My question got closed:

Describing the preference of some time period's being closer to another time period that it forgoes

What corrections should I make in order to have it opened?


The point of the question, whether it is corrected or not, seems to be about proofreading and improving readability as Robusto pointed out. That has been deemed off-topic by the community, so simply 'correcting' small things probably won't make it openable.

I found both the sentence you are composing and the entire question to be hard to follow (both composed of very long and convoluted sentences, which might have been helped by my having more facility with the topic).

You might be able to -reword- the question so that it is asking about something closer to grammar or word meanings, and then the community might be more willing to respond further.

I personally think that your kind of question is not totally out of scope here, except that it can lead eventually to much more inappropriate questions (e.g. 'Here is a paragraph of my homework submission that was marked down. What is wrong with it?').

Also, the title just really confuses me...what does 'forgo' really mean and what is 'it' referring to that 'that' is being forgone by (or something like that)?

  • "Also, the title just really confuses me...what does 'forgo' really mean" - I think I should have used the word "forego" instead of "forgo". The meaning was "to go before". The situation was this: there was one period of time - Martin Luther's lifetime , 16th century - and I wanted to inquire some information from some other periods of time that were before the Martin Luther's lifetime. While inquiring that I wanted to point out that if there is info from different centuries, say, from the 10th,11th and 14th, then the one that is closer to the 16th century (the 14th) is more preferable.
    – brilliant
    Apr 28 '12 at 23:47
  • So, it seems that I should have not disclosed the whole situation of mine in my question, right? I mean I should have not mentioned that I had asked this question somewhere else and should have not quoted it, because it looked as if I was asking for proofreading, right? So, what was I supposed to do then? Should I have just described the situation (just like I did in the comment above)?
    – brilliant
    Apr 28 '12 at 23:51
  • I don't know but maybe: 1) don't use 'forgo' it means 'to go without', 'to deny oneself of something'. 2) ask 'is the following grammatical? specifically (some very particular part of your phrase)'. For example, (only if this is what you care about), does the following sentence or ; 'Is "to be" necessary here?' or 'What is the object here?' or 'Does the following sentence correctly refer to a time contemporary or before the subjects lifetime?'.
    – Mitch
    Apr 29 '12 at 1:25
  • Yeah, I dont get the original sentence, even with multiple rewordings. Why would one expect someone (even Martin Luther) to be so opinionated that he would have said that some people -are- -truly- part of the 'Universal Church'? Wouldn't it be more normal for someone (like ML) to be more declamatory and say that fome forbears are -not- part of the 'true' church?
    – Mitch
    Apr 29 '12 at 1:27
  • Thank you for all your suggestions. I will think them all over and hopefully will come up with some solution.
    – brilliant
    Apr 29 '12 at 1:43
  • What is "fome forbears"?
    – brilliant
    Apr 29 '12 at 1:44
  • @brilliant I'm guess that Mitch meant "some forbears" Apr 29 '12 at 10:04
  • @MattЭллен: yes. typo. that's what I meant.
    – Mitch
    Apr 29 '12 at 16:55
  • To forgo and forego are just different spellings for the same word, which I don't think ever meant to precede. Certainly today it normally just means abstain from, go without. But if there's a serious point about language usage in the original question, I can't see why in has to be buried in such an obscure and potentially contentious context that can't really have anything to do with the substance of the language issue involved. Apr 30 '12 at 22:13

The reason the question is considered proofreading is that you quoted a sentence, and asked how to write it differently, without to say why you prefer writing it differently, or why you think it's not correctly written, or it sounds awkward.

That is not different from a question reporting a paragraph, and asking if it is correct to write it so, which is what proofreading is.

Somebody could also say yours is not a question, but a request of rewriting the sentence.

  • "without to say ... why you think it's not correctly written, or it sounds awkward" - But I really don't know why it sounds awkward. I just feel it's rather awkward. I just have this suspicion - the whole sentence kind of doesn't seem to express the thought that I wanted to express in it - I am not a native speaker,so I do not for sure if what I say is understandable or rather obscure.
    – brilliant
    Apr 28 '12 at 23:56
  • 1
    The result is that you write a sentence, asking for the other users to check if it is correct, which is what I would call proofreading. If you said, e.g., "I think that using [a work] is not correct in this context," then it would not be proofreading.
    – apaderno
    Apr 29 '12 at 0:11
  • Is this a typo? Did you mean to say "[a word]" instead of "[a work]"?
    – brilliant
    Apr 29 '12 at 0:18
  • 1
    Yes, I meant [a word].
    – apaderno
    Apr 29 '12 at 0:51

You must log in to answer this question.

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