[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 09:22:28 -0800 |
On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 16:58:35 -0000
"Trevor Daniels" <address@hidden> wrote:
> Graham Percival wrote 04 February 2008 16:27
> >
> > 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.
> > :)
> >
> I think Kieren also meant the distinction between
> less and fewer :)
Whoops. Guilty as charged.
Although I don't think that I'd ever write "... there are less
than...". I think it's my use of the colloquial "'s" that messed
me up here.
> Well it certainly is not clear, but that is not due
> to the choice of "that" or "which". Accidentals are
> certainly printed in other places than this suggests.
>
> Perhaps it means, "Accidentals are printed on
> tied notes only when the note to which they are
> tied is on the previous system."
Good point! (although I think a simple word swap suffices to
clarify this -- "Accidentals on tied notes are only printed at the
beginning of a new system: ")
You see, this is why I keep on asking everybody to read the same
section over and over again... we keep on finding things like
this.
> Incidently, the MS Grammar checker -always-
> annoyingly recommends "that" for all restrictive
> clauses. That seems an excellent reason to use
> "which" whenever possible :)
:)
Cheers,
- Graham
Re: Part 2 of 2 -- Re: GDP: NR 1.1 Pitches 2008-01-26, Valentin Villenave, 2008/02/08