Going Back To

[stromm]

According to a popular definition, "go back to " means "have existed since". Then there is this sentence:

( niemanlab.org/2009/03/the-guardian-ups-the-ante-on-apis/ )
"But to provide full-text access to all Guardian news articles going back to 1999, and to allow all of this data and more to be used in profit-making ventures as well, takes the whole effort to another level entirely."

Could this be an error, because there is no way that every single new article has existed since 1999. Would this be better:

"...access to all Guardian news articles, some going back to 1999, and ..."

 

[MikeNewYork]

The original is fine. In that context. "all" means all the articles since 1999.

 

[stromm]

But If I sub the definition into the example, it would read like:

"But to provide full-text access to all Guardian news articles existing since 1999, and to allow all of this data and more to be used in profit-making ventures as well, takes the whole effort to another level entirely."

So, all the articles were written in 1999?

 

[MikeNewYork]

No, it is everything published from 1999 to today.

 

[stromm]

Would this:

"news articles dating back to 1999"

be very different from

"news articles going back to 1999"

?

 

[MikeNewYork]

No.

 

[strommm]

So, "news articles dating back to 1999" could include articles written AFTER 1999?

 

[MikeNewYork]

In the right context, yes.

 

[strommm]

So, making another slight change, "houses dating back to 1900" could include houses built AFTER 1900?

 

[MikeNewYork]

Again it depends on context.

If I ask for all of your records dating back to 1999, I want every record from 1999 to the present. If I am taking a tour of old houses, some of which date back to 1900, I do not expect to see houses built last year. But there will be some/many built after 1900.

 

[5jj]

Thread closed. Clone of banned user.