Yeah - that’s probably all true. Most people seem to cope with “you singular” and “you plural” in English but struggle with “they/them singular” and “they/them plural”. I’m not sure why.
Yeah - that’s probably all true. Most people seem to cope with “you singular” and “you plural” in English but struggle with “they/them singular” and “they/them plural”. I’m not sure why.
“I goes”. Incorrect “They goes”. Incorrect
“They” can quite happily function as singular. I asked my friend about this and they gave me their opinion. They told me that they use “they” or “them” to discuss people when their biological sex is unimportant or unknown. I would like to ask them more but they have to leave. They tell me that they’ll be back later.
They (singular) say something. He/she/it says something. They (all) say something. You (all) say something. I say something. You (singular) say something. You’ll notice “he/she/it” seems to be the irregular outlier here. English is strange.
Psion 5mx palmtop computer running Epoc OS. Had the screen cable replaced a few years ago. Still use it for the word processor from time to time. Runs on two AA batteries.
Yeah, that’s true, but in the UK XL Bullies specifically have been doing all the maulings recently that have generated serious press coverage; also they themselves have just been added as the sixth (?) banned canine breed in the UK.
Historically speaking I imagine that’s true. I’m not sure why anyone felt the need to “correct” the word in the first place. Especially if it transpires they did so incorrectly…
Yeah. Pretty much. The original quote by Marx would’ve been in German I assume - which might make a difference. Looking at the US’s painkiller problems “opiate” is possibly more relevant. It’s a negligible difference either way. (Unless a linguist knows better)
Opiates include artificially lab-constructed products that are based off of the opium that comes from poppies.
The irony of that comment has really tickled me. Thanks internet stranger. Best of luck to you for the future. Good bye. 👋
To quote your own source again: “…government-approved regulatory and competition authority…” If you think that is synonymous with being a part of the UK government then that is on you and no amount of help will change that. On a side note - are you interested in replacing Ofcom with an industry approved regulator instead?
The Office of Communications, commonly known as Ofcom, is the government-approved regulatory and competition authority for the broadcasting… looks like it says government-approved to me. That’s different to being a part of the government.
You definitely need to work on your reading comprehension… but try the bit further down your quoted article where it says that Ofcom is a “statutory corporation”. And then read the article on that phrase. Still convinced Transport For London is a government agency? Hell, with your (incorrect) argument that would make the actual BBC a government agency as it itself is a statutory corporation. So why would the government need Ofcom? Hmmmm
I’m not questioning that they’re regulated and never have - you absolute ham sandwich. I’m correcting you in your mistaken belief that the regulator is the government. Ofcom is not the government - regardless of what you want to believe. It doesn’t matter how loud you shout - you’re wrong when you say the BBC is regulated by the government. It is regulated by Ofcom. Please do some research.
Wow. Believe whatever you want - don’t let facts get in the way of your opinions. You are so colossally misunderstanding what the phrase “government approved regulator” means. Thanks for the laugh.
Ofcom regulates EVERY television broadcaster, every radio broadcaster, all the phone providers, all the broadband providers, the postal providers and the wireless providers in the UK. That’s a lot more companies than just the BBC. That is what I’ll be focusing on; rather than your suggestion. Thanks all the same.
Ofcom is a “government approved regulator” as opposed to the “government regulating approval.“ There is a difference. It’s a .org not .gov domain.
No. They’re saying the BBC is not the government’s mouthpiece. It is an impartial public broadcaster. The same BBC that has reported on both IRA bombings and Sinn Féin elections. If you understand that last sentence you may realise why the BBC speaks as it does.
One potential answer would be to use “neè” which is translated as “born”. Often used in relation to a bride having changed their last name. e.g. Mrs. Williams neè Smith. That way you’d know that Mrs. Williams used to be Ms. Smith previously. Both are/were valid names - but at different times in the person’s life. Once you establish that the person has gone under a different name previously you can return to using the current name (and any change of pronoun) for all other mentions.
Have you been watching “Reefer Madness” and thinking it’s a documentary? Spoiler: it isn’t.
First person singular and third person singular. Both singular.