my collection of 250 perfumes are a vital part
Should be:
my collection of 250 perfumes is a vital part
"Collection" is singular, not plural.
Advertisement
by Lamebrainia » Wed May 01, 2019 12:40 am
my collection of 250 perfumes are a vital part
my collection of 250 perfumes is a vital part
by Candlewhisper Archive » Wed May 01, 2019 2:37 am
by Lamebrainia » Wed May 01, 2019 3:51 pm
Thank you for correcting me. I am Australian, and this sounds blatantly incorrect to me (similar to using "aren't" or "ain't" with 1st person singular).Candlewhisper Archive wrote:Can be either, depending on British/American English.
https://www.dictionary.com/e/collective-nouns/
Our normal rule is that we adopt British or American spellings or grammar depending on the identity of the author.
Given the author's name, I think we assumed British English, though Lancaster of Wessex is welcome to correct this assumption of they wish.
With a view to consistency, however, have changed "empathize" to "empathise" in the last option.
by Candlewhisper Archive » Thu May 02, 2019 2:43 pm
by Spiny Norman the Hedgehog » Thu May 02, 2019 5:32 pm
The Debate
“Momma! Momma! Git the whiskey! No! The gud kind!” shouts Rodrigo Meyer, the newly-found heir to the House of Ood. “Well, it’s about time that my royal ‘eritarge is recugnized! I declare myself the absolute ruler of Ubalin as Yer Majesty King Rex! I will be the most high and most excellent king Ubalin has ever had! And as my first act as King, I declare Ubalin’s independence from Spiny Norman the Hedgehog; the Ubalinders will be free and independent again under my rule.” He then turns to your young secretary. “And darling, if you want to be a Queen, just hit me up.”
“Liberté, égalité, fraternité!” yells Robin Stromburg, the former mayor of Ubalin, while being pulled out of your office by guards. “That tyrant Oswyn was violently ripped apart by blackout drunk peasants and if you aren’t careful the time for revolution will be nigh again. Get rid of the royal oppressors of Spiny Norman the Hedgehog!”
“Liberté, égalité, fraternité!” yells Ásmunda Butler, the former mayor of Ubalin. “We first became a part of this great country as a direct result of when that tyrant Oswyn was violently ripped apart by blackout drunk peasants! To prevent reactionaries from poisoning and breaking apart the nation with outdated traditions, we need to denounce monarchy for the sham it is whenever it pops up, starting with the Spiny royal family!”
“Maybe there’s a compromise,” speculates Cooper Herrelko, a prolific jouster and part-time mutton farmer. “How about instead of making him the absolute monarch of Ubalin, we install King... Rex as a constitutional monarch of Ubalin. That way Ubalin stays a part of Spiny Norman the Hedgehog and continues to be run by competent politicians, but they’ll have a bit of tradition to rally behind. And imagine having an actual king open the Ubalin medieval fayre. My mutton sales will go through the roof!”
by Luna Amore » Thu May 02, 2019 6:03 pm
Spiny Norman the Hedgehog wrote:This looks like a validity issue for #527:The Debate
“Momma! Momma! Git the whiskey! No! The gud kind!” shouts Rodrigo Meyer, the newly-found heir to the House of Ood. “Well, it’s about time that my royal ‘eritarge is recugnized! I declare myself the absolute ruler of Ubalin as Yer Majesty King Rex! I will be the most high and most excellent king Ubalin has ever had! And as my first act as King, I declare Ubalin’s independence from Spiny Norman the Hedgehog; the Ubalinders will be free and independent again under my rule.” He then turns to your young secretary. “And darling, if you want to be a Queen, just hit me up.”
“Liberté, égalité, fraternité!” yells Robin Stromburg, the former mayor of Ubalin, while being pulled out of your office by guards. “That tyrant Oswyn was violently ripped apart by blackout drunk peasants and if you aren’t careful the time for revolution will be nigh again. Get rid of the royal oppressors of Spiny Norman the Hedgehog!”
“Liberté, égalité, fraternité!” yells Ásmunda Butler, the former mayor of Ubalin. “We first became a part of this great country as a direct result of when that tyrant Oswyn was violently ripped apart by blackout drunk peasants! To prevent reactionaries from poisoning and breaking apart the nation with outdated traditions, we need to denounce monarchy for the sham it is whenever it pops up, starting with the Spiny royal family!”
“Maybe there’s a compromise,” speculates Cooper Herrelko, a prolific jouster and part-time mutton farmer. “How about instead of making him the absolute monarch of Ubalin, we install King... Rex as a constitutional monarch of Ubalin. That way Ubalin stays a part of Spiny Norman the Hedgehog and continues to be run by competent politicians, but they’ll have a bit of tradition to rally behind. And imagine having an actual king open the Ubalin medieval fayre. My mutton sales will go through the roof!”
Note that I got 2 out of the 3 possible "Liberté" options instead of just one.
by Altaralk » Sat May 04, 2019 9:30 am
by The Free Joy State » Sat May 04, 2019 8:45 pm
Altaralk wrote:In this nation, where religion is banned, I received issue #520, which addresses religion in the military. Considering the options (520.1 supports preaching in the military and 520.3 supports religious tolerance) it seems an inappropiate issue for nations where religion is illegal.
TL;DR: Issue 520 should have validity "religion is legal"
by Altaralk » Sun May 05, 2019 1:31 am
The Free Joy State wrote:Altaralk wrote:In this nation, where religion is banned, I received issue #520, which addresses religion in the military. Considering the options (520.1 supports preaching in the military and 520.3 supports religious tolerance) it seems an inappropiate issue for nations where religion is illegal.
TL;DR: Issue 520 should have validity "religion is legal"
There was a small bit of code that needed altering. Nations with the Atheist policy shouldn't be able to get it now.
You'll still have the issue in your folder, so feel free to dismiss the issue. It won't impact your nation at all.
by Recuecn » Mon May 06, 2019 6:02 pm
by The Free Joy State » Mon May 06, 2019 10:49 pm
by I do not give a flip » Wed May 08, 2019 9:00 am
I do not give a flip
by The Free Joy State » Wed May 08, 2019 9:04 am
I do not give a flip wrote:Issue #549 Feasting or Fasting?
Option 2: "Why have teens fight with sticks when you can offer them carrots instead?" asks @@RANDOMNAME@@, the catering assistant who always wanted to be a chef, while wheeling in a cake tray. "Just replace all those nasty sugars and fats with healthy alternatives." She places a meringue beneath your nose, smiling with pleasure as you take a bite, "You'd never guess that meringue's made with stevia, agar gel and chickpea aquafaba egg substitute!" She beams, as you spit the chemical concoction discretely into a napkin, "Just force manufacturers to take all those nasty ingredients out of our food, and our young people will be fitter in no time."
Unless it's just me being British, I'm pretty sure they mean discreetly, not discretely.
by Durron Gin » Fri May 10, 2019 12:03 pm
by The Free Joy State » Fri May 10, 2019 6:55 pm
Durron Gin wrote:I brought this up in the game play forum, but someone recommended I bring it up here. Recently, I encountered the 'Foundering Fashionistas' issue, which is an issue about the Leader's niece developing a strange clothing line.
However, my nation has a policy of mandatory nudity, meaning it's illegal to even HAVE clothes. Originally, I only brought it up because I was concerned it might take away the policy if I took a stance on it, however the person that directed me to this thread brought up an excellent point: Why are nations with mandatory nudity even getting clothing related issues in the first place?
If the issue was that the people were tired of the enforced nudity and wanted to abolish it, thus giving the leader of the nation a 2nd chance to rethink his or her decision, than that'd be understandable, however when it's an issue on 'Do you support this exotic clothing?' or 'Should the clothing of these people with a bad history be allowed?' in a state that practices the Mandatory Nudity policy, it is somewhat redundant.
by Candlewhisper Archive » Mon May 13, 2019 1:14 pm
by Bormiar » Mon May 13, 2019 2:17 pm
“We need to take this a step further!” declares noted feminist activist @@RANDOMNAMEFEMALE@@, trying to burn her bra
by The Free Joy State » Mon May 13, 2019 7:16 pm
Bormiar wrote:Issue #932 (Teacher’s Past Blown Wide Open)
Option 3, should be:“We need to take this a step further!” declares noted feminist activist @@RANDOMNAMEFEMALE@@, trying to burn her bra
Boys don't wear bras as far as I'm concerned.
by Devil Heart » Thu May 16, 2019 2:29 pm
We should have some sort of prime directive that state what we can and can’t do up there
by Luna Amore » Thu May 16, 2019 4:14 pm
by Hediacrana » Sat May 18, 2019 4:55 pm
by The Free Joy State » Mon May 20, 2019 12:48 am
Hediacrana wrote:I got issue 601... But my nation is socialist. Would a socialist nation have private law firms?
by Demoness » Tue May 21, 2019 3:57 am
After watching the movie ‘The Fast and the Belligerent’, boyracers from all over @@NATION@@ have been petitioning for the abolition of speed limits.
by The Free Joy State » Tue May 21, 2019 5:21 am
Demoness wrote:Issue #118 Need for Speed?After watching the movie ‘The Fast and the Belligerent’, boyracers from all over @@NATION@@ have been petitioning for the abolition of speed limits.
Google and Wikipedia tell me it should be "boy racers" and that "Boyracers" is a Scottish novel. Perhaps it's correct in UK English, but I had to look it up to see what it meant and I thought I'd point this out.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement