Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 04:11:18 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> To: Stanislav Sedov <stas@FreeBSD.org> Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org>, src-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r201477 - head/games/fortune/datfiles Message-ID: <20100106041118.GA91881@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20100105162447.7deac6d7.stas@FreeBSD.org> References: <201001040916.o049GZ1Y013061@svn.freebsd.org> <4B4384E3.2080600@FreeBSD.org> <20100105152300.eb7a66d1.stas@FreeBSD.org> <4B43D346.4020900@FreeBSD.org> <20100105162447.7deac6d7.stas@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 04:24:47PM -0800, Stanislav Sedov wrote: > from what I see from dictionaries "invasion of smth" could mean both > the action by smth, and action against smth. Is "invasion to" > grammatically incorrect? I'm far from being an expert either, but invasion is clearly "of". It can help to think of embracing, not intrusion. Also, simple Google check for "invasion of" vs. "invasion to" kinda proves the point. ./danfe P.S. OK, I admit, I'm too drunk to give technically-backed answer; "of" just sounds right to me.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100106041118.GA91881>