1

This question already has an answer here:

There is an interesting question in English Language Learners:

How to use “since” to imply “from the time that”, not “because of”

The example given is:

  • Since he left the group, we have worked harder to cover his absence.
  • etc. (other examples given)

This question provoked quite a reaction, which is understandable because it has the potential of being very ambiguous (with the causal being confused for the temporal meaning)


The answer there adds 'ever' in front, as in:

Ever since he left the group, we have worked harder to cover his absence.

While this is a perfectly good answer, the comment voices my question:

I notice there is much discussion following the question about the particulars of the grammar. However because this exchange is for helping English learners I believe it makes sense to provide an answer that is easy to understand and that is grammatically correct enough to sound like it came from a college-educated native English speaker. If the question were asking for a deeper answer it would have been posted on the "English Language & Usage" exchange.


Is it okay to duplicate the question here, with the idea to get more detail into what and why this happens, in a formalised Q&A?

y'know, rather than just a chat...

marked as duplicate by Dan Bron, Community Jul 5 '17 at 19:29

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

0

Ask it on ELU, and don't forget to mention that it's inspired from that ELL question, and request a detailed answer, and give credit where it's due.

  • Is this okay? – marcellothearcane Jul 1 '17 at 20:12
  • 1
    @marcellothearcane you don't actually need to copy it all word for word, and also no need to have a note inside the title, or why not just change the title? – NVZ Jul 1 '17 at 20:18
  • 1
    @marcellothearcane also it'd be nice to let the concerned ELL users know. They may have more to say. – NVZ Jul 1 '17 at 20:21
  • @marcellothearcane is revision two your actual question? Is it complete? You just deleted a whole lot of it in this edit. – NVZ Jul 1 '17 at 20:26
  • Yes, I removed the original question. I hope it still makes sense – marcellothearcane Jul 1 '17 at 20:30
0

I'm not against the question being re-asked here, as long as it follows these rules/guidelines:

  • Proper attribution to the source/inspiration. Even if the ELL question is yours, it's just the right thing to do.
  • ELU likes questions with research. Some online dictionaries have example sentences for each meaning. You may be able to find something relevant to include or you may find nothing—which means you can at least say what hasn't worked.
  • The new question should be more than a simple repost of the original, especially if it had answers. This is important, since you want more details, not to waste time getting the same answers. Explain why the existing answer(s) on ELL weren't enough. In your case, I think the comments are pretty important. What about the "reaction" made you want to ask this question? Including this information will get you more relevant answers and may count towards the research requirement.

If the question were asking for a deeper answer it would have been posted on the "English Language & Usage" exchange.

Aww, that's not true. ELL has plenty of great questions with "deep" answers. The question there is well within the scope of ELL (if it was about something like etymology, it would be a different story). Your other option is to start a bounty on ELL (there's no reason you can't re-ask here and start a bounty there).

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .