# Context



## Hotmale

Hello,

I would like to make a comment about context and background the moderators require.

 "All threads need context and background.

*Context*: the text coming immediately before and immediately after the word or phrase under discussion. 

*Background*: Where did the text come from? A news article? A book? What was the main topic?" 

I don't think that *each* question should be necessarily put in a context.

If I wanted to ask a question about a preposition that should precede a word "comment", why a simple question: "Can I use *on *after *comment*?" cannot be enough?

Who would actually need this context?

"Pay us a compliment about good service you have received; complain, when things go wrong; make a comment *on* how we can improve a ...."

How can a source be helpful to answer this simple question?

I am not saying that context and background are unnecessary. They are, but there are questions and questions. Some require further information, some (in my opinion) don't. 
What's more, keeping (some) questions short increases efficiency.

With best regards,
Hotmale


----------



## Jana337

Q: Can I use *on *after *comment*?
A: Yes.

Will this dull conversation prevent you from using "on" after "comment" in a wrong way? 

Jana


----------



## cuchuflete

Is that 'comment' as a verb or as a noun?


----------



## cuchuflete

My previous post may have seemed (your choice of adjective).
It was not.  English and other languages have many ambiguities.  If you ask whether 'on' may follow 'comment', the simple answer, correct most of the time, is yes.  But, if you are referring to the verb form, used to mean 'annotate', the answer is no.  A little context helps clarify which usage you are asking about.

Neither native speakers nor students can always correctly infer the intentions—unstated—in a simple question.  A small effort on the part of a thread starter can make a question more clear and useful to all readers.


----------



## Hotmale

I didn't give a good example of a question that may not need a context and a source. But imagine this question: "I heard her journey was *worth the worry**.* What does "worth the worry" mean?

Should I really give you the book where I found this sentence, and context?
Native speakers would know what "worth the worry" means without further information.

Having said that, I *do* believe that most questions require a context and source, but "most" does not mean "all".

Best regards
Hotmale


----------



## fenixpollo

"Context" not only includes "information about the source text" but also "everything surrounding the word".  The more information you can give us, the better.  How much information you give is up to you. The more information, the better the answer.  The less information, the less accurate the translation; and the more likely you are to receive questions about your original question, rather than answers.

Why not make it easy for the rest of us by posting as much context as possible the first time?  It saves us time, energy and guesswork.  Your translation is more accurate, fast and complete. 

I'm completely confused about why the requirement for posting context is a bad thing.


----------



## maxiogee

I will write a comment on your question, if I may.

We cannot say who "needs" the comment at this end, but I would say that, in the days when context-free queries were being answered here, it appeared that 9 times out of 10 the person who needed the context was the original poster.
They generally gathered that we were getting the wrong end of the stick after about five or six responses had danced around the more obvious options. The original inquirer rarely sees the numerous alternative ways of reading their question, and thus thinks context unnecessary.


----------



## Hotmale

maxiogee said:


> I will write a comment on your question, if I may.
> 
> We cannot say who "needs" the comment at this end, but I would say that, in the days when context-free queries were being answered here, it appeared that 9 times out of 10 the person who needed the context was the original poster.
> They generally gathered that we were getting the wrong end of the stick after about five or six responses had danced around the more obvious options. The original inquirer rarely sees the numerous alternative ways of reading their question, and thus thinks context unnecessary.



Hi Tony,

I am far from saying that a context and source are unnecessary, but sometimes in case of relatively easy questions, sometimes additonal information is not that much needed.
I am not questioning the rules here, but somehow I am frightened by such a message: "*Threads without context will be summarily closed". 

*P.S. I miss your signatures.


----------



## Kelly B

1. A person who doesn't know the answer usually cannot judge accurately whether context is required. 

2. The person asking the question wants other members to spend their valuable time writing an answer. I am more concerned with efficiency from _their _point of view. I think it is better for the question writer to spend a little extra time typing out context than for helpful members to waste theirs trying to guess or asking for more information.

3. The person asking the question may only need a simple one-word answer, but threads can, and should, be useful to the next person who comes along. If the context is clear, other people can learn the answer from your old thread - and this is far more efficient than rehashing the same information in a new thread.


----------



## geve

I have seen many threads that lacked context. I have never seen a thread with too much context!


----------



## DesertCat

One can give context without giving a sentence example.  Sometimes I ask a general question about usage in Italian or  if a phrase is commonly used.  In these cases I don't necessarily have a sample sentence and sometimes I don't want to provide it anyway because then some people feel compelled to supply a translation when one wasn't asked for.


----------



## LV4-26

I've seen a few cases where, for some reason, there was no context available. When asked the question, the original poster finally said "No, sorry, I don't have any context" and explained why.
With that in mind, couldn't a sentence be added in the announcement along these lines :"In case you don't have any context to provide, please say so in your initial post"?.
You could also add "but keep in mind that even the tiniest bit of information may be useful".


----------



## cuchuflete

I'm afraid that this would lead to many sincere—but mistaken—declarations of "no context is available".  As we have seen often, under repeated requests for background and context, such as "Where did you hear or see this?", something usually does emerge...around post #11!

Yes, of course there are genuine cases in which it is just a word from a grammar book list, but these are quite rare.
Most often the thread starter just needs a reminder, or a definition of context.


----------



## maxiogee

LV4-26 said:


> I've seen a few cases where, for some reason, there was no context available. When asked the question, the original poster finally said "No, sorry, I don't have any context" and explained why.
> With that in mind, couldn't a sentence be added in the announcement along these lines :"In case you don't have any context to provide, please say so in your initial post"?.
> You could also add "but keep in mind that even the tiniest bit of information may be useful".



I fail to see how one can have no context whatsoever behind an enquiry here. The word/phrase/sentence being questioned didn't just walk into the enquirer's brain unaccompanied.
Even if they only read it on the back of a box of cereal, or saw it on the headline of a newspaper, that in itself is context.


----------



## LV4-26

Yes, it also sounds weird to me, retrospectively, but I do remember the reason seemed valid enough. Maybe a random word given by a teacher or something...

Anyway, the important thing is that the posters be aware that any and every information is useful. I've seen quite a handful of thread starters saying "I'm not sure it helps but all I can tell you is that....." (around post #11  ). And it did help.

Whatever...Never mind, probably a bad idea  . And yes, it also occurred to me it could have undesirable results.


----------



## cuchuflete

Please keep on offering ideas.  Here is how it looks to me at the moment:

Small improvements come from—
Announcements
Stickies
Rules

Bigger improvements result from—
Strong (but courteous) demands for context from foreros
Thread closings

The two problems that seem to travel in pairs are thread starters who don't give context, and the anxious foreros who appear to enjoy guessing, and want to be sure that their guess is the first reply.


----------



## LV4-26

To the attention of Tony :
click


----------



## maxiogee

LV4-26 said:


> To the attention of Tony :
> click





carolineR said:


> Sorry I can't provide the context, I read the phrase somewhere some time ago, wrote it down and can't remember where I read it...


Then why does the enquirer need to know?


----------



## LV4-26

maxiogee said:


> Then why does the enquirer need to know?


What killed the cat?


----------



## maxiogee

LV4-26 said:


> What killed the cat?



I'm sorry, but without context we cannot possibly be expected to answer your question. 

What cat?
Can we be sure it *is* dead?
It had eight other lives, it probably deserved to die!


----------

