Does the sentence make sense ‘A sub-reddit for academics’/’admissions/education’?
Am attempting to change the description for a sub Reddit for Indian academics. This Sub Reddit may be going too long!
In this context, we don’t understand the complete grammar of English, and our user thinks this sentence is having
grammatical mistake. A sub-reddit for questions, discussion and resource sharing on Indian academics/admissions/education.
Are Indians’ academics the problem?
If this I understand as a non specialist
in language/linguistics, then my understanding comes from use and convention. When used in the sentence “indian academics/admissions/education”, is Indian plural because it refers to the Indians as a people. Indians would show possession but it would be incorrect to use “Indian’s academics” since correct use would be India’s academics. India is plural but when used as “Indians academics/admission/education” the grammar is off since “/” is a substitute for and-or hence will read “Indians academics and-or research and education”. Hence right convention should be (in Hindi/Japanese)”, ‘on academics/admissions/education for India’ or ‘on academics/admissions/education for indians. I am new to Indian Language. I want to learn about their customs. I’m not familiar with how Indian language is used.
We are discussing here: https://www.reddit.com/ – a discussion site. com/r/Indian_Academia/comments/8gmq61/suggest_the_changes_for_the_description_of_the/dyj6opu/
We thought, here we would know on whether the sentence is grammatically correct or not in least time. Why are we even thinking to have the word “regarding”, but not
on?
How does the universe work? An Indian is both a noun and an adjective. Your use of Indian s apostrophe dictates it as a noun and that you are expressing a possessive relationship. Although it’s grammatically correct, it is nevertheless less descriptive of what you are really trying to say, I believe is AI (academic of Indian descent) as opposed to AI (academic who belongs to Indians)!
What are the reasons for a
second point, but the second point is well done?
