One of the closers of my question 'as off-topic', commented:

[Source:] I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because in the final analysis it's almost always a matter of opinion how and why acceptable usages for a word change over time. Especially with common short prepositions, conjunctions, etc., since all Anglophones have been using them for centuries - mostly without the benefit of having been formally taught exactly what "definitive" usage rules should have applied during their lifetime. Often, all we know now is what changes did occur, not why.

From questions with the most upvotes asked in 2014 onwards,
the question of why changes did occur,
are asked in, but NOT limited to, the following:

Why is there no "autumntime" or "falltime"?
Why is it "behead" and not "dehead"?
Why is "pound" (of weight) abbreviated "lb"?
Why do eleven and twelve get unique words and not end in "-teen"?

Per the above, many other questions on how and why acceptable usages for a word change over time abound and remain open.
The objective of all these questions equate identically to mine,
and the comment quoted above applies to the aforesaid questions. So why was my question closed?
I should hope that a question be considered on its merits, notwithstanding the questioner's identity.

| |
  • 1
    An etymological 'why' question (as opposed to 'what') may be just as factual as "What part of speech is 'like'?" but since it is often open to discussion and interpretation. And then sometimes the answer is "Just look, the meanings are similar". They give the feel for being unanswerable. I voted to reopen because the questions are interesting in a way we should encourage here. – Mitch Jun 25 '15 at 12:58
  • @Mitch +1. Thank you again for your continued constructive support and advice. – Accounting Jun 25 '15 at 13:25
  • But there is no guarantee that anyone will have an answer for you, or that it is not closable for other reasons. Lexicographers surely have to follow such questions themselves, but there's no guarantee of an explicit answer. – Mitch Jun 25 '15 at 14:13
  • 1
    I don't know what you've been drinking or eating recently, but can I congratulate you on your written English? It's vastly improved. Still a little too flowery and "pompous" for my liking, but the last sentence is worded perfectly. (NOT my downvote. But I wouldn't reopen your post.) – Mari-Lou A Jun 25 '15 at 15:33
  • This question is reposted on MSE – rene Jul 13 '15 at 14:47

There exists a wide gray area between "acceptable" and "unacceptable" questions. It's not a finely defined line that can be discerned easily. This is why it typically takes 5 votes to close a question, and two further to delete it. This is the area that moderators typically 1 allow the community to decide and define simply by close and open votes.

Most importantly and salient to your specific question here is that you will always find examples of questions in this area that are open that are worse than another given example which was closed.

The community isn't static, and this line changes and evolves over time.

However, it does no good to ask comparative questions, "why was this action taken on my question and not on these other example questions" when you are operating in an already murky area.

If you ask questions which are clearly allowed, and not in the gray area, they won't be closed, as long as they are well formed and not duplicates.

If you want to ask questions in the gray area, consider either 1) visiting the most popular meta questions and understand the community better, as well as submitting your own reasoning to these meta questions to convince others to accept questions in the gray area, and 2) asking a pre-question on meta, "I'd like to ask about X. Here's my first draft, please help me improve it or change it so it's acceptable..."

1The community has already spoken in many things on meta, and there are some still rather divisive issues, which may result in some unacceptable questions lingering or ending up opening and closing multiple times. Some moderators prefer to "nip it in the bud" so to speak and close when they know a question is ultimately unredeemable, but might not be closed quickly or stay closed. Of course, there are activist moderators too, and if you find that's the case, participate in site elections and open meta questions when you believe they are acting against the community's interests. That's a different question, though.

| |

You must log in to answer this question.

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