How about the English?

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

I don't deny it. I'm still unclear why you want to change it. Your last sentence is ungrammatical.

Simple: I've found the first mistake (will lost should be will lose) and the second there (charter should be chartered), and I hope you to find the third, the fourth and even the fifth.

Is my last sentence ungrammatical? Why have you agreed with McTag's idea that David should have been shot then?

1 Reply

@laughoutlood,

laughoutlood wrote:

Quote:
That was overturned on appeal
when the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York
found that the witness, had testified on the record
that he did not see the event,
because of the question that had been addressed to him.

Stress may affect language skills, cf. Sun Yat-sen.

It is indeed a step further to inquire why those grammatical mistakes were made.

0 Replies

oristar, your last sentence was "That is not a good way of an English teacher does." It;s ungrammatical.
re David being shot, I was being facetious, as, mostly, was Mct. David tends strongly toward the tedious.

1 Reply

@oristarA,

Quote:

Why have you agreed with McTag's idea that David should have been shot then?

I don't think I said that.

But now you come to mention it, the idea has its appeal.

1 Reply

right, McT suggested the defense counsel should be shot, it was my suggestion that if the defense counsel was David, that might not be a bad idea..Generating boredom and promulgating twaddle, though, are unfortunately not capital crimes. So he gets off the hook.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

The structure of English grammar is not 1OO% perfectly logical, but it is close to perfect.

It is perfect, Dave, because language operates on its own logic. You can't deny that because, as even you know, each dialect has differences that seem, at first blush, to be illogical to those of other dialects.

The problem comes when folks like you, with zero training and little to no thought, make silly pronouncements on language.

Quote:

that I will not take the time to address them with specificity, at length, beyond what I have already said,

You won't take the time because you know that you are flat out wrong. That kind and level of dishonesty is an inherent part of you, Om.

Quote:

Q.E.D.: We shud say what we MEAN,
(with meticulous care) and we shud mean what we say

See what I mean, Dave; you are inherently dishonest. You "won't take the time to discuss what you mean" about this issue because you involved yourself in a topic that is clearly out of your league.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

oristar, your last sentence was "That is not a good way of an English teacher does." It;s ungrammatical.
re David being shot, I was being facetious, as, mostly, was Mct. David tends strongly toward the tedious.

Hmm... I wrote that in a hurry. It should be "That is not a good way that an English teacher goes."

I know you're humorous and I like it.

1 Reply

@oristarA,

oristarA wrote:

Hmm... I wrote that in a hurry. It should be
"That is not a good way that an English teacher goes."

It sounds a little odd.
Try:
"that 's not a good thing for an English teacher to do"
or
"that is not a good practice for English teachers."

David

0 Replies

@JTT,

DAVID wrote:

The structure of English grammar is not 1OO% perfectly logical, but it is close to perfect.

JTT wrote:

It is perfect, Dave, because language operates on its own logic. You can't deny that because, as even you know,
each dialect has differences that seem, at first blush, to be illogical to those of other dialects.

There is no logical reason to compare dialects to one another.

JTT wrote:

The problem comes when folks like you, with zero training and little to no thought, make silly pronouncements on language.

I will not venture to judge what is true in the privacy of your own delusions, J.

DAVID wrote:

that I will not take the time to address them with specificity, at length, beyond what I have already said,

JTT wrote:

You won't take the time because you know that you are flat out wrong.
That kind and level of dishonesty is an inherent part of you, Om.

Your post was long. It seems foolish
to devote too much time to addressing your assertions in detail,
as if u were sane. Not much good comes from arguing with a crazy man.
A little quip now n then won 't hurt anything,
but its only like playing with a puppy, not to be taken seriously.

DAVID wrote:

Q.E.D.: We shud say what we MEAN,
(with meticulous care) and we shud mean what we say

JTT wrote:

See what I mean, Dave; you are inherently dishonest.
You "won't take the time to discuss what you mean"
about this issue because you involved yourself in a topic that is clearly out of your league.

I take time to discuss what I mean with people whose minds I respect.
From having gotten to know u, I have excluded u from that category.
I do not argue with people who have rejected logic,
but I will play with u, informally, on occasion, like a dog.
I like dogs.

David

1 Reply

@McTag,

Quote:

Why have you agreed with McTag's idea that David should have been shot then?

McTag wrote:

I don't think I said that.

But now you come to mention it, the idea has its appeal.

U 'd not be the first one who 's tried it.

David

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

Your post was long.

That really means that you didn't understand the concepts but I, and everyone, already knew that. The ways of language [its grammar] is way out of your league, Om.

Quote:

There is no logical reason to compare dialects to one another.

Yes, there is. This is just another concept that you can't get a handle on. That different dialects use different grammatical structure illustrates that the logic of language comes from use.

But explaining this to a dunce like you won't help you understand. It's simply beyond you.

Notice, Dave, how you NEVER address the actual language issues. Why? You can't.

1 Reply

@JTT,

DAVID wrote:

Your post was long.

JTT wrote:

That really means that you didn't understand the concepts but I,
and everyone, already knew that. The ways of language [its grammar] is way out of your league, Om.

Its just that the foolishness of a crazyman is boring, after a while.
Whether I 'm willing to put up with your crazyness depends on my mood of the moment.

DAVID wrote:

There is no logical reason to compare dialects to one another.

JTT wrote:

Yes, there is. This is just another concept that you can't get a handle on. That different dialects use different grammatical structure illustrates that the logic of language comes from use.

That is nonsense; it is a series of mathematical relationships. Popularity has nothing to do with truth,
the same as when many believed the Earth to be flat.

JTT wrote:

Notice, Dave, how you NEVER address the actual language issues. Why? You can't.

Its because I gave up on u,
so far as respecting your ability to reason,
or even your unWILLINGNESS to reason, long ago, when I got to know u.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

Its just that the foolishness of a crazyman is boring, after a while.

Clearly another of your lies, Om. You've never addressed any language issue.

As I said: Notice, Dave, how you NEVER address the actual language issues. Why? You can't.

Quote:

That is nonsense; it is a series of mathematical relationships. Popularity has nothing to do with truth,
the same as when many believed the Earth to be flat.

What is 'it', in bold in your reply above, Dave?

Quote:

Its because I gave up on u, so far as respecting your ability to reason,

That's another of your lies. You really aren't all that bright considering you were a lawyer - how on Earth did that ever come to pass?

You would leap at the chance to show my reasoning was errant. You never do that. Why? You can't.

1 Reply

@JTT,

Lawyer: Doctor, how many autopsies have you performed on dead people?
Witness: All my autopsies are performed on dead people.

Lawyer: Do you recall the time that you examined the body?
Witness: The autopsy started around 8:30 p.m.
Lawyer: And Mr. Johnson was dead at the time?
Witness: No, he was sitting on the table wondering why I was doing an autopsy.

The next day the testimony of the doctor continued. (same lawyer)

Lawyer: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse?
Witness: No.
Lawyer: Did you check for blood pressure?
Witness: No.
Lawyer: Did you check for breathing?
Witness: No.
Lawyer: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy?
Witness: No.
Lawyer: How can you be so sure, Doctor?
Witness: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.
Lawyer: But could the patient have still been alive nevertheless?
Witness: It is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law somewhere.

0 Replies

How about the English?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know