Re: Part 2 of 2 -- Re: GDP: NR 1.1 Pitches 2008-01-26 [OT]

[Graham Percival]

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