Tunesia, Egyt and now Yemen: a domino effect in the Middle East?

@reasoning logic,

From what I understand, RL, that wasn't according to research done at Cambridge University.

1 Reply

@JTT,

I am glad your brain was able to grasp that! Now would you please inform us of credulity of this work!

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

Quote:

ow would you please inform us of credulity of this work!

I don't know, RL. I just read that somewhere.

1 Reply

@JTT,

Thank you I do see value in honesty!

0 Replies

@Ionus,

Quote:

In an attempt to fix that, the language has come up with "much more" which indicates a greater difference then[sic] more but still suffers from the same problem of by what quantity .

You've refuted yourself.

1 Reply

@JTT,

Quote:

The irony, which will, no doubt, be completely lost on you, Ionus, is delicious.

Delicious ? Are you a homosexual who was thrown out of the army ?

Quote:

Why have you opted for the indirect 'would' when you think that everyone who uses language should/must always be specific?

You are having great difficulty understanding some important basics here, so read very slowly and move your lips......there are rules to ensure we have a COMMON language......but languages adapt by people breaking the rules . However, the rules slow down that process to a pace that be accomplished by everyone .

Quote:

Quote:
Now you have access to surveys.....care to name them ?
I already did.

Soooo....you are delusional in all matters...just not war crimes....I see .

Quote:

you had just provided a source that confirms your "rule", opinion, "advice".

You mean like a newspaper ?? Very Happy

Quote:

We're not even sure what it is

No surprises there....the royal "We"....delsuions again . So because you dont understand you think I am the problem ?? Perhaps you are only pretending to be stupid .

http://www.grammarbook.com/english_rules.asp
Look up capitals, that that and much more......

2 Replies

@JTT,

Quote:

You're not even aware of just how ignorant you are.

You dont even know when you are being stupid.....How much more is more and how more is much more ?

Quote:

You've just used 'much more', TWICE, in a perfectly grammatical, natural fashion.

This is English...it is neither perfect nor natural . You ability to exaggerate is best left for anti-USA tirades .

1 Reply

@JTT,

Quote:

banned from English.

Banned ??? You dont want to lie do you ?? You wont go to heaven if you lie.....

Quote:

I couldn't have replied if you hadn't used them

Funny girl....you could reply by pretending not to understand like you have done several times on this topic alone .

Quote:

the meaning that you wanted to express wouldn't have been there.

Oh really ? So for one to have nearly twice as much as the other communicates far less than "much more" ?

I easily get confused talking to you.....is "much more" twice or thrice as greater ?

1 Reply

@JTT,

Quote:

Are you seriously trying to suggest that every word/phrase/collocation we use in English needs to be specific?

I am seriously suggesting that if you wish to make a comparison throwing in words that are unhelpful is unhelpful . How greater is "much more" and why doesnt "more" suffice ? Perhaps you have been reading super duper super super man comics again .

Big bigger best.....see where more fits in ?

Quote:

Are you trying to tell us that those similar meanings I gave are also banned under the bizarre "rule" you've concocted?

What a drama queen....

0 Replies

@JTT,

Quote:

You've refuted yourself.

You really cant see the purpose of language rules to hold down the pace of change ? Whilst allowing the language to change is also important ? Oh and by the way...I havent .

Back to the topic.....show me an example of where "that that" cant be written better......perhaps much more better, which as everyone knows is exactly 1.26759124 times better .

2 Replies

@Ionus,

Quote:

I easily get confused talking to you.....

Of course you do. You really don't have the foggiest notion about language.

Quote:

is "much more" twice or thrice as greater ?

You've refuted your argument yet again.

Language has many words/phrases that are not specific. It also has concomitant words/phrases that are specific when we feel the need for specific.

S = specific
NS = not specific

always [S]
almost always [NS]
really/very often [NS]
often [NS]
not very often [NS]
not often [NS]
seldom/rarely [NS]
almost never [NS]
never [S]

If there is a need for a more exact rendering for say, 'seldom/rarely' then we have words to describe that.

Is 'almost always' 80 or 90% of 'always'?

Is 'seldom' 20 or 30% of 'never' or is it 70 or 80% of 'always'.

Trying to advance the ridiculously nonsensical notions [you've advanced a few; you just can't seem to make up your mind what the actual problem is] that a completely natural and commonplace usage such as 'much more' is "incorrect/bad" English is probably your dumbest notion to date and you are definitely well known for dumb notions.

No, the idea that that, above, is your dumbest notion isn't quite accurate. Your poorly thought out - or more likely, given your inability to discuss these issues - your plagiarized idea [you still haven't provided your source for these inane ideas] is every bit as dumb.

1) No, the idea that that, above, is your dumbest notion isn't quite accurate.

*2) No, the idea that above, is your dumbest notion isn't quite accurate.*

[* denotes ungrammatical for English. The second 'that' is necessary to make it grammatical]

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Quote:

You really cant see the purpose of language rules to hold down the pace of change ? Whilst allowing the language to change is also important ?

Where did this severely disjointed idea come from?

You don't have the faintest idea what you are talking about. But, by all means, go ahead and explain this latest "theory" of yours.

Quote:

show me an example of where "that that" cant be written better.

You've changed the parameters for your "rule" once again.

Quote:

Spendi's original sentence: It was predictable that that is what Gadaffi would do.

Quote:

The "rule" from Ionus: that that ??? We dont double words [WRONG]....one is always sufficient . [WRONG] It means the same thing .[WRONG]

Your original contention wasn't based on the style considerations you've now asked about.

You stated that "we don't double words" which is a really, really fatuous notion that is so so easy to refute.

In addition to advancing erroneous rules, it seems that you can't even keep the reasons for your "rules" straight.

===============

'cant' / 'dont'

In Standard English, negatively contracted verbs use an apostrophe. Is there some "rule" that you know of that you haven't informed the rest of us about that has you writing cant for can't and dont for don't?

2 Replies

@JTT,

I guess anos never heard Clinton say "what is is." LOL

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Haven't you got it straight yet, CI?

"[W]e don't double words ....one is always sufficient . It means the same thing ."

"what is is" means the same thing as "what is".

Just remember this simple little rule,

"one is always sufficient"

and you'll never go wrong in English.

1 Reply

I didn't know that Qatar had an arms exportation industry.

0 Replies

@Ionus,

Quote:

perhaps much more better,

'much more better' isn't idiomatic English in any dialect that I'm aware of. Is it in your dialect?

Odd for a guy who is so concerned about excessive words.

Try 'perhaps much better' or even 'perhaps much, much better', both of which are grammatical and idiomatic.

2 Replies

@JTT,

I do believe, though, that Bill said it correctly when he said "it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

I do believe, though, that Bill said it correctly when he said "it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."

You're right about that, CI.

You do realize that my last reply to you was serious tongue in cheek, don't you?

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Quote:

http://www.grammarbook.com/english_rules.asp
Look up capitals, that that and much more......

You've been looking high and low for days for something to support your nonsense and you think you've found it.

It's your find, you look up the things that you want to discuss and provide the necessary links.

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Quote:

Why have you opted for the indirect 'would' when you think that everyone who uses language should/must always be specific?

Quote:

You are having great difficulty understanding some important basics here, so read very slowly and move your lips......there are rules to ensure we have a COMMON language......but languages adapt by people breaking the rules . However, the rules slow down that process to a pace that be accomplished by everyone .

Whoa, non sequitur, much!?

Quote:

M-W

non sequitur

: a statement (as a response) that does not follow logically from or is not clearly related to anything previously said

We were talking about the new restaurant when she threw in some non sequitur about her dog.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/non+sequitur

1 Reply

Tunesia, Egyt and now Yemen: a domino effect in the Middle East?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know