User talk:Eric Corbett/Archives/2017/March
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Eric Corbett. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Green children of Woolpit
That first sentence about the beans keeps catching my eye. I tried a compromise between our two different wordings, but if you still feel the original sentence is best, I don't mind. Perhaps it is more of a language convention than a strict grammatical point. Ies (talk) 11:34, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- Two points: I certainly don't see what any of this has to do with grammar; I don't think the Noone reference is good enough for an FA. Eric Corbett 12:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- I was referring to how in the statement, "They only food they would eat was beans", "was" and "beans" seem to be singular and plural respectively. Perhaps "beans" is a dish in this case so would be singular? I'm trying it in my head with similar food items (ie. "The only food they would eat was noodles" etc.) and it stands out to me. This may be a regional thing. Regarding Noone, I was trying to find a reference that specifically indicated they were broad beans, as I thought that was an interesting detail I came across, but if unnecessary no worries. Ies (talk) 17:31, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) I'd consider "beans" singular in this context, although I'd agree the syntax of
the only food they would eat was beans
is jarring to the reader and probably ought to be reworded tothey would only eat beans
. "Fava bean" (an American/Canadian term for what the rest of the world calls "broad beans") has no place in an article on an English topic, however. ‑ Iridescent 17:46, 13 March 2017 (UTC) - (ec) The subject of that particular section is the singular food, not the plural broad beans. Eric Corbett 17:54, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- I think that's reasonable; it does seem to be more a style point. If you would like to revert the sentence feel free. Ies (talk) 17:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- The revised version works perfectly well, so for the sake of a quiet life I'm going to leave it as it is. Eric Corbett 18:06, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- I think that's reasonable; it does seem to be more a style point. If you would like to revert the sentence feel free. Ies (talk) 17:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) I'd consider "beans" singular in this context, although I'd agree the syntax of
- I was referring to how in the statement, "They only food they would eat was beans", "was" and "beans" seem to be singular and plural respectively. Perhaps "beans" is a dish in this case so would be singular? I'm trying it in my head with similar food items (ie. "The only food they would eat was noodles" etc.) and it stands out to me. This may be a regional thing. Regarding Noone, I was trying to find a reference that specifically indicated they were broad beans, as I thought that was an interesting detail I came across, but if unnecessary no worries. Ies (talk) 17:31, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
I have started an essay on the concept of narrative flow, a concept that I think is largely undervalued in the encyclopedia in general. I decided to search for discussions where editors had raised the concept, figuring that such editors might want to chime in on the meaning of the concept and I found a mention by you. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)