“Church’s role in harming kids…”
That’s a funny way to spell “church officials raping kids…”
Editorial watering down like this is disgusting. Even if it wasn’t intentional, if you as the reporter aren’t comfortable calling sexual abuse rape in a headline and have to water it down to “harm,” that’s another reason to keep it full-strength. If it makes people mad, good. The truth should make people mad in cases like this.
Correct! Thank you for catching that, I accidentally put it in third declension. So yes Wuges. I was referencing when second declension nouns borrowed into English sometimes remain -i for the plural (as in radii, stimuli etc.) So Wugus, Wugi.
Oh yeah and sometimes it’s actually Greek causing irregulars (looking at you, criteria)…
Wugs, if its an Anglo root, unless it’s derived from Latin “Wug*, wugīs” in which case there are two Wugi (wûg-eye). Unless its one of the random Latin words where we don’t do that and it’s still “wugs.” Unless it’s a loanword from germanic then we might anglicise it or we might say “wugar.” Because eNgLIsH iS EaSY…
“Real news for real people!” Yeah totally…
Правда…
Thor:
Hahaha, this stupid Jotunn wants to be struck! Time for target practice!
I’ll die trying to pet something I shouldn’t, and at least get to cuddle with a lion cub before mommy lion rips my throat out.
F/a-18 taking off from a carrier, here’s the original image…
It’s possibly an f/a-18, the tail looks like a V and the engines are closer together like in the picture.
I think it might be an f/a-18 actually, vertical stabilisers are more slanted in a V and the engines are closer together than on an f-14
EDIT: found the original image
We’re looking at a rear view of a fighter with a V tail…
This is what too much English grammar does to one… I hardly understand myself. But nah lol that’s not how I always talk, I was just trying to use perfect grammar since the whole point was to defend an unusual grammatical construct.
“Below” is used as a stranded preposition in your case (the more generally accepted usage), whereas the original post uses it at an adjective. While usage of “below” as an adjective is not universal, it is still accepted by some dictionaries. I could only find the Webster English Dictionary as an example, so I suppose it’s mostly exclusive to American English. So yes, your example is the more universal mode (as well as my personal preference), but American English generally accepts the above usage as proper grammar. (The sentence above, as well as this one, demonstrate the usage of “above,” a relative locus, as both an adjective and a preposition in modern English).
Is this how you get Heimdal? (mythologically “the Son of 9 mothers”)
Yeah I could definitely see this for slo-mo and data recording in an actual laboratory setting that requires it to be as accurate as humanly possible. Idk if this is a standard though I’m not a scientist.
But quite a few of us are, in fact, all of the above.
Do you have to be consistent about using the Oxford comma throughout your work, or can you use and omit it in various parts for clarity and to more closely resemble the emphasis in speech? This is assuming this is a formal environment and your school doesn’t have a preference for using or omitting it throughout.
But there shouldn’t be an apostrophe there… it’s = it is, its = posessive.