On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 16:58:35 -0000 "Trevor Daniels" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Graham Percival wrote 04 February 2008 16:27 > > > > On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 09:42:55 -0600 > > Stan Sanderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
