Timeline for At minutes in length
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 1, 2019 at 21:04 | comment | added | Jason Bassford | First of all, the use or lack of a comma has nothing to do with something being an apposition. An apposition without a comma is a restrictive apposition; an apposition with a comma is a non-restrictive apposition. Second, I only provided a sentence fragment in my above comment—I never got to the point where I would use a comma or not. (The comma in the text was not part of the italicized sentence.) But starting the sentence with Of over 17 minutes would be wrong regardless of whether or not I used one. | |
| May 1, 2019 at 17:52 | comment | added | DrMoishe Pippik | @JasonBassford, your version, without a comma, is using a different grammatical device, apposition, in which one noun is used to explain another. The original uses a prepositional phrase. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apposition, if you do not know the difference. | |
| May 1, 2019 at 4:23 | comment | added | Jason Bassford | It is a tour de force over 17 minutes in length (without any preposition at all) sounds perfectly natural to me. You can use a preposition, but you don't have to—and frequently don't. So, this is a poor example. It is less idiomatic to exclude a preposition in the construction in the question—although it's not wrong. And you would never start a sentence with Of over 17 minutes, so your changed sentence structure that means to demonstrate different prepositions is a poor choice for that reason as well. | |
| May 1, 2019 at 1:27 | history | answered | DrMoishe Pippik | CC BY-SA 4.0 |