zlacker
[parent]
[thread]
3 comments
1. permo-+(OP)
[view]
[source]
2023-03-01 15:05:32
this is pedantic, but the parent comment was conjugating "to have" to "had" via the subjunctive, not via the past tense
replies(2):
>>udev40+cy
>>wodeno+sc2
◧
2. udev40+cy
[view]
[source]
2023-03-01 17:29:50
>>permo-+(OP)
He's right tho
replies(1):
>>permo-+231
◧◩
3. permo-+231
[view]
[source]
[discussion]
2023-03-01 19:37:39
>>udev40+cy
oh yeah of course, no question there
◧
4. wodeno+sc2
[view]
[source]
2023-03-02 03:31:04
>>permo-+(OP)
I don’t know what a subjunctive is. Maybe that is what caused the confusion.
[go to top]