>The exact reason might be unclear, but who made them isn't.

>them
What?
Also, double negative

Ah, so this is just a new stupid meme.

Like posting your stacks in the wrong orientation.

>>8691166
How is this a double negative?
It talks about 2 different things
The reason and who made them
Are you sure it's a double negative?

>>8691185
?

What is "them" referring to?

>>8691314
(((them)))

>>8691161
It's a bit unclear desu. Have to think a bit about it to actually understand it.
Also, "them" refers to the "reasons"?

>>8691161
Yes it is.

>>8691328
"Them" obviously refers to whoever made these space robots.

>>8691161
absolute perfection

>>8691851
>absolute
>perfection

Redundant

>>8691161
>Is this sentence correct?

I'm not clear on might versus may since there are conflicting details about usage, but I think might is supposed to be past subjunctive only. e.g. "What might have been"

>>8691161
>The exact reason
>them

You have a plural noun referring to a singular antecedent. A reason isn't "them." A reason is "it."

>>8691161
Yes.

File: OB-ZG115_Counse_DV_20131010200800.jpg (28KB, 262x262px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 262x262px

>The snow fell nor did it cease to fall.

Is this sentence correct?

File: stevens3.jpg (34KB, 361x480px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 361x480px

>>8692375
It's fine, but this one is more correct:

>It was snowing and it was going to snow