GoodTaste
Key Member
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2016
- Member Type
- Student or Learner
- Native Language
- Chinese
- Home Country
- China
- Current Location
- China
The researchers concluded that 2 of the 11 marks were from lion bites, but that the other 9 were made by stone tools — suggesting that one individual might have been butchering another. The authors ruled out other cut-making processes, such as wear or blemishes left by people handling the bone after it was were discovered; the colour of the marks match that of the bone’s surface, indicating they are of the same age, says Probiner.
Source: Nature
Okay now we've found a typo left by an editor of prestigious Nature: ......after it was were discovered.
The question here is: which one should be removed: was or were? I'm scraching my head and unable to decide. Because it depends on whether you take it as subjunctive mood or realistic: the former invites "were" to stay while the latter is hospitable to "was".
Which is better?
Source: Nature
Okay now we've found a typo left by an editor of prestigious Nature: ......after it was were discovered.
The question here is: which one should be removed: was or were? I'm scraching my head and unable to decide. Because it depends on whether you take it as subjunctive mood or realistic: the former invites "were" to stay while the latter is hospitable to "was".
Which is better?
Last edited: