I mean Tandy Leather was a thing and they expanded into Tandy Corporation for Tandy Computers. So there is precedents but yeah this screams bubble and pets.com level of stupid.
AFAIK the ColecoVision is from the same company that made plastic sleds. Think they’re gone now - at the very least I know they did nothing about the video game copyrights expiring, making it one of the rare cases where emulating “pirated” copies of their games is perfectly legal.
The original version of the comment said, I believe “So there is precedence”. That could be fixed as “there is a precedent” or “there are precedents”. I suggested “precedents” because it seems like OP used the homophone for that one. So, “precedents” is correct, “precedence” is not.
There was fuck all need for that. I actually mostly backed you up in another comment.
Bruh, you said “Bruh. If you’re going to correct, be sure you’re correct.”, when I was correct and OP was incorrect.
I mean Tandy Leather was a thing and they expanded into Tandy Corporation for Tandy Computers. So there is precedents but yeah this screams bubble and pets.com level of stupid.
AFAIK the ColecoVision is from the same company that made plastic sleds. Think they’re gone now - at the very least I know they did nothing about the video game copyrights expiring, making it one of the rare cases where emulating “pirated” copies of their games is perfectly legal.
precedents
One is a countable noun (like ‘letters’) while the other is an uncountable mass noun (like ‘e-mail’)
“There is precedent” is actually correct in this instance. Precedents is not though as it would be plural.
Note that the original has been edited. It used to say “precedence”.
They mean different things.
Bruh. If you’re going to correct, be sure you’re correct.
I am.
There are precedents. There is precedent.
Edit: changed i to e.
Before OP edited the comment it used “precedence”. They mean different things.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/usage-of-precedent-vs-precedence
https://www.grammar-monster.com/easily_confused/precedence_precedent.htm
https://languagetool.org/insights/post/precedence-or-precedent/
https://www.thoughtco.com/precedence-precedents-and-presidents-1689468
What’s next, are you going to claim “presidents” is another alternative spelling that means the same thing?
I understand that. You used plural when you should have used singular.
They said “there is precedence” which you corrected to “prescedents” but the correct form in the example is “there is precedent”.
Edit:
There was fuck all need for that. I actually mostly backed you up in another comment.
The original version of the comment said, I believe “So there is precedence”. That could be fixed as “there is a precedent” or “there are precedents”. I suggested “precedents” because it seems like OP used the homophone for that one. So, “precedents” is correct, “precedence” is not.
Bruh, you said “Bruh. If you’re going to correct, be sure you’re correct.”, when I was correct and OP was incorrect.
Precedents is not correct. Precedent is.