4 ms·
It's not that bad, just not how we would normally say this. I've seen much worse English from domestic American speakers. That said: 1. Fee is definitely bette
by atdrummond 5y ago
It's not that bad, just not how we would normally say this. I've seen much worse English from domestic American speakers. That said:
1. Fee is definitely better as its plural in this case.
2. While the fees are owned/associated to the sellers, it is indeed preferable to say the "fees owed by all" to reduce any ambiguity.
- robbedpeter 5y agoIt is that bad, the meaning of the title is confusing and directly contradicts the article.
- shkkmo 5y ago> are owned/associated to the sellers "Owned to" is a incomprehensible combination of verb and preposition with no meaning in english. In addition the usage of the verb "owned" is itself incorrect and doesn't match the intended meaning as when ownership of debt/fees is discussed, the lender is said to be the person who owns the debt rather than those who owe the debt. The improper pluralization really doesn't impact the legibility of the headline. I suspect part of this is related to how many non-native speakers confuse lend and borrow since many languages only distinguish between those two verbs via preposition usage.