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

@Ionus,

Quote:

How much more is more and how more is much more ?

Could you please rephrase this in English?

@JTT,

We now get to those questions that are not answerable, because we don't know what he's talking about.

Quote:

more/môr/
Adverb: Comparative of much forming the comparative of adjectives and adverbs, esp. those of more than one syllable: "for them, enthusiasm is more important than talent".
Adjective: A greater or additional amount or degree: "I poured myself more coffee".

and

Quote:

adv. Comparative of much.

To or in a greater extent or degree: loved him even more.
Used to form the comparative of many adjectives and adverbs: more difficult; more softly. See Usage Note at perfect.
In addition: phoned twice more.
Moreover; furthermore.

Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/more#ixzz1JRob4Fk6

1 Reply

Does nobody know whether Qatar has an arms industry? It needs one of them to supply the rebels in Libya with arms doesn't it?

1 Reply

@spendius,

maybe more like a middle man.

1 Reply

@roger,

I never thought of that. You live and learn.

0 Replies

@JTT,

Quote:

You really don't have the foggiest notion about language.

The problem is you exaggerate everything beyond comprehension . Interestingly, you think you do well with your hysterical approach .

Quote:

Language has many words/phrases that are not specific.

And if you were fluent in English you would avoid them ....unless of course you want to create nothing but feeling.....do you try to avoid facts all of the time ?

How can you be so stupid as to admit there are inaccurate ways to write therefore it is good English ?? You really should try reading your own posts for a bit of a laugh .

Quote:

you still haven't provided your source

This shows your ignorance better than anything I could have said...you think the English language has one source ?

Quote:

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]

Of course you dont have the intelligence to write anything so it makes sense, so you are pleading it is bad English or nothing from you...I choose nothing from you .

How about " No, the idea that the above statement is your dumbest notion is not accurate".....of course you know as much about English as you do about war crimes .

5 Replies

@JTT,

Quote:

Where did this severely disjointed idea come from?

Severely disjointed ? That rules are necessary for masses of people but change should also be allowed is a disjointed idea ? You do know that doors are designed to be opened and closed don't you ? Or is that a disjointed idea to someone of your intelligence ?

Quote:

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

You keep saying that with all the bravado of someone who doesnt know what a fool they are making of themselves .

Quote:

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.

You mean like super duper super super man....the limit of your writing ability should not be applied to others . I am not changing anything but explanations....and that only because you are thicker than two short planks nailed together abeam .

Quote:

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?

Yes, speed....

Tell us about capitals and why a one word sentence/answer cant have the first letter as a capital .

Tell us about how absolutely fantastically superb your mind is.....without any stupid use of superlatives to the stage of pointlessness .

Tell us how greater much more is than more .

Tell us why you can not rephrase any sentence where you use that that .

0 Replies

@JTT,

Quote:

and you'll never go wrong in English.

You always exaggerate your case, dont you ? How many tens of thousands of breast feeding women had their breasts cut off while their babies were forced to watch ?

1 Reply

@JTT,

I find it amazing that you can see the stupidity of it when I write it to show you but not when you write it habitually . But then, mental illness such as you have is always very interesting to me .

0 Replies

@JTT,

Quote:

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

Is the sentence "tens of thousands of breast feeding women had their breasts cut off whilst their babies were forced to watch" also tongue in cheek ?

0 Replies

@JTT,

Quote:

You've been looking high and low for days

First place I googled...didnt even read it...perhaps if you read it you might find a weak link....or not .

1 Reply

@JTT,

Quote:

Whoa, non sequitur, much!?

No . You asked for an explanation of why and I gave it . Would you understand better if I said because ?

1 Reply

@JTT,

Quote:

Quote:
How much more is more and how more is much more ?
Could you please rephrase this in English?

But it is written according to YOUR rules of English.....perhaps your idiocy is not as idiomatic as you think....

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

we don't know what he's talking about.

But I never expected YOU to know what anyone was talking about . Who is the "we" you refer to ?

1 Reply

@Ionus,

The "we" in this case is almost everybody except you!

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Is there any truth to this? Tens of thousands of breast feeding women had their breasts cut off while their babies were forced to watch ? If so I wonder if religion played a role as they seem to like cutting off reproductive related parts and other parts of humans!

2 Replies

@Ionus,

Quote:

First place I googled...didnt even read it...perhaps if you read it you might find a weak link....or not .

First place, didn't bother to read it. Why then did you provide it as a source? I've found plenty of weak links, in your so called "arguments".

Spendi found the same but he's too polite to tell you what an ignorant no nothing you are. CI has also found your "rule" wanting.

Again ... this is so rich. After days of asking for a source to back up your nonexistent rules, you provide one that you don't even have the necessary honesty to check.

Keep lookin', Ionus. Seen any flying pigs lately?

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Okay, so you don't understand 'non sequitur'.

I asked,

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

Your 180 degree tangential answer didn't address this at all. You knew that you had been caught out on your inane notion that people don't use non specific language. You just did but "honest" guy that you are, you headed off on, as I've mentioned, some nonsense that had nothing to do with the question asked.

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Ionus wrote: *How much more is more and how more is much more?*

[* --- * denotes ungrammatical]

Quote:

But it is written according to YOUR rules of English.

No, it most certainly is not. The second part after 'and' is ungrammatical and nonsensical for SWE/SFE. I seriously doubt that it is written the way you've written it in any dialect of English, standard or nonstandard.

... *how more is much more?*

I realize that you are flustered and terribly confused. Care to try again or care to show how it is grammatical, idiomatic English.

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Quote:

You really don't have the foggiest notion about language.

Quote:

The problem is you exaggerate everything beyond comprehension . Interestingly, you think you do well with your hysterical approach .

Nice tangent. The following illustrates just how much you know about language.

Quote:

jtt wrote: Language has many words/phrases that are not specific.

Quote:

Ionus replied: And if you were fluent in English you would avoid them ....unless of course you want to create nothing but feeling.....do you try to avoid facts all of the time ?

How can you be so stupid as to admit there are inaccurate ways to write therefore it is good English ?? You really should try reading your own posts for a bit of a laugh .

Have you now included the following in your list of words that "fluent people" should avoid?

often, seldom, rarely, almost always, almost never, almost certainly, the modals may, might, should, must, the periphrastic modals probably, likely, the adverbs perhaps, maybe

Where might, oops, where WILL you find a source to help you on this one, oh Great Language Maven?

Are you suggesting that all the great writers of the world have avoided words that are not specific?

1 Reply

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know