Timeline for In 1700s, why was 'books that never read' grammatical?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 3, 2019 at 6:00 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackEnglish/status/1179637337376137216 | ||
| Oct 1, 2019 at 15:36 | history | protected | tchrist♦ | ||
| Sep 30, 2019 at 18:26 | answer | added | bishop | timeline score: 4 | |
| Sep 30, 2019 at 15:04 | comment | added | Michaelyus | The edition from 1890 is available on Archive.org. | |
| Sep 30, 2019 at 10:33 | answer | added | gnasher729 | timeline score: 2 | |
| Sep 29, 2019 at 21:36 | answer | added | vectory | timeline score: -8 | |
| Sep 28, 2019 at 17:23 | history | became hot network question | |||
| Sep 28, 2019 at 17:05 | review | Close votes | |||
| Sep 30, 2019 at 21:17 | |||||
| Sep 28, 2019 at 17:04 | comment | added | lbf | 300 years ago ... I suspect much was different in English. | |
| Sep 28, 2019 at 10:40 | answer | added | ItWasLikeThatWhenIGotHere | timeline score: 15 | |
| Sep 28, 2019 at 9:49 | answer | added | Andrew Leach♦ | timeline score: 92 | |
| Sep 28, 2019 at 9:47 | comment | added | KillingTime | From the context of the conversation between the Gentleman and his friend, I think a modern version of the sentence would be "What would I do with books when I never read for even half an hour a year?". I've no idea if the quoted version was correct at the time of writing or if there's been something lost in reprinting. | |
| Sep 28, 2019 at 9:42 | history | edited | Andrew Leach♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Images are not searchable or accessible to screen readers; more information about the quote itself added
|
| Sep 28, 2019 at 9:20 | history | asked | user50720 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |