User talk:Duoduoduo

< class="latinx" >Ƿidsiþ 16:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

will
No, they weren't all correct. Notably, you removed information which was true (English did have a past participle form would:), but also you can't add information on the def-line as you did with the present participle note. This sort of thing has to be done via Usage Notes. Also we often try not to reference definition numbers because those can change. Unfortunately, will: is quite irregular and there is a lot to explain, but writing things on the def-line is not the answer. I re-added the auxiliary tags, which look fine to me. < class="latinx" >Ƿidsiþ 16:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I found the Tea Room discussion I mentioned: Tea_room/Archive_2011/February. I ended up arguing both ways there; but the community in general accepted Brett's view, going on the outline from the (generally considered here to be definitive) Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. < class="latinx" >Ƿidsiþ 17:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

that
What is the authority for the prescriptions on the usage of that:? We try to be descriptive, even descriptively including prescriptions, but sources are helpful to help users assess prescriptive advice. I like Garner's Modern American Usage, which is in its latest edition basically descriptive. DCDuring TALK 18:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)