Re: Bible verse on truck sparks outrage
Posted by:
grophusharris
()
Date: May 16, 2017 12:13AM
One more time... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> grophusharris Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> ----->
> > The first quoted words are name calling.
>
> We call that a "sentence" or a "paragraph", fwiw.
> And no, it's not name-calling: look up "straw man"
> and you'll learn. I'm guessing you're in high
> school, so don't be embarrassed.
>
> > The second group gets you the "HUH?" button.
> Try
> > grammatically correct, coherent English. This
> is
> > why I complain about the public schools'
> failure
> > to require that their "graduates" demonstrate
> an
> > ability to read, WRITE and comprehend the
> English
> > language.
>
> Perfectly grammatical and coherent. I'ts
> conversational. And it uses parenthetical remarks
> a lot. That was deliberate. BUt it is grammatical
> and coherent. You'll note that I'm using short,
> simple sentences here. That's so you don't get
> confused on this go-round.
>
> > On the third group of words: "Liberal" is a
> > political designation. "Hillary Clinton" is
> the
> > name of the wife of the Forty-Second President
> of
> > the United States and was twice a candidate for
> > President of the United States. "Straw man" is
> > name calling. Thus, in answer to your question
> > about "name calling" it would be you and the
> other
> > one who called me a "Trumptard".
>
> Again, I did no such thing. And yes, I knew what
> those were. You're the one who made a wild
> generalization, and you failed to answer the
> simple question: what does Hillary Clinton have to
> do with this?
>
> > Yes, considering that Fairfax Underground is a
> > Trollwars battlefield, there is little, if any,
> > place for rationality.
>
> QED. (Google it.)
"Nope, straw man" is neither a sentence nor a paragraph. It is, at best, an exclamatory phrase or an interjection. The way that you phrased it, "straw man" is used in direct address. If you want to get across a point, you might try using a complete sentence. While I am aware that they no longer teach grammar in the public schools, perhaps there is an on line guide that might be helpful in the construction a complete sentence. This, of course, assumes an ability to read and COMPREHEND the English language, something else no longer taught in public schools.
The second alleged "paragraph" is neither coherent nor makes any sense. It is about what I expect from a "graduate" of public schools. Not that it is the fault of said "graduate", mind you, as YA' KAIN'T LURN WHUTCHA' AIN'T DONE BEEN TEACHED! You might want to confine yourself to short, simple sentences, as you are unable to construct anything beyond that. That way, you might stop embarrassing yourself. Your assertions that it is coherent and makes sense don't change the fact that it AIN'T. Remember, as well, that it is the task of the person making the statement, assertion or claim to get across his point. It is not the task of the reader (or hearer) to attempt to decipher groups of disconnected words. The cited group of words (and that one, decidedly AIN'T NO PARRY-GRAFF), fail epically.
Again, in your turn of phrase, "straw man" is direct address. DIPSO FACTO, it is namecalling. (Oh, and be aware that I butchered the Latin deliberately. My butchered English is also deliberate).
Your question on Hillary Clinton is irrelevant and a feeble attempt to deflect. In the latter, it is not just a standard failure, marry, Sirrah, it is a failure of positively epic proportions.
QED is the commonly accepted abbreviation for the Latin phrase, QUOD ERAT DEMONSTRANDUM, literally translated "That which was to be demonstrated", "that which was to be shown" or "that which was to be proved". It is a common Latin grammatical construction commonly called the "passive periphrastic". It employs a future passive participle, which has the same form as a gerund (in the neuter gender) in the Latin language and, as a gerundive in masculine, feminine and neuter genders in agreement in gender, number and case with the noun with which it modifies. Sometimes this construction is called the "passive of obligation" or the "future of obligation". When combined with a form of the verb "to be" (in Latin, ESSE, in this case, "erat"), it implies obligation.
Written English has an equivalent construction, but avoids the future tense, preferring past or present tenses. Thus, "This is to be done", or "this was to be done" denotes obligation. In spoken English, however, the speaker can use the future with a vocal stress: 'This WILL be done".
"Erat" is the third person singular of the imperfect indicative of the verb ESSE; "to be". English usually renders the imperfect tense as "It was being" or "It used to be". Indeed, the imperfect in Latin (as well as in its descendant languages) carries those meanings, but, one should be aware that the imperfect in Latin (as in its descendant languages) also carries meanings that would require the use of the compound past or simple past tense in English. While Classical Latin has a simple past, it lacks a compound past. Vulgar Latin, however, did have a compound past. Testimony of it exists to the time of Sulla (139-78 B.C.).
"Demonstrandum" is the future passive participle of the Latin verb "Demonstrare", a compound of the preposition "de" and the verb "monstrare", which translates as "to show", "to expose", "to prove" or even "to demonstrate". "Demonstrandum" agrees with the relative pronoun "quod", which is the neuter form of a Latin pronoun that most Latin grammarians classify as a relative, although it has functions in the Latin language that go beyond that of a relative pronoun, Its masculine form is "Qui"; its feminine "quae". It declines in a fashion that is slightly different in that it shows some first/second declension forms, but also shows some third declension/dual forms in its plural, especially. The interrogatives, which have forms similar to the relative in Latin, and often appear interchangeably, especially in poetry.
Hos it THAT for a "google"?
I will pass over the question of "If that was your point, why the rest of the verbiage?", for now. (there is a Latin name for that, too: PRAETERITIO; Google it)