Centre manager Paula Sadler, 56, said: 'Before Earnest was given the contact lenses he was quite squinty and had trouble seeing where he was going.
'Now his eyes have opened up and he has a new lease of life.
Link -via Fark
Centre manager Paula Sadler, 56, said: 'Before Earnest was given the contact lenses he was quite squinty and had trouble seeing where he was going.
'Now his eyes have opened up and he has a new lease of life.
Both in the title of this thread and in its first sentence, the pronoun, "who," is used. [Look up and read again.] The pronoun, "that," should have been used instead of "who" -- for two reasons:
1. The context calls for the word that is used to start a "restrictive clause." The proper word is "that."
2. Even if the context had called for the kind of word that is used to start a "non-restrictive clause," "who" would have been the wrong choice. The proper word would have been, "which." The word, "who," is used only to refer to PERSONS (i.e., divine, angelic, or human beings). The word, "who," is NOT used to refer to impersonal things (such as cats).
Nowadays, some people with an ill-trained ability to perceive facts wrongly consider some things (such as plants and animals) to be persons, so they mistakenly use personal pronouns, such as "he" or "she" (instead of "it") and "who" (instead of "which").
Miss Cellania
"Hey, my ability to perceive facts wrongly is not ill-trained! I am a master at perceiving facts wrongly!"
Bravo!
I guess even a plain 2X or 3X could be a great improvement.
BTW this story was really an AWH story. Once in a while mankind does something really nice.
Don't mind AnUnSi; there just weren't any abortion stories to complain about this week.