1
  • A file whose filename ends with a date-and-time suffix that is separated by @ is a copy that is created to compare it later with the current version of the file and with other such copies of that file by using a comparison utility.

  • A file whose filename ends with a date-and-time suffix that is separated by @ is a copy that is created to compare it later with the current version of the file and with other its such copies by using a comparison utility.

aaa.txt
aaa.txt@20110228-1359
aaa.txt@20110228-1405

Are both of these versions grammatical? The second version is more concise but looks weird.

9
  • 2
    The first version is correct. If the specific word "such" wasn't present in version 1, that would simply mean you could compare later with any copies of a file, not just those using the "@ + date_time suffix" naming convention. Your second version is syntactic garbage, I'm afraid. In principle, with its other such copies is probably syntactically valid, but I don't think anyone would normally say / write that. Jan 16 at 12:32
  • @FumbleFingersReinstateMonica Thanks :) Sorry for a late comment. If I change "with its other such copies" to "with its other @-copies" it still sounds weird?
    – john c. j.
    Jan 25 at 16:46
  • 1
    All your ideas about "of" and "possession" are completely irrelevant in this context (no native speaker would ever think like that). There is absolutely nothing wrong with the first version in your question text, and most likely all attempts to "improve" it are doomed to failure. Jan 26 at 12:52
  • 1
    ...but on purely stylistic grounds I might rephrase part of the preceding text to ...that is created for possible later comparison with the current version or other such copies [of that file] (those last 3 words being pointless, imho) Jan 26 at 12:56
  • 1
    Glad to help. There's not much point in being "answered" if you're still not sure about things. But probably the main point you should take away from this interaction is that in practice, the preposition of rarely has anything to do with "possession, ownership". It's far more important to grasp that point than to learn the full details of the relatively complex and uncommon use of such in your cited context. Jan 26 at 17:37
2

No, the second version is not correct.

The word "such" is being used here to specify that "other copies" only applies to copies that have the same timestamp suffix. A more explicit version would be "with other timestamped copies of the same file".

0

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.