Not The Onion

hideshow 6 child comments

parent

[–] khannie@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (5 children)

There are precedents. There is precedent.

Edit: changed i to e.

hideshow 5 child comments

parent

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 2 points 5 months ago* (4 children)

Before OP edited the comment it used "precedence". They mean different things.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/usage-of-precedent-vs-precedence

https://www.grammar-monster.com/easily_confused/precedence_precedent.htm

https://languagetool.org/insights/post/precedence-or-precedent/

https://www.thoughtco.com/precedence-precedents-and-presidents-1689468

What's next, are you going to claim "presidents" is another alternative spelling that means the same thing?

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[–] khannie@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (3 children)

I understand that. You used plural when you should have used singular.

They said "there is precedence" which you corrected to "prescedents" but the correct form in the example is "there is precedent".

Edit:

What's next, are you going to claim "presidents" is another alternative spelling that means the same thing?

There was fuck all need for that. I actually mostly backed you up in another comment.