Why was this closed, in view of claims to 'please include the research you've done...'?

As stated in my OP, I consulted Etymonline, OED, and a logic textbook.

Update on 2015 May 6: I thank the five users who generously reopened my question. Maybe no reply is needed to this question then, but I shall leave this for the benefit of others
(but please feel free to advise otherwise).

  • 5
    I think you have done far beyond sufficient research (with references) to not deserve that close reason. I don't understand why people chose that when it is so obviously not the case. People often vote to close because they don't think it is a good question, and may choose the wrong reason. My feeling is that in your research you have found all there is and it just takes understanding. It's like asking "How did the word 'horse' come to mean the animal that people ride at the Kentucky Derby?". The history of that word might be interesting, but there's no explanation, it just is. – Mitch May 5 '15 at 12:48
  • @Mitch Thank you for your support! I also don't understand why people chose that when it is so obviously not the case. I just hope to dig deeper, which many other users have kindly succeeded to help me with. I understand that sometimes, The history of that word might be interesting, but there's no explanation. – NNOX Apps May 5 '15 at 14:52
  • 2
    @LawArea51Proposal-Commit Let me emphasize, one more time, that it's not sometimes "there's no explanation", it's most of the time. – Dan Bron May 5 '15 at 14:59
  • @DanBron Thanks. But to clarify your stance, do you believe that etymology is hardly useful? I seem to favour the many others that find value in etymology (even user Mari-Lou agreed somewhat here). I want to resolve your frustration; I think the problem is that I impute more value to etymology than you? – NNOX Apps May 5 '15 at 15:03
  • @LawArea51Proposal-Commit No, the statement "Etymology has no value" is a misrepresentation of my position. I think etymology is a perfectly legitimate and somethings very interesting field! Just like, say, archaeology or study of historical poetry, etc. What I keep trying to tell you is I don't think etymology is suitable for the purposes you want very badly for it to be suitable for. And if you want me to pull up comments from Mari-Lou supporting that position, and rejecting your attempted use of etymology to understand the current meanings of words, I can do that. – Dan Bron May 5 '15 at 15:07
  • @DanBron Thanks again. Actually, I wrote etymology is hardly useful which leaves some scope; I never meant to represent your position as the categorical NO value. But I apologise if you meant neither. Don't worry about Mari-Lou's opinions then, lest this becomes too long. – NNOX Apps May 5 '15 at 15:10
  • I'll switch examples. Do you agree with the viewpoint behind this answer then? I don't mean to force etymology to bend to a definition, but what's wrong with asking how it can be imagined to cohere with modern definitions? Where's the harm, given that I always remember that this interpretation may be just opinionated? – NNOX Apps May 5 '15 at 15:11
  • @LawArea51Proposal-Commit I think, instead of going back-and-forth here, I should decide whether or not I'm going to write up that longer answer to your prior meta-question I mentioned. I am space-constrained in comments. I can't commit right now to posting that answer, but if I have more feedback for you on this topic, that's the vehicle I'll use to convey it. – Dan Bron May 5 '15 at 15:17
  • @DanBron Great and agreed! No need to reply to this then. – NNOX Apps May 5 '15 at 15:32
  • 1
    I had explained why I voted to close the question. And those reasons still stand. “I think your question should be closed, because you are asking about its meaning 1. The less confuses me: in the conditional sentence 'A unless B', what's less about B? 2. Also, would someone please explain the 'negative connotation'?. 3. How did on a less condition (than) evolve into onlesse, and finally if not? – Mari-Lou A May 5 '15 at 18:54
  • (Cont'd) Answer: Unless also means "if not". Etymonline explains why/how ‘onlesse’ became ‘unless’.” – Mari-Lou A May 5 '15 at 18:54
  • 1
    @Mari-LouA But I am NOT asking about the meaning of *unless. I ask about its etymology, and am requesting more details about Etymonline. Also, Etymonline does NOT explain why/how ‘onlesse’ => "if not". – NNOX Apps May 5 '15 at 19:08

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .