"Kind of" is redundant.
"Which" is redundant.
The comma is unnecessary.
It's "People's Republic of China," not "Peoples' Republic of China." You use peoples' only if you want to talk about peoples and their possessions, e.g. "I live in Indiginous peoples' land."
This is referring to many indiginous peoples.
Extra: Try reading some of Henry James' works. One sentence can sometimes take up half a page!
jeez doris !! ... bags not argueing grammar with you !!
It would be like Biden vs Palin - but in reverse lol.
(PS I've personally never heard of a restrictive modifier, ... let alone a nonrestrictive one)
And never would I doogie
You're correct on the Chinese example.
* Indigenous people's land is land held by one type of race.
* Indigenous peoples' land is land held by more than one type of race.
* Indigenous peoples' lands are two or more areas of land and held by more than one race.
Is he a lawyer by trade?
yes... But both people's and peoples' are correct, they just mean "belonging to the people", and "belonging to the peoples" respectively. I think Joe meant the former, so "people's" it should be"people" is already plural? ...you would say "the children's smiles", not "the childrens' smiles"
Hello Doris, I find the use of apostophes for contractions quite a universally accepted practice but I think an apostrophe trailing plurals make up for poor sentence structure and more precisely, poor word choice.
Good try SP!
But I put 'kind of things' in italics, making it the subject, thus the subject, of this, is a nonrestrictive modifier and does not require the 'which' nor the comma.
"the subject, of this, is a nonrestrictive modifier"
If I said "the subject is a nonrestrictive modifier", I wouldn't need the commas as removing "of this" makes the noun (the word 'subject') a restrictive modifier.
My adding "of this" makes it specific that I'm referring to 'this' particular 'subject'.
Make sense? That's what language is basically about... communicating.
I'm also reminded that when you have one negative, it should be followed by a second in the context:
"does not require the 'which' nor the comma."
- - rather than: 'does not require the 'which' or the comma.'
Just thought:
I said - 'If I said':
If I were to have said 'If I were to have said' instead, I would have needed the 'were' as it is always a plural verb after the imaginary 'if'.
Love the English language!
I correct myself here (blushes slightly) as I didn`t fully understand possessive nouns. I still think they are used to compensate for poor sentence structure yet handy for oral communication.
I think an apostrophe trailing plurals make up for poor sentence structure and more precisely, poor word choice.
Doris,
Thanks for your time taken to type the above.
Regards
I took this to mean the use of apostrophes made the USE of written words hard to comprehend when the apostrophe is in the wrong place.
Is that a venereal disease?... and the amygdala infected females.
To me
Anyone have a rule on hyphenating words?
Where the subject is contextualised I agree.I've explained the 'which and the comma' above.
However, 'kind of' is necessary to indicate part of a common grouping that is being identified:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?