Track_Shovel@slrpnk.net to Lemmy Shitpost@lemmy.worldEnglish · 4 天前Stand your groundslrpnk.netimagemessage-square45fedilinkarrow-up1919arrow-down17
arrow-up1912arrow-down1imageStand your groundslrpnk.netTrack_Shovel@slrpnk.net to Lemmy Shitpost@lemmy.worldEnglish · 4 天前message-square45fedilink
minus-squareatro_city@fedia.iolinkfedilinkarrow-up9·4 天前Lotters? Is this some vernacular I’m unfamiliar with?
minus-squareFarid@startrek.websitelinkfedilinkarrow-up9·4 天前They attempted to write “Loiters* will be shot* on sight”.
minus-squareTypotyper@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkarrow-up11·4 天前Or “Looters” Or “Lawyers” Or “Losers” Or maybe it really is “L’Otters”. Those radical left rascals causing mayhem and dissection in the workers.
minus-squareFarid@startrek.websitelinkfedilinkarrow-up1·3 天前Yes, but we don’t know if that’s what they wanted to write. But in that case, maybe they also wanted to write “shoot” and not “shot”, so yeah, fair point.
minus-squareFarid@startrek.websitelinkfedilinkarrow-up2·3 天前That’s what they tried to write, but to be lexically correct it should be “loiterers”.
Lotters? Is this some vernacular I’m unfamiliar with?
It says, in fact, LOπERS.
LOPIERS
WILL BE SH∞T ON SIGHT
They attempted to write “Loiters* will be shot* on sight”.
Or “Looters” Or “Lawyers” Or “Losers” Or maybe it really is “L’Otters”. Those radical left rascals causing mayhem and dissection in the workers.
Wouldn’t it be loiterers?
LotRers.
Fans of Lord of the Rings.
And wouldn’t it be shooted?
Yes, but we don’t know if that’s what they wanted to write. But in that case, maybe they also wanted to write “shoot” and not “shot”, so yeah, fair point.
What’s a loiter?
That’s what they tried to write, but to be lexically correct it should be “loiterers”.