I think there are two kinds of apostrophes, one that's at an angle and looks nice and the plain old upright one. When someone pastes the former from another site into slashcode it screws it up rather than simply substituting the latter.
Of course the editors could replace them manually, but to do that they'd have to notice, which means they'd have to use the preview.
Not to mention if you ARE a bloody Yank, then "economics" could reasonably be parsed as a noun referring to the subject in general.
One, I'm not a septic. Two, that usage - meaning the academic subject - is used everywhere. Three, that usage clearly isn't what's meant in the context. Four, if it was you'd use a possessive: economics' gains were offset by chemistry's losses.
"Courts martials" has the adjective after the noun. That's a bit of a clue (if being a legal term wasn't enough) that it's not really an English expression.
And, frankly, if everyone were armed all the time, pretty soon we would stop shooting each other and probably stop shouting and calling each other bad names.
So if anyone says something you don't like, you should just execute them?
Slashdot Mirror
That should be "which contained" or "containing".
Is it much of a surprise that the original is correct?
You hit the nail on the head. That link provides a nice little test suite.
âGood morning, Dave,â said HAL.
â(TM)Good morning, Dave,â(TM) said HAL.
ââGood morning, Dave,â(TM)â(TM) said HAL.
âGood morning, Dave,â(TM) said HAL.
``Good morning, Dave,'' said HAL.
`Good morning, Dave,' said HAL.
âoeGood morning, Dave,â said HAL.
âGood morning, Dave,â(TM) said HAL.
No surprise that slashdot fails more than half of them.
Lose the "what". It's redundant and makes you sound like a music-hall cockney.
I think there are two kinds of apostrophes, one that's at an angle and looks nice and the plain old upright one. When someone pastes the former from another site into slashcode it screws it up rather than simply substituting the latter.
Of course the editors could replace them manually, but to do that they'd have to notice, which means they'd have to use the preview.
It's the new "correlation disproves causality". Didn't you get the memo?
That's terrible.
Hopefully they can get by with a bit of Birmingham or Manchester until they can get some delivered.
They shove it up your ass?
We claim priory art.
Signed,
The Cistercians.
Attempt no landings there.
Note: this does not apply to editing.
One, I'm not a septic.
Two, that usage - meaning the academic subject - is used everywhere.
Three, that usage clearly isn't what's meant in the context.
Four, if it was you'd use a possessive: economics' gains were offset by chemistry's losses.
But that aside, you're 100% correct.
It depends on the definition of semantics/I. that you're using.
"Courts martials" has the adjective after the noun. That's a bit of a clue (if being a legal term wasn't enough) that it's not really an English expression.
Nicola Mendelsohn is a 'tard.
It might be Elon Musk. I have trouble telling them apart sometimes.
Are you trying to write in French?
We don't have adjectival agreement in English.
Wrong!
The usage of "whereas" higher up is also garbage.
That's great in theory, but you have to move to stay still.
How do you expect something you buy in 2016 to be patched against 2018 malware?
Not possible. It would break Asimove's laws. ;-)
So if anyone says something you don't like, you should just execute them?
I'm curious. What thing that the customer owns gives tips?
I went to buy one of those but they had none linstock. So I said billhooks to it.
Are you doing this on purpose?
Doesn't work like that. Acronyms/initialisms are singular unless you explicitly pluralise them.
There's an IC in my bit-box. There are three ICs in my bit-box.
Then again, you're probably the type that "installs softwares".
Old Kent Road or Mediterranean Avenue.