makes the implication of "willing" explicit. Perhaps it should be in parenthesis or brackets.

If they are to add the word "were," it would be consistent. ;)

Do you mean the last paragraph? I am not native English, so I thought the "would", "would" sounded highly hypothetical.

> Not a native english speaker, but this seems like a nitpicky non-issue to me. How is it not the same as "could you please pass me a glass of water" vs. "would you please pass me a glass of water"? Both indicate a request rather than talking about actual physical ability to perform the action.

in the case of something like the glass of water, "could" makes the sentence more indirect, and more polite.

the original post is "it would be great if [huge task undertaken by unspecified persons] could be done". this native speaker would not attempt to polite-ify a request for something like that (and i don't think other native speakers would either), so the original post can't be making a request. it is expressing a hope that the thing is possible. mburns (reasonably) then explains that it is possible. then codesushi42 sort of goes on the rails, and i can't figure out what they're attempting to convey at this point.


OT: you have a nice misnegation there — “denying that it didn’t have...” I think you meant “denying that it had...”

https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?cat=273


>could have little trouble with these things

That's a bit of an ambiguous sentence - are you saying they would have little trouble, as in not much trouble, or the opposite?


> 1. The glirp couldn't fit on the vell because it was too small.

Situation 1: vell=table, glirp=dish. "It" refers to the vell.

Situation 2: vell=bolt, glirp=nut. "It" refers to the glirp.

Replace "on" with "in", and maybe there's less ambiguity.


> anyway, where we we?

I think it was supposed to be where were we


There's already a "could be" in the title, it seems redundant to put two may/could be's. You don't need to say that something "may be X so much that it could be Y", when you can either say "may be X so much that Y", or "is X so much that it could be Y".

> Justifying the word "likely" is key here, surely?

The word “surely” should be justified here, most likely.


Also: "I just wanted to explore what it take if one did." is missing something.

I'd say "is" rather than "could become", personally.

> ... the correct answer.

The?

We're talking about programming, so I am rather stumped by that word.

But I suppose if your goal is to select only candidates that you can drive towards a particular solution, then "the" might be appropriate.


Yes, but there are 'w's in the text. Mixed in the same sentence in one case with a 'vv'.

> ...we ?end you here...you receiued the New...therof shal not now...

> ...impediments, which hitherto haue long hindered this vvorke...

next

Legal | privacy