Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

5
  • 1
    Does it? I don't see that to be true. While I think "meeting" is the more likely referent, I don't think that "experts" is ineligible, just that context and common usage makes "meeting" more likely. (Plus, there's no impact to the meaning.) Commented Jul 5 at 14:46
  • Thanks, @Andy Bonner. You’re right. The experts convened is valid. Commented Jul 5 at 14:55
  • Wouldn't that have to be who convened? Commented Jul 5 at 14:56
  • @KateBunting Welllll that's a debate covered here a lot. Looks like the best link might be english.stackexchange.com/a/11339/425655 Commented Jul 5 at 15:00
  • 1
    Good point about the intransitive use. I didn't see that in the first answer, and failed to scroll down to this until I'd already pointed it out in a comment. Of copurse, it's only a contextual assumption that the meeting was convened by "flu experts". It's quite possible to suppose that government leaders convened the meeting, and told their flu experts to attend. Commented Jul 5 at 15:41