From a05c4c47dac6f40fe244586763aada8b0ff89cc3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: ccuser44 <68124053+ccuser44@users.noreply.github.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2024 21:04:40 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] Fix grammar mistake

---
 docs/table.clone-locked-metatables.md | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/docs/table.clone-locked-metatables.md b/docs/table.clone-locked-metatables.md
index 8aeecca..ae29cda 100644
--- a/docs/table.clone-locked-metatables.md
+++ b/docs/table.clone-locked-metatables.md
@@ -64,7 +64,7 @@ This is a valid concern. The issue at hand being an avenue to assign metatables
 However, this is not an issue as the changes proposed in this RFC do not allow for such behavior.
 
 Another potential drawback that could be levied at this proposal is a reduced debuggability of not hard-failing when the expected behavior would be to create a shallow copy with the metatable of the original table.
-However, this point is most certainly moot in practice, as most users very likely are not even aware, or desire the fact that `table.clone` can assign the metatables of the original table to the clone.
+However, this point is most certainly moot in practice, as most users are very likely not even aware, or desire the fact that `table.clone` can assign the metatables of the original table to the clone.
 
 ## Alternatives