[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Part 2 of 2 -- Re: GDP: NR 1.1 Pitches 2008-01-26 [OT]
From: |
Graham Percival |
Subject: |
Re: Part 2 of 2 -- Re: GDP: NR 1.1 Pitches 2008-01-26 [OT] |
Date: |
Mon, 4 Feb 2008 08:26:30 -0800 |
On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 09:42:55 -0600
Stan Sanderson <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Feb 4, 2008, at 9:19 AM, Kieren MacMillan wrote:
>
> >> I bet that there's less than a hundred people
> >
> > You mean "I bet there are fewer than..." ;-)
*hmph*
In modern Canadian, an apostrophe followed by an `s' is
appropriate for singular or plural use.
:)
> > That is to say, content presented with bad grammar is less easy/
> > interesting/enjoyable to read than the same content written
> > "correctly" -- and the content is therefore less effective at
> > accomplishing its main purpose, which is communication.
Look, are we talking "horrible monstrocity, such that are,
commonly wrote, by non-English native speaker", or a minor word
choice?
I mean, does this sentence _actually_ bother anybody? Or make it
unclear?
----
Accidentals are only printed on tied notes which begin a new
system:
----
I personally think that "which" makes the sentence flow better --
that's why I changed it from the "that" which was originally put
there by Valentin (IIRC). When Kurt complained, I changed it back
to "that", but I still think which there's nothing wrong with
"which" in that sentence. [sic :P ]
> Might not the same arguments be applied to the benefits of knowing
> Lilypond's "grammar?"
Sure! I am willing to go on record in stating that a native
LilyPond writer, who has been reading and creating lilypond code
every day for over twenty years, will have no need to know the
formal rules of LilyPond grammar.
Cheers,
- Graham
Re: Part 2 of 2 -- Re: GDP: NR 1.1 Pitches 2008-01-26, Valentin Villenave, 2008/02/08