Etsy is canceling the fee owned to all sellers in Ukraine(blog.etsy.com)
blog.etsy.com
Etsy is canceling the fee owned to all sellers in Ukraine
https://blog.etsy.com/news/2022/standing-with-our-community-when-it-matters-most/
15 comments
Yeah. It's not actually the original title of the blog post either, which is 'Standing with Our Community When It Matters Most'.
Note, this is cancelled debt or fees Ukrainians owe Etsy
Yes, plus on Etsy owned services
> we are canceling the current balances owed to Etsy by all sellers in Ukraine
> we are canceling the current balances owed to Etsy by all sellers in Ukraine
The way you wrote the title could be interpreted as Etsy taking their money, not the other way around (since as a seller, your "balance" could mean either unwithdrawn profits or the balance of fees that Etsy charges sellers)
I simply quoted a sentence from the article. By the way I edited the title now. Thanks!
The title is currently unintelligibly incorrect English.
It's not that bad, just not how we would normally say this. I've seen much worse English from domestic American speakers. That said:
1. Fee is definitely better as its plural in this case. 2. While the fees are owned/associated to the sellers, it is indeed preferable to say the "fees owed by all" to reduce any ambiguity.
1. Fee is definitely better as its plural in this case. 2. While the fees are owned/associated to the sellers, it is indeed preferable to say the "fees owed by all" to reduce any ambiguity.
> are owned/associated to the sellers
"Owned to" is a incomprehensible combination of verb and preposition with no meaning in english. In addition the usage of the verb "owned" is itself incorrect and doesn't match the intended meaning as when ownership of debt/fees is discussed, the lender is said to be the person who owns the debt rather than those who owe the debt. The improper pluralization really doesn't impact the legibility of the headline.
I suspect part of this is related to how many non-native speakers confuse lend and borrow since many languages only distinguish between those two verbs via preposition usage.
"Owned to" is a incomprehensible combination of verb and preposition with no meaning in english. In addition the usage of the verb "owned" is itself incorrect and doesn't match the intended meaning as when ownership of debt/fees is discussed, the lender is said to be the person who owns the debt rather than those who owe the debt. The improper pluralization really doesn't impact the legibility of the headline.
I suspect part of this is related to how many non-native speakers confuse lend and borrow since many languages only distinguish between those two verbs via preposition usage.
It is that bad, the meaning of the title is confusing and directly contradicts the article.
[deleted]
yes, but the title used here on HN is bad.
I think it would be more clear to say, "Etsy is cancelling the fee(s) owed by all sellers in Ukraine (about $4mln)"