Timeline for Can ‘should’ be omitted, as in this case?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 22, 2015 at 6:26 | history | edited | Nathan Tuggy |
edited tags
|
|
| Feb 14, 2013 at 20:27 | comment | added | Peter Shor | In the U.S., you can omit should. I'm not sure about the U.K. | |
| Feb 14, 2013 at 3:44 | answer | added | Be Brave Be Like Ukraine | timeline score: 1 | |
| Feb 12, 2013 at 7:06 | answer | added | NKoder | timeline score: 3 | |
| Feb 12, 2013 at 4:27 | vote | accept | Listenever | ||
| Feb 12, 2013 at 4:25 | answer | added | user485 | timeline score: 0 | |
| Feb 12, 2013 at 3:30 | history | edited | Listenever | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 37 characters in body
|
| Feb 12, 2013 at 2:58 | comment | added | user264 | Yes, should can be omitted. It doesn't change the meaning. The sentences with and without should are equally acceptable variants: it's a question of personal preference & style. | |
| Feb 12, 2013 at 2:53 | history | edited | avpaderno | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited title
|
| Feb 12, 2013 at 2:53 | comment | added | Matt | This question might be better if you split it into two questions | |
| Feb 12, 2013 at 2:35 | history | edited | avpaderno | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
improved formatting
|
| Feb 12, 2013 at 2:26 | history | asked | Listenever | CC BY-SA 3.0 |