The Young Protectors - Legendary Chapter Three, Page 13

There were the two glimpses we got in the Spooky Bonus comic. And I believe some mentions in the short stories here on Patreon, but no, so far we haven't learned much about his time in Hell. I'm glad to hear you're rooting for Kyle and Spooky. They need all the support they can get right now. :)

Alex Woolfson

Is spooky’s time in hell ever gone into in more detail previously or it’s just only been mentioned here and there? Also totally love Kyle and Spooky so I hope they can help demon kid get free so it’s not hanging over their ability to be together.

That's it! They need to have some serious make-up sex right now! Get all that angst of youth out of their systems and then they can buckle down to the problem of healing the hurt that Anaado feels and Kyle back to himself and able to prove that he isn't Daddy's boy...

Charles Fassel

Oh really? That's amazing, German is such a horrible language to learn x'D, loads of exceptions and barely any good rules to remember when it comes to word building... you have my respect! I hope those are nice memories ^^

Nadin Brokop

And I might also be influenced by the fact that I studied German in college and lived in Austria for a year, which is making me question my own ears. This discussion of sub-clauses brings me back to my student days! :D

Alex Woolfson

I gotta admit I might actually also have used a different sentence to say it and kinda forcefully put it with the "you, who" now x'D but I might also just be very influenced from German, we do loads of relative clauses and well... long sentences with dzoens of subclauses in general, so it might sound more familiar to me as I could translate it nearly one-to-one to German or something? I mean there are dozens of "joke translations" that make absolutely no sense in English but if a German reads them they understand because it's like a German sentence that just happens to use English vocab x'D

Nadin Brokop

I'm like you - when I learn a language, it's important to me to sound as natural as possible, even if it's not technically correct. (So long as I still sound polite and respectful, anyway. :) ) The example you give sounds like a plausible context, but to my ears, if someone were to say those words to me, at best, they'd come off as awkwardly formal. Like, "Downton Abbey" formal. In that situation, I'd probably say something like "My next door neighbor is pretty loud at night, but since you live across the street, you probably don't notice." The "you, who" construction is just not one I've heard in my day-to-day, U.S. life. At least, I'm pretty sure I haven't heard it, except in the negative form of "you, who don't". But it's fun to come up with possibilities! Maybe something like "My co-workers think I'm boring, but you, who actually do know me, understand that I'm a total party animal." But no -- that sounds weird too. I'd actually say something like -- "but you, as someone who actually does know me" instead. Both "but you, who actually do know me" and "but you, who actually does know me" sound off to my ears, the "does" especially...

Alex Woolfson

I always have troubles to come up with good examples x'D but maybe with a bit of context: My direct neighbour is pretty loud at night but you, who lives across the street, don't have to bother with that" ... or sth like that? Would you rather use "live" here instead of "lives", too? It's interesting to me as well, at the end of the day I'd rather like to speak English that is understood by English speakers and nt only by the person who taught me in school a decade ago ^^

Nadin Brokop

I could totally believe that's the correct rule. "You, who lives across the street" actually sounds odd to my ears, but perhaps that's because no one I know would use "who" that way in a sentence with "you". (I might hear something like "you, my friendly neighbor who lives across the street" but then, in my mind, I'm conjugating "lives" with "neighbor" not "who".) I find it completely plausible that the technical rule is to switch to 3rd person in a dependent clause in English, but I'm having a hard time coming up with an example that sounds like natural speech to my ears. An interesting challenge! As someone who enjoys language and enjoys learning languages, this is an interesting discussion for me. We'll see what other folks think.

Alex Woolfson

The reason I asked is because I learned it like this: grammatically 3rd person always needs "does/doesn't" and the "who" switches to 3rd person in the subclause, even if it relates to the "you" in the main clause semantically, it grammatically is 3rd person x'D it is the "adding of the -s" in third person rule, like you would also say "you, who live<b>s</b> across the street" and not "live", right? well "correct" language and "spoken" language can be totally different but I was curious anyway :)

Nadin Brokop

I'm not sure if it's formally correct or not, but in natural speech, it would be common to common to conjugate the verb this way. (An English major can chime in here about what would be technically correct. :) )The "who" refers to "you" not "it", so I would typically hear "it's you, who don't understand". But perhaps "it's you, who doesn't understand" would work too? It doesn't sound totally foreign to my ears, even though it wouldn't be how I would say it as a native speaker...

Alex Woolfson

non-native here but I was wondering if it shouldn't be "you, who <b>doesn't</b> understand" in the 5th speechbubble? Or is it just a slang to say don't?

Nadin Brokop

Jealous ex won't quit

Toruk