| 6. |
A 2020-05-20 08:01:56 Jim Breen <...address hidden...>
|
| 5. |
A* 2020-05-20 07:18:49 Marcus Richert <...address hidden...>
|
| |
Refs: |
daij |
| |
Comments: |
I don't think this is hum. |
| |
Diff: |
@@ -18 +17,0 @@
-<misc>&hum;</misc> |
| 4. |
A 2020-05-20 03:49:41 Rene Malenfant <...address hidden...>
|
| 3. |
A* 2020-05-19 18:38:00 Frazer Robinson <...address hidden...>
|
| |
Comments: |
Consistency with 1307630 and the other sibling entries |
| |
Diff: |
@@ -18,0 +19 @@
+<gloss>older brother</gloss>
@@ -20 +20,0 @@
-<gloss>older brother</gloss> |
| 2. |
A 2012-06-04 03:20:23 Jim Breen <...address hidden...>
|
| |
Refs: |
GG5, etc. |
| |
Comments: |
Both work equally well these days. In fact "older brother" is more common in WWW pages. |
| |
Diff: |
@@ -20,0 +20,1 @@
+<gloss>older brother</gloss> |
|
(show/hide 1 older log entries)
|
| 1. |
A* 2012-06-04 02:17:26 T H Ravikumar <...address hidden...>
|
| |
Comments: |
Normally as far as i know, in describing relationships, ''Older Brother'' is not correct Enlgish, only instead ''elder brother''which will be more appropriate at this juncture. |
| |
Diff: |
@@ -19,1 +19,1 @@
-<gloss>older brother</gloss>
+<gloss>elder brother</gloss> |