Speaking of being loud and obnoxious for results...
It works. I complained about my job, provided several bits of evidence that there is great opportunity in education in California, and they moved me from the pain in the butt kids I work with, kept my lead tutor pay but won't demand I do all the paper shuffling a lead tutor does. They gave me everything I could want without criticism.
Originally posted by AThousandYoung"people like my parents who worked there whole life, and did there best, but would have a meager retirement if not for their children."
No capital letter or predicate in first sentence. Poor spelling and a lack of predicate in 2nd sentence.
How can it be anyone's fault for not understanding sentences with no predicate?
I'm not too strong on grammar, but I think it's the subject that is missing, not the predicate...(It is) no obstacle to comprehension, though, because it's implied (like in this sentence) and responds directly to something you said. Very easy to understand... It was the part starting with 'but' that you didn't seem to grasp.
Like or dislike has nothing to do with it. I just found your response somewhat bizarre, as though you were reading an entirely different sentence.
2 edits
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI'm not too strong on grammar
"people like my parents who worked there whole life, and did there best, but would have a meager retirement if not for their children."
I'm not too strong on grammar, but I think it's the subject that is missing, not the predicate...(It is) no obstacle to comprehension, though, because it's implied (like in this sentence) and responds directly to s ur response somewhat bizarre, as though you were reading an entirely different sentence.
Then you have serious juevos to be criticising my English.
You are mistaken; the subject is who is doing whatever, and there are people in those sentences. What's missing is what they're doing or why they're being mentioned.
People like my parents, who have the qualities of XXX, YYY and ZZZ...
OK...so you're talking about your parents (subject), using clauses to describe them (still subject)...but no predicate. No statement about why these people are being mentioned.
1 edit
Originally posted by MacSwainNice cut and paste job. Very interesting. From the conclusion to the same article:
OK…you asked, here it is. Hope you don’t get tired reading. You will be disappointed! Because the facts and who was actually involved will not fit you sterotype. Also, you will see there is nothing nefarious about leaving the gold standard, it was simply failing because there wasn't enough gold in existance to equal the worlds growing post-war economic weal ...[text shortened]... ting on national debt. Btw.. You get more out of these things when you research them yourself.
"A number of developments - ranging from the continuing printing of fiat money while maintaining a peg to gold, the budget deficit problems, to the Vietnam War, to marginal tax rates - have been blamed for the collapse of the Bretton Woods system. The fundamental point of agreement is that the U.S. ran an increasing current account deficit, and that, in the end, it could not establish credibility on reining this deficit in."
There's that credibility issue...an after-effect of the 'Nixon shock'.
"The year 1971 was to be a landmark in monetary history. On August 15, the United States government removed gold as the foundation stone of the international monetary order and rescinded the international agreements that had defined the system since the end of World War II. In a nationally televised address President Nixon simply announced that the United States would no longer honor the 36-year-old commitment to pay international obligations in gold at the rate of $35 an ounce. He imposed a 10 percent surcharge on imports into the United States. And above all, he ordered virtually all wages and prices to stop and freeze. Violators would be fined, imprisoned, or both."
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/sennholz1.html
Nixon didn't 'default on national debt', but he did unilaterally break a commitment and set the US up for more interesting times.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungMy English is well nigh impeccable (LOL); I just never could be bothered to learn grammar formally--because I already use it perfectly. Any violations are deliberate. You'll notice that I didn't attack your grammar but your understanding.
[b]I'm not too strong on grammar
Then you have serious juevos to be criticising my English.
You are mistaken; the subject is who is doing whatever, and there are people in those sentences. What's missing is what they're doing or why they're being mentioned.
People like my parents, who have the qualities of XXX, YYY and ZZZ...
O ...[text shortened]... till subject)...but no predicate. No statement about why these people are being mentioned.[/b]
Anyhow, your 'grammatical analysis' proves my point--duecer's simple sentence, with it's implied subject, eludes you.
What is the subject in this sentence:
"There is a big man outside."
3 edits
Originally posted by Bosse de NageBosse's still arrogant despite his ignorance. It's quite sad.
My English is well nigh impeccable (LOL); I just never could be bothered to learn grammar formally--because I already use it perfectly. Any violations are deliberate. You'll notice that I didn't attack your grammar but your understanding.
Anyhow, your 'grammatical analysis' proves my point--duecer's simple sentence, with it's implied subject, eludes you.
What is the subject in this sentence:
"There is a big man outside."
I'm not here to take grammar tests.
EDIT - I wrote that because I wasn't sure about the answer 😉, but I was right in my thinking. "Big man" is the subject. I had to check to make sure. I would have gotten it right on a test.
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageYou didn't criticise my grammar? Grammar's part of English, you know! If you want to communicate specific ideas, you should use the precise terminology (e.g. reading comprehension vs. English). Otherwise you're just being unclear due to laziness.
Right, so English isn't your strong point
2 edits
Originally posted by Bosse de NageBoth of deucer's sentences in the post I analyzed had perfectly explicit subjects. Didn't I already point that out?
My English is well nigh impeccable (LOL); I just never could be bothered to learn grammar formally--because I already use it perfectly. Any violations are deliberate. You'll notice that I didn't attack your grammar but your understanding.
Anyhow, your 'grammatical analysis' proves my point--duecer's simple sentence, with it's implied subject, eludes you.
What is the subject in this sentence:
"There is a big man outside."
You must mean "implied predicate." Since you're so vague, I've taken the liberty of searching for such a possible implication.
I came up with this:
What about the millions who worked hard all their lives just to keep their heads above water? F them?
So...what does that mean?
What does it mean to "keep one's head above water"? There must be a precise definition for deucer to be able to claim millions of people are barely keeping their heads above water. I believe most [EDIT - My mistake, it was 43 percent in August 2007] "poverty stricken" people in this country own property, which makes them richer than me!
What does it mean to "F them"?
These are meaningless phrases and therefore quite useless as predicates.
3 edits
Originally posted by AThousandYoungATY
Both of deucer's sentences in the post I analyzed had perfectly explicit subjects. Didn't I already point that out?
What does that mean? Who are you talking about?
duecer
[I am talking about] people like my parents who worked there whole life, and did there best, but would have a meager retirement if not for their children.
You're telling me you're having trouble understanding that? Good grief.
And no, you seemed to confuse subject with predicate. The bit in square brackets is what is implied, whatever you want to call it. I'll have to call in the grammar police...
Originally posted by AThousandYoung"Should we disregard the millions who barely managed to make ends meet even though they worked hard all their lives?" A paraphrase. The original is perfectly clear, although inelegant.
What about the millions who worked hard all their lives just to keep their heads above water? F them?
So...what does that mean?
Originally posted by AThousandYoungAt least I can make sense of ordinary language...
Bosse's still arrogant despite his ignorance. It's quite sad.
I'm not here to take grammar tests.
EDIT - I wrote that because I wasn't sure about the answer 😉, but I was right in my thinking. "Big man" is the subject. I had to check to make sure. I would have gotten it right on a test.
" "There are ten desks here."
The nomenclature used for the constituents of sentences such as this is still a matter of some dispute, but there might be called subject, are copula, and ten desks predicate nominal. Meanwhile here is an adverbial phrase that conveniently reveals the semantic vacuity of there in this example." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expletive
(I had to look it up too.)
Don't know if this has been mentioned as I skipped through most of the argument but:
Deucer wrote, 'people like my parents who worked there whole life, and did there best, but would have a meager retirement if not for their children.'
Ignoring the spelling mistakes with there/their, the grammar is fine in the subject/predicate debate - he's answering a question so the subject is understood and not needed.
A: Where are you going?
B: (I'm going) To the shops.
If you want to be pedantic, you could point out that a comma after 'who' was required because he was using a non-defining relative clause ... I think - it has been a while since I taught grammar ...
Anyway, what was being disputed was, in fact, fine.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI came but am retired ... 🙁:p
[b]ATY
What does that mean? Who are you talking about?
duecer
[I am talking about] people like my parents who worked there whole life, and did there best, but would have a meager retirement if not for their children.
You're telling me you're having trouble understanding that? Good grief.
And no, you seemed to confu ...[text shortened]... is what is implied, whatever you want to call it. I'll have to call in the grammar police...[/b]