'A' vs 'an' in newspaper article“Dear Professor” vs “Dear Mr”: differences between British and...
A Wacky, Wacky Chessboard (That Makes No Sense)
What is Crew Dragon approaching in this picture?
How do Japanese speakers determine the implied topic when none has been mentioned?
How to mitigate "bandwagon attacking" from players?
Is divide-by-zero a security vulnerability?
Finding an integral using a table?
Could quantum mechanics be necessary to analyze some biology scenarios?
How can I mix up weapons for large groups of similar monsters/characters?
Is it a fallacy if someone claims they need an explanation for every word of your argument to the point where they don't understand common terms?
How do we edit a novel that's written by several people?
How to approximate rolls for potions of healing using only d6's?
Eww, those bytes are gross
Is my plan for fixing my water heater leak bad?
How to properly claim credit for peer review?
How much time does it take for a broken magnet to recover its poles?
Can I become debt free or should I file for bankruptcy? How do I manage my debt and finances?
Meth dealer reference in Family Guy
When does coming up with an idea constitute sufficient contribution for authorship?
Is the theory of the category of topological spaces computable?
Should I choose Itemized or Standard deduction?
I am on the US no-fly list. What can I do in order to be allowed on flights which go through US airspace?
Sometimes a banana is just a banana
Predict mars robot position
Finding ratio of the area of triangles
'A' vs 'an' in newspaper article
“Dear Professor” vs “Dear Mr”: differences between British and American usageWhat does ‘play a blinder’ mean? Is it a popular phrase?How has the usage of 'should' varied over time?Ambiguous connotation of “just” - How do natives interpret these?How was “ben't” used, and when did it cease to be used?Can you hear the difference between 'Writer' and 'Rider'? Why?“Milk in first and Indian”—what does it mean?“what hair colour have you got?” or “what colour hair have you got?”The first “topless” manAdjectives or compound noun?
In this Guardian article
There is this sentence
No one was onboard the Dragon capsule that launched on Saturday on its
first test flight, only an dummy .
My question is why it is written "only an dummy " instead of "a dummy"?
Edit: Only words with first letter as vowels (if)will be having "an"?
british-english
asked 16 hours ago
PushparajPushparaj
1113
add a comment |
In this Guardian article
There is this sentence
No one was onboard the Dragon capsule that launched on Saturday on its
first test flight, only an dummy .
My question is why it is written "only an dummy " instead of "a dummy"?
Edit: Only words with first letter as vowels (if)will be having "an"?
british-english
asked 16 hours ago
PushparajPushparaj
1113
12
Because whatever word was after "an" was deleted by the copy editors.
– Hot Licks
16 hours ago
2
The word was instrumented, an instrumented dummy.
– user337391
16 hours ago
add a comment |
In this Guardian article
There is this sentence
No one was onboard the Dragon capsule that launched on Saturday on its
first test flight, only an dummy .
My question is why it is written "only an dummy " instead of "a dummy"?
Edit: Only words with first letter as vowels (if)will be having "an"?
british-english
asked 16 hours ago
PushparajPushparaj
1113
In this Guardian article
There is this sentence
No one was onboard the Dragon capsule that launched on Saturday on its
first test flight, only an dummy .
My question is why it is written "only an dummy " instead of "a dummy"?
Edit: Only words with first letter as vowels (if)will be having "an"?
british-english
british-english
asked 16 hours ago
PushparajPushparaj
1113
asked 16 hours ago
PushparajPushparaj
1113
edited 10 hours ago
Pushparaj
asked 16 hours ago
PushparajPushparaj
1113
asked 16 hours ago
PushparajPushparaj
1113
asked 16 hours ago
PushparajPushparaj
1113
1113
12
Because whatever word was after "an" was deleted by the copy editors.
– Hot Licks
16 hours ago
2
The word was instrumented, an instrumented dummy.
– user337391
16 hours ago
add a comment |
12
Because whatever word was after "an" was deleted by the copy editors.
– Hot Licks
16 hours ago
2
The word was instrumented, an instrumented dummy.
– user337391
16 hours ago
12
12
Because whatever word was after "an" was deleted by the copy editors.
– Hot Licks
16 hours ago
Because whatever word was after "an" was deleted by the copy editors.
– Hot Licks
16 hours ago
2
2
The word was instrumented, an instrumented dummy.
– user337391
16 hours ago
The word was instrumented, an instrumented dummy.
– user337391
16 hours ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
The guardian is famous for having a propensity for errors to slip past the editors. (Apocryphally even misspelling its own name as the The Grauniad). I suspect a busy sub editor removed an adjective beginning with a vowel such as "instrumented" from the phrase "an instrumented dummy", to fit the article into the space available.
answered 16 hours ago
jamesjames
2213
2
It never misspelled its own name! "The Grauniad" was the jocular name given to it by the satirical magazine Private Eye in recognition of its many typos.
– TonyK
10 hours ago
2
@TonyK - The OED defines "Apocryphally" as "In an apocryphal manner; fabulously, falsely" so I don't think I ever asserted that it did misspell its own name.
– james
9 hours ago
1
@james I think it's misleading. Apocryphal can mean "of dubious veracity," and that's the meaning I took from the context. It sounds like the answer is saying that The Guardian is said to have misspelled its own name on at least one occasion, but no proof of it ever happening seems to actually exist.
– Justin Lardinois
9 hours ago
@TonyK - I think you'll find lots of people believe, incorrectly, or at least have heard the story, that the Guardian did misspell its own mast-head. To misquote Bierce: it's too good a lie to be killed by a mere truth! I was certainly told this in school by a friend in 90s. But fair enough - point taken.
– james
8 hours ago
Proofreading is a art
– IMil
4 hours ago
add a comment |
This is clearly an error on their part. The article 'a' only agrees with the singular subject dummy.
Either this is particularly sloppy proofreading, or, as @Hot Licks has mentioned, the copy editors have removed a word and forgotten to change the article.
Well done for spotting this. The Guardian should feel ashamed.
They are known for letting things slip, as mentioned in the other answer.
answered 16 hours ago
LordologyLordology
1,101116
1
A Google search for the exact text quoted finds numerous copies, and for "only an dummy" finds quite a few. To be fair to the Guardian, they got a lot better in the 1990s after introducing computerised publishing systems. The paper does not hide from the topic. I think some people bash the Guardian because of its slightly left of centre position; I have seen worse in the Daily Mail.
– Michael Harvey
10 hours ago
@Michael I don't think that the person who'd attack the Guardian for their leftish position would notice these errors much. I'd assume this has more to do with Guardian readers noticing these things more and having higher expectations of their newspaper than Daily Mail readers. As someone who has only read the paper for about a decade, I never thought of it as being worse than say the NYT or the FAZ in this regard.
– Voo
10 hours ago
Voo - "I'd assume this has more to do with Guardian readers noticing these things more and having higher expectations of their newspaper than Daily Mail readers. " - This is the view I prefer to take. If you want to see a really bad newspaper, look at the Daily Express.
– Michael Harvey
9 hours ago
1
This answer doesn't add anything the other answer didn't already state.
– Azor Ahai
5 hours ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "97"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f488080%2fa-vs-an-in-newspaper-article%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
The guardian is famous for having a propensity for errors to slip past the editors. (Apocryphally even misspelling its own name as the The Grauniad). I suspect a busy sub editor removed an adjective beginning with a vowel such as "instrumented" from the phrase "an instrumented dummy", to fit the article into the space available.
answered 16 hours ago
jamesjames
2213
2
It never misspelled its own name! "The Grauniad" was the jocular name given to it by the satirical magazine Private Eye in recognition of its many typos.
– TonyK
10 hours ago
2
@TonyK - The OED defines "Apocryphally" as "In an apocryphal manner; fabulously, falsely" so I don't think I ever asserted that it did misspell its own name.
– james
9 hours ago
1
@james I think it's misleading. Apocryphal can mean "of dubious veracity," and that's the meaning I took from the context. It sounds like the answer is saying that The Guardian is said to have misspelled its own name on at least one occasion, but no proof of it ever happening seems to actually exist.
– Justin Lardinois
9 hours ago
@TonyK - I think you'll find lots of people believe, incorrectly, or at least have heard the story, that the Guardian did misspell its own mast-head. To misquote Bierce: it's too good a lie to be killed by a mere truth! I was certainly told this in school by a friend in 90s. But fair enough - point taken.
– james
8 hours ago
Proofreading is a art
– IMil
4 hours ago
add a comment |
The guardian is famous for having a propensity for errors to slip past the editors. (Apocryphally even misspelling its own name as the The Grauniad). I suspect a busy sub editor removed an adjective beginning with a vowel such as "instrumented" from the phrase "an instrumented dummy", to fit the article into the space available.
answered 16 hours ago
jamesjames
2213
2
It never misspelled its own name! "The Grauniad" was the jocular name given to it by the satirical magazine Private Eye in recognition of its many typos.
– TonyK
10 hours ago
2
@TonyK - The OED defines "Apocryphally" as "In an apocryphal manner; fabulously, falsely" so I don't think I ever asserted that it did misspell its own name.
– james
9 hours ago
1
@james I think it's misleading. Apocryphal can mean "of dubious veracity," and that's the meaning I took from the context. It sounds like the answer is saying that The Guardian is said to have misspelled its own name on at least one occasion, but no proof of it ever happening seems to actually exist.
– Justin Lardinois
9 hours ago
@TonyK - I think you'll find lots of people believe, incorrectly, or at least have heard the story, that the Guardian did misspell its own mast-head. To misquote Bierce: it's too good a lie to be killed by a mere truth! I was certainly told this in school by a friend in 90s. But fair enough - point taken.
– james
8 hours ago
Proofreading is a art
– IMil
4 hours ago
add a comment |
The guardian is famous for having a propensity for errors to slip past the editors. (Apocryphally even misspelling its own name as the The Grauniad). I suspect a busy sub editor removed an adjective beginning with a vowel such as "instrumented" from the phrase "an instrumented dummy", to fit the article into the space available.
answered 16 hours ago
jamesjames
2213
The guardian is famous for having a propensity for errors to slip past the editors. (Apocryphally even misspelling its own name as the The Grauniad). I suspect a busy sub editor removed an adjective beginning with a vowel such as "instrumented" from the phrase "an instrumented dummy", to fit the article into the space available.
answered 16 hours ago
jamesjames
2213
answered 16 hours ago
jamesjames
2213
answered 16 hours ago
jamesjames
2213
answered 16 hours ago
jamesjames
2213
2213
2
It never misspelled its own name! "The Grauniad" was the jocular name given to it by the satirical magazine Private Eye in recognition of its many typos.
– TonyK
10 hours ago
2
@TonyK - The OED defines "Apocryphally" as "In an apocryphal manner; fabulously, falsely" so I don't think I ever asserted that it did misspell its own name.
– james
9 hours ago
1
@james I think it's misleading. Apocryphal can mean "of dubious veracity," and that's the meaning I took from the context. It sounds like the answer is saying that The Guardian is said to have misspelled its own name on at least one occasion, but no proof of it ever happening seems to actually exist.
– Justin Lardinois
9 hours ago
@TonyK - I think you'll find lots of people believe, incorrectly, or at least have heard the story, that the Guardian did misspell its own mast-head. To misquote Bierce: it's too good a lie to be killed by a mere truth! I was certainly told this in school by a friend in 90s. But fair enough - point taken.
– james
8 hours ago
Proofreading is a art
– IMil
4 hours ago
add a comment |
2
It never misspelled its own name! "The Grauniad" was the jocular name given to it by the satirical magazine Private Eye in recognition of its many typos.
– TonyK
10 hours ago
2
@TonyK - The OED defines "Apocryphally" as "In an apocryphal manner; fabulously, falsely" so I don't think I ever asserted that it did misspell its own name.
– james
9 hours ago
1
@james I think it's misleading. Apocryphal can mean "of dubious veracity," and that's the meaning I took from the context. It sounds like the answer is saying that The Guardian is said to have misspelled its own name on at least one occasion, but no proof of it ever happening seems to actually exist.
– Justin Lardinois
9 hours ago
@TonyK - I think you'll find lots of people believe, incorrectly, or at least have heard the story, that the Guardian did misspell its own mast-head. To misquote Bierce: it's too good a lie to be killed by a mere truth! I was certainly told this in school by a friend in 90s. But fair enough - point taken.
– james
8 hours ago
Proofreading is a art
– IMil
4 hours ago
2
2
It never misspelled its own name! "The Grauniad" was the jocular name given to it by the satirical magazine Private Eye in recognition of its many typos.
– TonyK
10 hours ago
It never misspelled its own name! "The Grauniad" was the jocular name given to it by the satirical magazine Private Eye in recognition of its many typos.
– TonyK
10 hours ago
2
2
@TonyK - The OED defines "Apocryphally" as "In an apocryphal manner; fabulously, falsely" so I don't think I ever asserted that it did misspell its own name.
– james
9 hours ago
@TonyK - The OED defines "Apocryphally" as "In an apocryphal manner; fabulously, falsely" so I don't think I ever asserted that it did misspell its own name.
– james
9 hours ago
1
1
@james I think it's misleading. Apocryphal can mean "of dubious veracity," and that's the meaning I took from the context. It sounds like the answer is saying that The Guardian is said to have misspelled its own name on at least one occasion, but no proof of it ever happening seems to actually exist.
– Justin Lardinois
9 hours ago
@james I think it's misleading. Apocryphal can mean "of dubious veracity," and that's the meaning I took from the context. It sounds like the answer is saying that The Guardian is said to have misspelled its own name on at least one occasion, but no proof of it ever happening seems to actually exist.
– Justin Lardinois
9 hours ago
@TonyK - I think you'll find lots of people believe, incorrectly, or at least have heard the story, that the Guardian did misspell its own mast-head. To misquote Bierce: it's too good a lie to be killed by a mere truth! I was certainly told this in school by a friend in 90s. But fair enough - point taken.
– james
8 hours ago
@TonyK - I think you'll find lots of people believe, incorrectly, or at least have heard the story, that the Guardian did misspell its own mast-head. To misquote Bierce: it's too good a lie to be killed by a mere truth! I was certainly told this in school by a friend in 90s. But fair enough - point taken.
– james
8 hours ago
Proofreading is a art
– IMil
4 hours ago
Proofreading is a art
– IMil
4 hours ago
add a comment |
This is clearly an error on their part. The article 'a' only agrees with the singular subject dummy.
Either this is particularly sloppy proofreading, or, as @Hot Licks has mentioned, the copy editors have removed a word and forgotten to change the article.
Well done for spotting this. The Guardian should feel ashamed.
They are known for letting things slip, as mentioned in the other answer.
answered 16 hours ago
LordologyLordology
1,101116
1
A Google search for the exact text quoted finds numerous copies, and for "only an dummy" finds quite a few. To be fair to the Guardian, they got a lot better in the 1990s after introducing computerised publishing systems. The paper does not hide from the topic. I think some people bash the Guardian because of its slightly left of centre position; I have seen worse in the Daily Mail.
– Michael Harvey
10 hours ago
@Michael I don't think that the person who'd attack the Guardian for their leftish position would notice these errors much. I'd assume this has more to do with Guardian readers noticing these things more and having higher expectations of their newspaper than Daily Mail readers. As someone who has only read the paper for about a decade, I never thought of it as being worse than say the NYT or the FAZ in this regard.
– Voo
10 hours ago
Voo - "I'd assume this has more to do with Guardian readers noticing these things more and having higher expectations of their newspaper than Daily Mail readers. " - This is the view I prefer to take. If you want to see a really bad newspaper, look at the Daily Express.
– Michael Harvey
9 hours ago
1
This answer doesn't add anything the other answer didn't already state.
– Azor Ahai
5 hours ago
add a comment |
This is clearly an error on their part. The article 'a' only agrees with the singular subject dummy.
Either this is particularly sloppy proofreading, or, as @Hot Licks has mentioned, the copy editors have removed a word and forgotten to change the article.
Well done for spotting this. The Guardian should feel ashamed.
They are known for letting things slip, as mentioned in the other answer.
answered 16 hours ago
LordologyLordology
1,101116
1
A Google search for the exact text quoted finds numerous copies, and for "only an dummy" finds quite a few. To be fair to the Guardian, they got a lot better in the 1990s after introducing computerised publishing systems. The paper does not hide from the topic. I think some people bash the Guardian because of its slightly left of centre position; I have seen worse in the Daily Mail.
– Michael Harvey
10 hours ago
@Michael I don't think that the person who'd attack the Guardian for their leftish position would notice these errors much. I'd assume this has more to do with Guardian readers noticing these things more and having higher expectations of their newspaper than Daily Mail readers. As someone who has only read the paper for about a decade, I never thought of it as being worse than say the NYT or the FAZ in this regard.
– Voo
10 hours ago
Voo - "I'd assume this has more to do with Guardian readers noticing these things more and having higher expectations of their newspaper than Daily Mail readers. " - This is the view I prefer to take. If you want to see a really bad newspaper, look at the Daily Express.
– Michael Harvey
9 hours ago
1
This answer doesn't add anything the other answer didn't already state.
– Azor Ahai
5 hours ago
add a comment |
This is clearly an error on their part. The article 'a' only agrees with the singular subject dummy.
Either this is particularly sloppy proofreading, or, as @Hot Licks has mentioned, the copy editors have removed a word and forgotten to change the article.
Well done for spotting this. The Guardian should feel ashamed.
They are known for letting things slip, as mentioned in the other answer.
answered 16 hours ago
LordologyLordology
1,101116
This is clearly an error on their part. The article 'a' only agrees with the singular subject dummy.
Either this is particularly sloppy proofreading, or, as @Hot Licks has mentioned, the copy editors have removed a word and forgotten to change the article.
Well done for spotting this. The Guardian should feel ashamed.
They are known for letting things slip, as mentioned in the other answer.
answered 16 hours ago
LordologyLordology
1,101116
answered 16 hours ago
LordologyLordology
1,101116
answered 16 hours ago
LordologyLordology
1,101116
answered 16 hours ago
LordologyLordology
1,101116
1,101116
1
A Google search for the exact text quoted finds numerous copies, and for "only an dummy" finds quite a few. To be fair to the Guardian, they got a lot better in the 1990s after introducing computerised publishing systems. The paper does not hide from the topic. I think some people bash the Guardian because of its slightly left of centre position; I have seen worse in the Daily Mail.
– Michael Harvey
10 hours ago
@Michael I don't think that the person who'd attack the Guardian for their leftish position would notice these errors much. I'd assume this has more to do with Guardian readers noticing these things more and having higher expectations of their newspaper than Daily Mail readers. As someone who has only read the paper for about a decade, I never thought of it as being worse than say the NYT or the FAZ in this regard.
– Voo
10 hours ago
Voo - "I'd assume this has more to do with Guardian readers noticing these things more and having higher expectations of their newspaper than Daily Mail readers. " - This is the view I prefer to take. If you want to see a really bad newspaper, look at the Daily Express.
– Michael Harvey
9 hours ago
1
This answer doesn't add anything the other answer didn't already state.
– Azor Ahai
5 hours ago
add a comment |
1
A Google search for the exact text quoted finds numerous copies, and for "only an dummy" finds quite a few. To be fair to the Guardian, they got a lot better in the 1990s after introducing computerised publishing systems. The paper does not hide from the topic. I think some people bash the Guardian because of its slightly left of centre position; I have seen worse in the Daily Mail.
– Michael Harvey
10 hours ago
@Michael I don't think that the person who'd attack the Guardian for their leftish position would notice these errors much. I'd assume this has more to do with Guardian readers noticing these things more and having higher expectations of their newspaper than Daily Mail readers. As someone who has only read the paper for about a decade, I never thought of it as being worse than say the NYT or the FAZ in this regard.
– Voo
10 hours ago
Voo - "I'd assume this has more to do with Guardian readers noticing these things more and having higher expectations of their newspaper than Daily Mail readers. " - This is the view I prefer to take. If you want to see a really bad newspaper, look at the Daily Express.
– Michael Harvey
9 hours ago
1
This answer doesn't add anything the other answer didn't already state.
– Azor Ahai
5 hours ago
1
1
A Google search for the exact text quoted finds numerous copies, and for "only an dummy" finds quite a few. To be fair to the Guardian, they got a lot better in the 1990s after introducing computerised publishing systems. The paper does not hide from the topic. I think some people bash the Guardian because of its slightly left of centre position; I have seen worse in the Daily Mail.
– Michael Harvey
10 hours ago
A Google search for the exact text quoted finds numerous copies, and for "only an dummy" finds quite a few. To be fair to the Guardian, they got a lot better in the 1990s after introducing computerised publishing systems. The paper does not hide from the topic. I think some people bash the Guardian because of its slightly left of centre position; I have seen worse in the Daily Mail.
– Michael Harvey
10 hours ago
@Michael I don't think that the person who'd attack the Guardian for their leftish position would notice these errors much. I'd assume this has more to do with Guardian readers noticing these things more and having higher expectations of their newspaper than Daily Mail readers. As someone who has only read the paper for about a decade, I never thought of it as being worse than say the NYT or the FAZ in this regard.
– Voo
10 hours ago
@Michael I don't think that the person who'd attack the Guardian for their leftish position would notice these errors much. I'd assume this has more to do with Guardian readers noticing these things more and having higher expectations of their newspaper than Daily Mail readers. As someone who has only read the paper for about a decade, I never thought of it as being worse than say the NYT or the FAZ in this regard.
– Voo
10 hours ago
Voo - "I'd assume this has more to do with Guardian readers noticing these things more and having higher expectations of their newspaper than Daily Mail readers. " - This is the view I prefer to take. If you want to see a really bad newspaper, look at the Daily Express.
– Michael Harvey
9 hours ago
Voo - "I'd assume this has more to do with Guardian readers noticing these things more and having higher expectations of their newspaper than Daily Mail readers. " - This is the view I prefer to take. If you want to see a really bad newspaper, look at the Daily Express.
– Michael Harvey
9 hours ago
1
1
This answer doesn't add anything the other answer didn't already state.
– Azor Ahai
5 hours ago
This answer doesn't add anything the other answer didn't already state.
– Azor Ahai
5 hours ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f488080%2fa-vs-an-in-newspaper-article%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
12
Because whatever word was after "an" was deleted by the copy editors.
– Hot Licks
16 hours ago
2
The word was instrumented, an instrumented dummy.
– user337391
16 hours ago