Timeline for Difference between complementary and supplementary
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 13, 2018 at 20:59 | comment | added | Andrew | @Tashus saying "the manuscript was supplementary to its appendix" sounds like a typically acerbic British book critique. :-) | |
| Dec 13, 2018 at 19:25 | history | edited | Tashus | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 452 characters in body
|
| Dec 13, 2018 at 19:18 | comment | added | Tashus | @FumbleFingers I actually posted this answer specifically in contrast to your comment. I do think that "complementary" should be (and usually is) limited to bidirectional and often exclusive relationships (complementary colors etc.), where "supplementary" implies neither reciprocity nor exclusivity. One could describe an appendix as a supplement to a manuscript, but to call a manuscript a supplement to an appendix would be odd. | |
| Dec 13, 2018 at 18:54 | comment | added | FumbleFingers | Per comment above, I'm not convinced about that "stronger relationship" point (though I'm not convinced the opposite applies either; they're just "different" relationships). | |
| Dec 13, 2018 at 18:25 | history | answered | Tashus | CC BY-SA 4.0 |