> > > > > Worg was started by [[http://bzg.fr][Bastien]] in the hope that other > > > > > Org-ers around will > > > > > -bite into this and start sharing tutorials, example of codes, etc. > > > > > +participate and start sharing tutorials, example of codes, etc. > > > > > > > > Hmm. I am wondering what exactly is the grammatical error you are trying > > > > to fix here? Or do you mean that the style is not good? > > > > > > You are correct, it's stylistic not grammatical. "Bite into this" is an > > > unusual phrase that isn't standard English. > > > > Actually, it is probably grammatical. "bite into" is standard > > English. But it has a totally different meaning: > > https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/bite-into > > > As a native speaker of English, this phrasing strikes me as quite > natural and evocative. "Bite into this" suggests the reader has > developped a taste for "this". That is likely the original intent and, > if so, it is conveyed well.
I agree that 'bite into' is grammatically and idiomatically appropriate, though whether it's intelligible and intuitive to readers working with English as a second language is a separate issue. That it's figurative language without clear precedent (*) is perhaps enough of a reason to change it. 'Example of codes' is the error, for me. Grammatically, the number is mistaken; idiomatically, it suggests to me code-breaking or working with ciphers. 'Code snippets' is used elsewhere on the Worg pages. 'Other Org-ers around' is also not idiomatic to my non-American ear. 'Other Org-ers', 'Org-ers from all around', 'all sorts of Org-ers', etc. * for precedent searches I would use a dictionary that gives extended precedent. For me that is still the OED. The Cambridge entry is misleading because it gives only one sense, that is - haha - it gives an attenuated sense; the OED gives a much fuller range. There's a solid case for 'bite into' in the sense of 'try and find toothsome' or 'engage and find stimulating', in my opinion. But an ESL-oriented dictionary is not a bad standard for accessibility. Where cross-cultural intelligibility is the aim, style is always relevant; in particular metricality is always relevant; correctness is sometimes relevant; simplicity is usually most relevant. Sent with Proton Mail secure email. On Friday, 2 May 2025 at 18:39, Leo Butler <leo.but...@umanitoba.ca> wrote: > On Fri, May 02 2025, Ihor Radchenko yanta...@posteo.net wrote: > > > > > > Worg was started by [[http://bzg.fr][Bastien]] in the hope that other > > > > > Org-ers around will > > > > > -bite into this and start sharing tutorials, example of codes, etc. > > > > > +participate and start sharing tutorials, example of codes, etc. > > > > > > > > Hmm. I am wondering what exactly is the grammatical error you are trying > > > > to fix here? Or do you mean that the style is not good? > > > > > > You are correct, it's stylistic not grammatical. "Bite into this" is an > > > unusual phrase that isn't standard English. > > > > Actually, it is probably grammatical. "bite into" is standard > > English. But it has a totally different meaning: > > https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/bite-into > > > As a native speaker of English, this phrasing strikes me as quite > natural and evocative. "Bite into this" suggests the reader has > developped a taste for "this". That is likely the original intent and, > if so, it is conveyed well. > > Leo
