Timeline for If “I woke up at 10” is okay, what about “I slept at 10”?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:55 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://ell.stackexchange.com/ with https://ell.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| May 18, 2015 at 1:53 | comment | added | Ben Kovitz | @DCShannon The part about "less objectionable" refers to the part of the OP's question in which he says "sleep at" is "perfectly fine" if you're describing a habit/routine. I didn't want to go along completely with "perfectly fine"; my point, after all, is that the "sleep at" constructions stretch normal usage, and different people respond differently to the different stretches. | |
| Mar 31, 2015 at 3:57 | comment | added | DCShannon | I looked back over it, and I think I'm probably reading statements that you intend to apply to a hypothetical listener who objects, but which sound like they apply in the universal. "So why is it less objectionable to say "I sleep at 10:00" when describing a daily routine?" Makes it sound like it is your opinion that it sounds less objectionable, as opposed to "Why might "I sleep at 10:00" sound less objectionable to some listeners?" | |
| Mar 28, 2015 at 22:17 | comment | added | Ben Kovitz | @DCShannon Thanks for the thoughtful suggestions. I'll see if I can clarify. I probably got the wordiness/clarity trade-off wrong in some places. Regarding "went to sleep at [time]", can you point me to a specific place where I made it appear to be 'wrong' usage? Regarding "I sleep at [time]", do you mean the part in "Describing a routine"? It says there "less objectionable", not "unobjectionable", but maybe that's too subtle. I'm trying to say that "I sleep at [time]" asks listeners to accept a greater stretch from customary usage than many are willing to accept, and explain why that is. | |
| Mar 24, 2015 at 0:29 | comment | added | DCShannon | In case you're wondering why this isn't getting more upvotes, let me explain why I'm not upvoting: This answer makes some excellent points regarding listeners' willingness and ability to guess what a speaker means when they use an unusual phrasing, but the question was about usage, and the usage examples seem wrong to my ears. In particular, there are many references to the phrasing "went to sleep at [time]" as if it were 'wrong' or unusual to use 'at', and also a suggestion that "I sleep at [time]" is not 'wrong' or unusual. | |
| Mar 21, 2015 at 12:27 | history | edited | Ben Kovitz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body
|
| Mar 21, 2015 at 12:17 | history | edited | Ben Kovitz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 31 characters in body
|
| Mar 21, 2015 at 11:27 | history | edited | Ben Kovitz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 34 characters in body
|
| Mar 21, 2015 at 11:21 | comment | added | Ben Kovitz | @MaulikV Well…it's grammatically OK subject to the factors described above. It's at the hazy boundary of grammaticality. In the U.S., most people will find it jarring because it gives them doubts about how you intend to hook up the words to produce a meaning (which is what I understand by "grammatical"); most of the other answers talk about that. Some people will go along with it and some won't. That could easily change if "slept at time" becomes common and familiar. But such a change would have to overcome the resistance described above. | |
| Mar 21, 2015 at 11:09 | comment | added | Maulik V | I loved your answer! +1 But do you agree that if I use 'I slept at 10 last night' (irrespective of the timing), it's grammatically okay? | |
| Mar 21, 2015 at 11:03 | history | edited | Ben Kovitz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 212 characters in body
|
| Mar 21, 2015 at 10:53 | history | answered | Ben Kovitz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |