Oops, that should be ...[comment]...

But, Estragib, when "below" is followed by "changes" it is no longer functioning as a noun. Even the examples you give could be understood as "the [comments] above is Theseus's opinion".

I'm afraid the exact opposite is true. If you are agreeing with a negative question, you should answer no. If you are agreeing witha positive question, you should answer yes. If you are disagreeing with a positive, you answer no. If you are disagreeing with a positive, you answer yes:

Are you going to eat that? Yes I am / No I'm not.

You're not going to eat that, are you? Yes I am / No I'm not.

The negative ellicits the same response, i.e., since the question is now negative, yes I am is disagreeing, No I'm not is agreeing.

Note, the French (and other languages) have a separate word for disagreeing with a negative. Oui is yes. Non is no. Si is yes, but only in an answer that contradicts a negative question.

Perhaps a better answer would be to say it's the genitive of measure rather than the possesive. See:

http://www.alt-usage-english.org/genitive_and_possessive.html

or another posting from this site about "two weeks' notice":

http://www.painintheenglish.com/post.php?id=26

Adding "that" might make the sentence clearer, but such a "that" is optional. The sentence is correct as is, albeit somewhat colorful. If it's ok (grammatically or logically) for someone to make someone else do something, then identifying that "someone" in the manner in question is ok.

I assume that "Sandra makes someone do something" doesn't bother you. "Sandra makes someone do crazy stuff" is also ok, right? "crazy stuff" is certainly colorful, but not ungrammatical. Sandra makes a goofy kid do crazy stuff" should also be ok, right? So you see the goofy kid and say: "Hey, you're that goofy kid!" (Which goofy kid?) "that goofy kid that Sandra makes do crazy stuff." Take away the optional "that" and you have the original sentence.

PS - it isn't really a garden path sentence. In order to misconstrue "Sandra" as the name of the goofy kid, there would have to be a comma before Sandra.

If affectatious truly means ""of the nature of affectation" then I think that "In my novel, should I use the word 'dahling' for 'darling' when spoken by an affectatious woman?" would be incorrect. Only the action can be affectatious, not the person carrying out the action. An affected person does something affectatious. Affectious is also a word, but seems to mean something completely different.

The original phrase in question: "Some people may have doubt that why invest in these sectors during the economy slump?" is a non-sequitor. The problem is that "Some people may have doubt that..." must be followed by an assertion that can be viewed as either true or false.

Something like: "Some people may have doubt that investing in these sectors is prudent during the economy slump." is ok because "investing in these sectors is prudent during the economy slump" is an assertion that is either true or false. Either it is a good idea or a bad idea to invest now. If the economy is bad, then you can doubt an assertion that it's a good time to invest.

But, "why invest in these sectors during the economy slump?" doesn't assert anything. You can't doubt a question. It's like saying "I doubt that who is at the door?" You can say that "I doubt that John is at the door" or you can say that you doubt that anyone is at the door, but you can't say that you doubt that who is at the door.

In order for something to be doubtable, it has to assert something to be doubted in the first place.

Oh, and instead of "Some people may have doubts in investing into these sectors during the economy slump." I would suggest "Some people may have doubts about investing in these sectors during the economy slump."

Actually, instead of "four day's journey" or "four days journey", I would write "four days' journey", the plural possessive. "Four days' journey" means a "journey of four days". The possessive phrase is turned around to eliminate the "of" (yes, journey does "belong" to days) and days is plural. Of course, you can use "four-day journey" as well. It's not better per se, just different.

Actually, Super Student, in spite of your sarcasm, Ralph is right, at least, mostly; although, he's referring not to the plural, but to the subjunctive tense, which in the past tense looks the same as the plural.

I think, Mr Student, that you might be in need of further study yourself. "If there was a flying pig..." is incorrect and should be "If there were a flying pig...", especially with the doubt you are implying, exactly as Ralph proposed.

As for how this affects the original question, "If there is more than one user..." is fine without the subjunctive. The indicative form, not the subjunctive, may be used when the outcome may not be in doubt. Clearly there are sometimes situations with more than one user, so the subjunctive isn't needed here.

While we're at it, the present subjunctive is "be" not the seemingly plural "were". If the existence of more than one user were unlikely and you really wanted to use the present tense, then I suppose you should write: "If there be more than one user..." Gee, doesn't that sound awkward.

Oh, and last, the subjunctive is gradually fading from use. As much as it grates on my nerves, I hear "if I was you..." more and more frequently. Eventually it will be come standard. Some say it already is.

The English teacher labelling "couldn't care less" as an incorrect double negative is mistaken. For one thing, If he or she were right, that would not justify saying "could care less". It would justify saying "could care more" which is what you get when you cancel the "double negative". Obviously "could care more" (or, even worse, "could care more or the same".) does not convey the same sentiment or have quite the same meaning.

I can care more, I can care less. Not caring more is not the same as caring less, and vice versa. I can eat more. I can eat less. Not eating more is not the same as eating less and vice versa. If I take off my clothes then I can't weigh any less. Saying I can weigh more is irrelevant and does not mean the same thing. Etc., etc.

Oh, and I always thought that "could care less" was just intentionally stating the opposite of "couldn't care less" with the addition of a lot of sarcasm, usually preceded by "oh, like I..." or sometimes "as if I..."