| 19 Nov, 2008 18:13 | Report |
|
R183 (IP Logged) Registered User |
Date Joined: Apr, 2007 Location: Posts: 207 |
| 19 Nov, 2008 18:28 | Report |
|
R183 (IP Logged) Registered User |
Date Joined: Apr, 2007 Location: Posts: 207 |
| 19 Nov, 2008 22:38 | Report |
|
Registered User |
Date Joined: Dec, 2006 Location: Posts: 1779 |
| 20 Nov, 2008 20:03 | Report |
|
mini caps (IP Logged) Registered User |
Date Joined: Oct, 2008 Location: Posts: 456 |
| 21 Nov, 2008 08:26 | Report |
|
Exeforever (IP Logged) Registered User |
Date Joined: Apr, 2007 Location: Posts: 960 |
Quote:mini caps
its not touch judges anymore its the assistant referee's

| 21 Nov, 2008 09:22 | Report |
|
Registered User |
Date Joined: Apr, 2007 Location: Posts: 1009 |
| 21 Nov, 2008 09:43 | Report |
|
Registered User |
Date Joined: Apr, 2007 Location: Wobbly Bridge Posts: 603 |
| 23 Nov, 2008 11:13 | Report |
|
Registered User |
Date Joined: Feb, 2008 Location: Exeter Posts: 888 |
Quote:ExeforeverQuote:mini caps
its not touch judges anymore its the assistant referee's
An ex-teacher of English comments:
As written this phrase means "not touch judges anymore" refers to an unspecified non-human subject (as it's in the neuter); whatever this subject is also posesses something that belongs to the assistant referee. None of this makes any sense.
If you mean "It's not "touch judges" anymore it's "the assistant referees" you should write that.