2 ms·
That's your own interpretation. Neither phrasing specifies the exact amount of contribution the subject had on the target. One phrasing is slightly more active
by sjsdaiuasgdia 2y ago
That's your own interpretation. Neither phrasing specifies the exact amount of contribution the subject had on the target. One phrasing is slightly more active in acknowledging that other contributions could exist, but still does not declare that other contributions must exist. The other phrasing does not preclude the potential of other things that also caused shortening.
It's all in your head, dude.
- alt227 2y ago> That's your own interpretation. No its not. The dictionary definition of 'contribute' is 'help to cause or bring about'. Emphasis on the 'help'. > but still does not declare that other contributions must exist By definiton of the word 'contribute', yes it does. > One phrasing is slightly more active in acknowledging that other contributions could exist No it isnt, by using the word 'contribute' you move the repsonsibility from directly being caused by that person, to being shared by multiple entites, each with different amounts of cause/blame. See the definition of 'contribute' above. >Dude >LMAO Why am I arguing language nuance with somebody who talks like this?!