| [Deep Freeze] Thursday, April 29, 2010 9:01:12 PM | |
|
HA!!!!!!!!!! No worries, Bud! You just write what you like to write and I will help you when you ask!!!! No points off for trying!!!!!!
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Budred from Thursday, April 29, 2010 5:44:29 PM)| |  | Budred wrote: | | Wow, is it O.K. to start with a wow, then a comma? I'm afraid to write here.
I know I'm not proper and pretty sure I sound like an idiot in some of my posts.
I know nothing about how to write, I just put down what sounds good.
Let the critique begin.(LOL) |
|
|
| [Budred] Thursday, April 29, 2010 5:44:29 PM | |
|
Wow, is it O.K. to start with a wow, then a comma? I'm afraid to write here.
I know I'm not proper and pretty sure I sound like an idiot in some of my posts.
I know nothing about how to write, I just put down what sounds good.
Let the critique begin.(LOL) |
|
| [_strat_] Thursday, April 29, 2010 2:16:46 PM | |
|
Well, I understand that. I cant stand them either - living next door to a kindergarden does that to you.
I have to go now, its pretty late here... Thanks for the help and goodnight!
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Deep Freeze from Thursday, April 29, 2010 2:15:07 PM)| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | HAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!! ME?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??? No way, man! I do NOT have the patience!!! Not to mention I can't stand kids!! HAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Ever considered becoming a teacher?
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Yes!
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Good, good - I just checked it again, and there are no "though" or "although"s in it.
So basicaly, my previous post was wrong. I guess so. Although. I should have used "though" since I was contrasting the previous sentence... Right?
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Ah!!! I love it!! OK, here goes:
The use of though and although are quite often interchangable. "Though" is considered less formal, however, it can also be used as an adverb to say that the information in the clause is in direct contrast to the information in the previous sentence. "Although" cannot be used in this manner. These words are most often used to explain that there is an unexpected contrast in what happens in the main clause and the adverbial clause.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Weeeeell... I guess so. Although (and theres another question although or though - which is proper, or are both proper?) I must say that there are members here who dont write properly all of the time, but arent stupid assholes.
Thanks for the reasurrance tho - I had to post a somewhat formal E-Mail in English, and when I checked it (after sending it, of course, thats just me), I found out about this.
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Now hold on there, young man!!! There ARE rules! Nothing is really ever "set in stone" but one should always strive to be as accurate and "comprehensive" as one possibly can when one is writing, especially in a forum such as this! Afterall, this is your communication vehicle and the way you write says a lot about you! I should think you would want to be as proper as one can be! Don't forget.... I am watching you! HAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | That was very... Comprehensive. Lol.
So, if I got it right, its not set in stone, and you can basicaly just do how you feel is right. Which is how Ive always been doing it.
Thanks!
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Oh it is SO good to have you back!!! HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The use of a comma with a conjunction is fine when one is connecting two independent clauses ( He sang well, but he often got tired.) Some writers believe that the coordinating conjunction has adequate seperation and will leave the comma out in short, balanced independent clauses. My rule has always been to simply use the comma when in doubt!
More often, a mistake is made when one puts a comma after a coordinating conjunction. Now, that does not mean that it is ALWAYS wrong but it is rare that you would need a comma after a coordinating conjunction. Of course, when speaking we often pause after the little conjunction but there is rarely a need for a comma there when writing. How's that?
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Ive got a question on a certain part of writing in the English language here, regarding the use of the comma.
Now, IDK - I might have been doing it wrong the whole time, because Ive been following the rule that we were taught at Slovene language classes in school, which is that you can never put a comma before or after "and" when writing in Slovene. For example: "I went into the shop, and saw the Nostradamus CD" - if I translated that sentence into Slovene, I would have to ommit the comma, because of that rule.
Now, does English have this rule? I know that in some cases there is no comma, like when you list stuff: "this, that and something else" - no comma. But what about other cases? Are there times when you can put a comma near "and"? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [Deep Freeze] Thursday, April 29, 2010 2:15:07 PM | |
|
HAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!! ME?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??? No way, man! I do NOT have the patience!!! Not to mention I can't stand kids!! HAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Thursday, April 29, 2010 2:13:41 PM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Ever considered becoming a teacher?
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Yes!
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Good, good - I just checked it again, and there are no "though" or "although"s in it.
So basicaly, my previous post was wrong. I guess so. Although. I should have used "though" since I was contrasting the previous sentence... Right?
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Ah!!! I love it!! OK, here goes:
The use of though and although are quite often interchangable. "Though" is considered less formal, however, it can also be used as an adverb to say that the information in the clause is in direct contrast to the information in the previous sentence. "Although" cannot be used in this manner. These words are most often used to explain that there is an unexpected contrast in what happens in the main clause and the adverbial clause.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Weeeeell... I guess so. Although (and theres another question although or though - which is proper, or are both proper?) I must say that there are members here who dont write properly all of the time, but arent stupid assholes.
Thanks for the reasurrance tho - I had to post a somewhat formal E-Mail in English, and when I checked it (after sending it, of course, thats just me), I found out about this.
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Now hold on there, young man!!! There ARE rules! Nothing is really ever "set in stone" but one should always strive to be as accurate and "comprehensive" as one possibly can when one is writing, especially in a forum such as this! Afterall, this is your communication vehicle and the way you write says a lot about you! I should think you would want to be as proper as one can be! Don't forget.... I am watching you! HAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | That was very... Comprehensive. Lol.
So, if I got it right, its not set in stone, and you can basicaly just do how you feel is right. Which is how Ive always been doing it.
Thanks!
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Oh it is SO good to have you back!!! HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The use of a comma with a conjunction is fine when one is connecting two independent clauses ( He sang well, but he often got tired.) Some writers believe that the coordinating conjunction has adequate seperation and will leave the comma out in short, balanced independent clauses. My rule has always been to simply use the comma when in doubt!
More often, a mistake is made when one puts a comma after a coordinating conjunction. Now, that does not mean that it is ALWAYS wrong but it is rare that you would need a comma after a coordinating conjunction. Of course, when speaking we often pause after the little conjunction but there is rarely a need for a comma there when writing. How's that?
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Ive got a question on a certain part of writing in the English language here, regarding the use of the comma.
Now, IDK - I might have been doing it wrong the whole time, because Ive been following the rule that we were taught at Slovene language classes in school, which is that you can never put a comma before or after "and" when writing in Slovene. For example: "I went into the shop, and saw the Nostradamus CD" - if I translated that sentence into Slovene, I would have to ommit the comma, because of that rule.
Now, does English have this rule? I know that in some cases there is no comma, like when you list stuff: "this, that and something else" - no comma. But what about other cases? Are there times when you can put a comma near "and"? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Thursday, April 29, 2010 2:13:41 PM | |
|
Ever considered becoming a teacher?
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Deep Freeze from Thursday, April 29, 2010 2:12:02 PM)| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Yes!
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Good, good - I just checked it again, and there are no "though" or "although"s in it.
So basicaly, my previous post was wrong. I guess so. Although. I should have used "though" since I was contrasting the previous sentence... Right?
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Ah!!! I love it!! OK, here goes:
The use of though and although are quite often interchangable. "Though" is considered less formal, however, it can also be used as an adverb to say that the information in the clause is in direct contrast to the information in the previous sentence. "Although" cannot be used in this manner. These words are most often used to explain that there is an unexpected contrast in what happens in the main clause and the adverbial clause.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Weeeeell... I guess so. Although (and theres another question although or though - which is proper, or are both proper?) I must say that there are members here who dont write properly all of the time, but arent stupid assholes.
Thanks for the reasurrance tho - I had to post a somewhat formal E-Mail in English, and when I checked it (after sending it, of course, thats just me), I found out about this.
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Now hold on there, young man!!! There ARE rules! Nothing is really ever "set in stone" but one should always strive to be as accurate and "comprehensive" as one possibly can when one is writing, especially in a forum such as this! Afterall, this is your communication vehicle and the way you write says a lot about you! I should think you would want to be as proper as one can be! Don't forget.... I am watching you! HAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | That was very... Comprehensive. Lol.
So, if I got it right, its not set in stone, and you can basicaly just do how you feel is right. Which is how Ive always been doing it.
Thanks!
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Oh it is SO good to have you back!!! HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The use of a comma with a conjunction is fine when one is connecting two independent clauses ( He sang well, but he often got tired.) Some writers believe that the coordinating conjunction has adequate seperation and will leave the comma out in short, balanced independent clauses. My rule has always been to simply use the comma when in doubt!
More often, a mistake is made when one puts a comma after a coordinating conjunction. Now, that does not mean that it is ALWAYS wrong but it is rare that you would need a comma after a coordinating conjunction. Of course, when speaking we often pause after the little conjunction but there is rarely a need for a comma there when writing. How's that?
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Ive got a question on a certain part of writing in the English language here, regarding the use of the comma.
Now, IDK - I might have been doing it wrong the whole time, because Ive been following the rule that we were taught at Slovene language classes in school, which is that you can never put a comma before or after "and" when writing in Slovene. For example: "I went into the shop, and saw the Nostradamus CD" - if I translated that sentence into Slovene, I would have to ommit the comma, because of that rule.
Now, does English have this rule? I know that in some cases there is no comma, like when you list stuff: "this, that and something else" - no comma. But what about other cases? Are there times when you can put a comma near "and"? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [Deep Freeze] Thursday, April 29, 2010 2:12:02 PM | |
|
Yes!
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Thursday, April 29, 2010 2:08:47 PM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Good, good - I just checked it again, and there are no "though" or "although"s in it.
So basicaly, my previous post was wrong. I guess so. Although. I should have used "though" since I was contrasting the previous sentence... Right?
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Ah!!! I love it!! OK, here goes:
The use of though and although are quite often interchangable. "Though" is considered less formal, however, it can also be used as an adverb to say that the information in the clause is in direct contrast to the information in the previous sentence. "Although" cannot be used in this manner. These words are most often used to explain that there is an unexpected contrast in what happens in the main clause and the adverbial clause.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Weeeeell... I guess so. Although (and theres another question although or though - which is proper, or are both proper?) I must say that there are members here who dont write properly all of the time, but arent stupid assholes.
Thanks for the reasurrance tho - I had to post a somewhat formal E-Mail in English, and when I checked it (after sending it, of course, thats just me), I found out about this.
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Now hold on there, young man!!! There ARE rules! Nothing is really ever "set in stone" but one should always strive to be as accurate and "comprehensive" as one possibly can when one is writing, especially in a forum such as this! Afterall, this is your communication vehicle and the way you write says a lot about you! I should think you would want to be as proper as one can be! Don't forget.... I am watching you! HAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | That was very... Comprehensive. Lol.
So, if I got it right, its not set in stone, and you can basicaly just do how you feel is right. Which is how Ive always been doing it.
Thanks!
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Oh it is SO good to have you back!!! HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The use of a comma with a conjunction is fine when one is connecting two independent clauses ( He sang well, but he often got tired.) Some writers believe that the coordinating conjunction has adequate seperation and will leave the comma out in short, balanced independent clauses. My rule has always been to simply use the comma when in doubt!
More often, a mistake is made when one puts a comma after a coordinating conjunction. Now, that does not mean that it is ALWAYS wrong but it is rare that you would need a comma after a coordinating conjunction. Of course, when speaking we often pause after the little conjunction but there is rarely a need for a comma there when writing. How's that?
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Ive got a question on a certain part of writing in the English language here, regarding the use of the comma.
Now, IDK - I might have been doing it wrong the whole time, because Ive been following the rule that we were taught at Slovene language classes in school, which is that you can never put a comma before or after "and" when writing in Slovene. For example: "I went into the shop, and saw the Nostradamus CD" - if I translated that sentence into Slovene, I would have to ommit the comma, because of that rule.
Now, does English have this rule? I know that in some cases there is no comma, like when you list stuff: "this, that and something else" - no comma. But what about other cases? Are there times when you can put a comma near "and"? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Thursday, April 29, 2010 2:08:47 PM | |
|
Good, good - I just checked it again, and there are no "though" or "although"s in it.
So basicaly, my previous post was wrong. I guess so. Although. I should have used "though" since I was contrasting the previous sentence... Right?
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Deep Freeze from Thursday, April 29, 2010 2:03:21 PM)| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Ah!!! I love it!! OK, here goes:
The use of though and although are quite often interchangable. "Though" is considered less formal, however, it can also be used as an adverb to say that the information in the clause is in direct contrast to the information in the previous sentence. "Although" cannot be used in this manner. These words are most often used to explain that there is an unexpected contrast in what happens in the main clause and the adverbial clause.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Weeeeell... I guess so. Although (and theres another question although or though - which is proper, or are both proper?) I must say that there are members here who dont write properly all of the time, but arent stupid assholes.
Thanks for the reasurrance tho - I had to post a somewhat formal E-Mail in English, and when I checked it (after sending it, of course, thats just me), I found out about this.
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Now hold on there, young man!!! There ARE rules! Nothing is really ever "set in stone" but one should always strive to be as accurate and "comprehensive" as one possibly can when one is writing, especially in a forum such as this! Afterall, this is your communication vehicle and the way you write says a lot about you! I should think you would want to be as proper as one can be! Don't forget.... I am watching you! HAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | That was very... Comprehensive. Lol.
So, if I got it right, its not set in stone, and you can basicaly just do how you feel is right. Which is how Ive always been doing it.
Thanks!
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Oh it is SO good to have you back!!! HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The use of a comma with a conjunction is fine when one is connecting two independent clauses ( He sang well, but he often got tired.) Some writers believe that the coordinating conjunction has adequate seperation and will leave the comma out in short, balanced independent clauses. My rule has always been to simply use the comma when in doubt!
More often, a mistake is made when one puts a comma after a coordinating conjunction. Now, that does not mean that it is ALWAYS wrong but it is rare that you would need a comma after a coordinating conjunction. Of course, when speaking we often pause after the little conjunction but there is rarely a need for a comma there when writing. How's that?
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Ive got a question on a certain part of writing in the English language here, regarding the use of the comma.
Now, IDK - I might have been doing it wrong the whole time, because Ive been following the rule that we were taught at Slovene language classes in school, which is that you can never put a comma before or after "and" when writing in Slovene. For example: "I went into the shop, and saw the Nostradamus CD" - if I translated that sentence into Slovene, I would have to ommit the comma, because of that rule.
Now, does English have this rule? I know that in some cases there is no comma, like when you list stuff: "this, that and something else" - no comma. But what about other cases? Are there times when you can put a comma near "and"? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [Deep Freeze] Thursday, April 29, 2010 2:03:21 PM | |
|
Ah!!! I love it!! OK, here goes:
The use of though and although are quite often interchangable. "Though" is considered less formal, however, it can also be used as an adverb to say that the information in the clause is in direct contrast to the information in the previous sentence. "Although" cannot be used in this manner. These words are most often used to explain that there is an unexpected contrast in what happens in the main clause and the adverbial clause.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Thursday, April 29, 2010 1:53:16 PM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Weeeeell... I guess so. Although (and theres another question although or though - which is proper, or are both proper?) I must say that there are members here who dont write properly all of the time, but arent stupid assholes.
Thanks for the reasurrance tho - I had to post a somewhat formal E-Mail in English, and when I checked it (after sending it, of course, thats just me), I found out about this.
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Now hold on there, young man!!! There ARE rules! Nothing is really ever "set in stone" but one should always strive to be as accurate and "comprehensive" as one possibly can when one is writing, especially in a forum such as this! Afterall, this is your communication vehicle and the way you write says a lot about you! I should think you would want to be as proper as one can be! Don't forget.... I am watching you! HAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | That was very... Comprehensive. Lol.
So, if I got it right, its not set in stone, and you can basicaly just do how you feel is right. Which is how Ive always been doing it.
Thanks!
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Oh it is SO good to have you back!!! HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The use of a comma with a conjunction is fine when one is connecting two independent clauses ( He sang well, but he often got tired.) Some writers believe that the coordinating conjunction has adequate seperation and will leave the comma out in short, balanced independent clauses. My rule has always been to simply use the comma when in doubt!
More often, a mistake is made when one puts a comma after a coordinating conjunction. Now, that does not mean that it is ALWAYS wrong but it is rare that you would need a comma after a coordinating conjunction. Of course, when speaking we often pause after the little conjunction but there is rarely a need for a comma there when writing. How's that?
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Ive got a question on a certain part of writing in the English language here, regarding the use of the comma.
Now, IDK - I might have been doing it wrong the whole time, because Ive been following the rule that we were taught at Slovene language classes in school, which is that you can never put a comma before or after "and" when writing in Slovene. For example: "I went into the shop, and saw the Nostradamus CD" - if I translated that sentence into Slovene, I would have to ommit the comma, because of that rule.
Now, does English have this rule? I know that in some cases there is no comma, like when you list stuff: "this, that and something else" - no comma. But what about other cases? Are there times when you can put a comma near "and"? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Thursday, April 29, 2010 1:53:16 PM | |
|
Weeeeell... I guess so. Although (and theres another question although or though - which is proper, or are both proper?) I must say that there are members here who dont write properly all of the time, but arent stupid assholes.
Thanks for the reasurrance tho - I had to post a somewhat formal E-Mail in English, and when I checked it (after sending it, of course, thats just me), I found out about this.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Deep Freeze from Thursday, April 29, 2010 1:39:34 PM)| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Now hold on there, young man!!! There ARE rules! Nothing is really ever "set in stone" but one should always strive to be as accurate and "comprehensive" as one possibly can when one is writing, especially in a forum such as this! Afterall, this is your communication vehicle and the way you write says a lot about you! I should think you would want to be as proper as one can be! Don't forget.... I am watching you! HAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | That was very... Comprehensive. Lol.
So, if I got it right, its not set in stone, and you can basicaly just do how you feel is right. Which is how Ive always been doing it.
Thanks!
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Oh it is SO good to have you back!!! HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The use of a comma with a conjunction is fine when one is connecting two independent clauses ( He sang well, but he often got tired.) Some writers believe that the coordinating conjunction has adequate seperation and will leave the comma out in short, balanced independent clauses. My rule has always been to simply use the comma when in doubt!
More often, a mistake is made when one puts a comma after a coordinating conjunction. Now, that does not mean that it is ALWAYS wrong but it is rare that you would need a comma after a coordinating conjunction. Of course, when speaking we often pause after the little conjunction but there is rarely a need for a comma there when writing. How's that?
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Ive got a question on a certain part of writing in the English language here, regarding the use of the comma.
Now, IDK - I might have been doing it wrong the whole time, because Ive been following the rule that we were taught at Slovene language classes in school, which is that you can never put a comma before or after "and" when writing in Slovene. For example: "I went into the shop, and saw the Nostradamus CD" - if I translated that sentence into Slovene, I would have to ommit the comma, because of that rule.
Now, does English have this rule? I know that in some cases there is no comma, like when you list stuff: "this, that and something else" - no comma. But what about other cases? Are there times when you can put a comma near "and"? |
|
|
|
|
|
| [Deep Freeze] Thursday, April 29, 2010 1:39:34 PM | |
|
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Now hold on there, young man!!! There ARE rules! Nothing is really ever "set in stone" but one should always strive to be as accurate and "comprehensive" as one possibly can when one is writing, especially in a forum such as this! Afterall, this is your communication vehicle and the way you write says a lot about you! I should think you would want to be as proper as one can be! Don't forget.... I am watching you! HAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Thursday, April 29, 2010 1:35:44 PM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | That was very... Comprehensive. Lol.
So, if I got it right, its not set in stone, and you can basicaly just do how you feel is right. Which is how Ive always been doing it.
Thanks!
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Oh it is SO good to have you back!!! HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The use of a comma with a conjunction is fine when one is connecting two independent clauses ( He sang well, but he often got tired.) Some writers believe that the coordinating conjunction has adequate seperation and will leave the comma out in short, balanced independent clauses. My rule has always been to simply use the comma when in doubt!
More often, a mistake is made when one puts a comma after a coordinating conjunction. Now, that does not mean that it is ALWAYS wrong but it is rare that you would need a comma after a coordinating conjunction. Of course, when speaking we often pause after the little conjunction but there is rarely a need for a comma there when writing. How's that?
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Ive got a question on a certain part of writing in the English language here, regarding the use of the comma.
Now, IDK - I might have been doing it wrong the whole time, because Ive been following the rule that we were taught at Slovene language classes in school, which is that you can never put a comma before or after "and" when writing in Slovene. For example: "I went into the shop, and saw the Nostradamus CD" - if I translated that sentence into Slovene, I would have to ommit the comma, because of that rule.
Now, does English have this rule? I know that in some cases there is no comma, like when you list stuff: "this, that and something else" - no comma. But what about other cases? Are there times when you can put a comma near "and"? |
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Thursday, April 29, 2010 1:35:44 PM | |
|
That was very... Comprehensive. Lol.
So, if I got it right, its not set in stone, and you can basicaly just do how you feel is right. Which is how Ive always been doing it.
Thanks!
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Deep Freeze from Thursday, April 29, 2010 1:29:42 PM)| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Oh it is SO good to have you back!!! HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The use of a comma with a conjunction is fine when one is connecting two independent clauses ( He sang well, but he often got tired.) Some writers believe that the coordinating conjunction has adequate seperation and will leave the comma out in short, balanced independent clauses. My rule has always been to simply use the comma when in doubt!
More often, a mistake is made when one puts a comma after a coordinating conjunction. Now, that does not mean that it is ALWAYS wrong but it is rare that you would need a comma after a coordinating conjunction. Of course, when speaking we often pause after the little conjunction but there is rarely a need for a comma there when writing. How's that?
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Ive got a question on a certain part of writing in the English language here, regarding the use of the comma.
Now, IDK - I might have been doing it wrong the whole time, because Ive been following the rule that we were taught at Slovene language classes in school, which is that you can never put a comma before or after "and" when writing in Slovene. For example: "I went into the shop, and saw the Nostradamus CD" - if I translated that sentence into Slovene, I would have to ommit the comma, because of that rule.
Now, does English have this rule? I know that in some cases there is no comma, like when you list stuff: "this, that and something else" - no comma. But what about other cases? Are there times when you can put a comma near "and"? |
|
|
|
| [jimmyjames] Thursday, April 29, 2010 1:31:02 PM | |
|
Whewee? What the hell does that mean?
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Nicky007 from Saturday, March 13, 2010 4:33:46 AM)| | | Nicky007 wrote: | | Wow !!! I pursued the re- thingy and was surprised to find 21 re- words meaning
cancel annul give up withdraw (from)
These 21 words are:
revoke recall repeal reverse rescind recant renege reject retract retreat retire
renounce remove recede remand relinquish resign repudiate refuse release remit
Naturally, with so many words within such a narrow span of meaning, there's a lot of overlapping, and their distinctions then lie in their usage.
I knew that the English language is rich, but this sure astonished me.
Actually, guys, I find a language thread quite in place on a Priest board, as the Priest guys are obviously well-read and profound.
Try listen to Nostra again and immerse yourself in the lyrics, and let yourself be taken by the depth of feeling, richness of metaphors, symbolism, references to classics etc.
Whewee, I say 
Nicky. Edited at: Saturday, March 13, 2010 4:34:28 AM Edited at: Saturday, March 13, 2010 4:35:45 AM
Edited at: Saturday, March 13, 2010 4:53:25 AM |
|
|
| [Deep Freeze] Thursday, April 29, 2010 1:29:42 PM | |
|
Oh it is SO good to have you back!!! HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The use of a comma with a conjunction is fine when one is connecting two independent clauses ( He sang well, but he often got tired.) Some writers believe that the coordinating conjunction has adequate seperation and will leave the comma out in short, balanced independent clauses. My rule has always been to simply use the comma when in doubt!
More often, a mistake is made when one puts a comma after a coordinating conjunction. Now, that does not mean that it is ALWAYS wrong but it is rare that you would need a comma after a coordinating conjunction. Of course, when speaking we often pause after the little conjunction but there is rarely a need for a comma there when writing. How's that?
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Thursday, April 29, 2010 1:18:58 PM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Ive got a question on a certain part of writing in the English language here, regarding the use of the comma.
Now, IDK - I might have been doing it wrong the whole time, because Ive been following the rule that we were taught at Slovene language classes in school, which is that you can never put a comma before or after "and" when writing in Slovene. For example: "I went into the shop, and saw the Nostradamus CD" - if I translated that sentence into Slovene, I would have to ommit the comma, because of that rule.
Now, does English have this rule? I know that in some cases there is no comma, like when you list stuff: "this, that and something else" - no comma. But what about other cases? Are there times when you can put a comma near "and"? |
|
|
| [_strat_] Thursday, April 29, 2010 1:18:58 PM | |
|
Ive got a question on a certain part of writing in the English language here, regarding the use of the comma.
Now, IDK - I might have been doing it wrong the whole time, because Ive been following the rule that we were taught at Slovene language classes in school, which is that you can never put a comma before or after "and" when writing in Slovene. For example: "I went into the shop, and saw the Nostradamus CD" - if I translated that sentence into Slovene, I would have to ommit the comma, because of that rule.
Now, does English have this rule? I know that in some cases there is no comma, like when you list stuff: "this, that and something else" - no comma. But what about other cases? Are there times when you can put a comma near "and"? |
|
| [Nicky007] Saturday, March 13, 2010 4:33:46 AM | |
|
Wow !!! I pursued the re- thingy and was surprised to find 21 re- words meaning
cancel annul give up withdraw (from)
These 21 words are:
revoke recall repeal reverse rescind recant renege reject retract retreat retire
renounce remove recede remand relinquish resign repudiate refuse release remit
Naturally, with so many words within such a narrow span of meaning, there's a lot of overlapping, and their distinctions then lie in their usage.
I knew that the English language is rich, but this sure astonished me.
Actually, guys, I find a language thread quite in place on a Priest board, as the Priest guys are obviously well-read and profound.
Try listen to Nostra again and immerse yourself in the lyrics, and let yourself be taken by the depth of feeling, richness of metaphors, symbolism, references to classics etc.
Whewee, I say
Nicky. Edited at: Saturday, March 13, 2010 4:34:28 AM Edited at: Saturday, March 13, 2010 4:35:45 AM
Edited at: Saturday, March 13, 2010 4:53:25 AM |
|
| [Nicky007] Friday, March 05, 2010 9:18:53 AM | |
|
Thanx for the kind words, Mike 
I do esteem academic education and scholarliness, and I do believe that you worked hard and earned your degrees.
I just disapprove of people using their status and degrees to push their opinions, beliefs, and "truths".
I'v been real busy this week participating in a course for teachers. It'll continue till end of March. This week's been super, I'v learned a tremendous amount, tried out stuff I'd never do anywhere else (all fully dressed  ), and all the teachers and fellow pupils are great in each their way. But man, are we tired at the end of the day 
I'l get back to you guys with some more language stuff during the weekend.
Till then: 
But before that: Demolition, Turbo and other goodies 
Nicky.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Deep Freeze from Saturday, February 27, 2010 7:18:12 AM)| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | OK man, I can get onboard with that. Please keep in mind that I am truly "having fun" when I am breaking down writing and speech. It's what I do. There is no malice intended. Having said this, there is something that occurs to me which I feel calls for some expansion;
I see that you have responded to Guido regarding education, travel and basic all-around "worldliness". It is interesting that there are many who find travel to be so educational. At worst, the exposure to other social environments is certainly a lesson in and of itself. Nonetheless, I am fiercely proud of my formal education. It was not somethng that was just "handed" to me. I earned my degrees. I put in the time and effort and THAT is an achievement.
While I am well acquainted with people that have an above-average intelligence and capability, I stand by formal education with tremendous fervor. With all a person can learn in life, there is still something to be said for staying in school, working hard and earning a degree. I refuse to look upon this achievement as just "something I did". While it is possible to be as well-read in some areas and use of a dictionary is wonderful, even vital, to properly expressing a point of grammar or speech, a formal education allows one to understand the disciplines of their chosen area of study. The theory. The origin. There is also the correct use of context and that all too misunderstood structure. All things that you will NOT find in a dictionary or "Google".
I was under the assumption that you created this Thread as a means of discussing language in all its facets. I do not believe one is necessarily being fastidious when one insists upon proper usage and context in a LANGUAGE Thread. All of this being said, I appreciate that you truly are above average. You seem to have a grasp of language that one would expect from a more formally educated person and that is something in which you can take pride. However, when you decide to argue points of fact, especially regarding word usage and context, please remember that not everything is available online.
Now then, ON WITH THE PUMMELING!!! HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(Quoting Message by Nicky007 from Saturday, February 27, 2010 3:45:41 AM)
| |
|
Nicky007 wrote: |
| |
OK, Mike, I'l buy your argument in part. I should have written "the subject of languages and linguistics". Then I could have used singular without complications.
OK, I learned something there 
Yeah, you already told me that you'v slashed alcohol. But nowadays one can get excellent non-alcoholic beer, in Denmark iac.
My approach to posting is that if there's something that I find interesting, and I myself have somethin to add that I expect others to find interesting, well, then I post. As simple as that.
I propose that we be less critical of each other in this forum, and more inclusive.
It's quite possible that some of the newbies who have been banned or who have left in frustration could have been wonderful regulars had they not been "pummeled".
Nicky. (Quoting Message by Deep Freeze from Friday, February 26, 2010 10:12:47 AM)
| |
|
Deep Freeze wrote: |
| |
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Point by point, eh?? Hmm..well, as you wish.
I do not drink therefore, I will not be getting a beer. My sex life is irrelevant and I was out getting medicine for my wife, not fecal matter. As for your "unusual" words, I AM "having fun". You seem to be taking ME too seriously.
Languages and Linguistics are NOT mutually inclusive terms simply because they are defined as similar subject matter (I thought you learned THAT stuff in school??) and I assumed you meant them as they are properly defined. Again, perhaps I was mistaken. It could simply be where one went to school, eh? I will not argue that you can refer to them as a "passion" and perhaps use them as one in a singular, inclusive thought but it was my understanding that we were "having fun" AND learning...? Mistaken again, I'm afraid.
I choose to "take you" as you present yourself. Nothing more, nothing less. The good folks of this Board are not all that "serious" but they do have feelings and thoughts of thier own. Concepts notwithstanding, I believe it is important to say what one means and say it as well as one can. If this is a matter of me taking things in the wrong context, perhaps I would be better served by keeping MY thoughts out of this particular Thread? No offense, of course. I would rather just avoid a silly "tit for tat" argument.
| |
|
Nicky007 wrote: |
| |
OK, Mike, let's just do it point by point:
1. You do not have errands to run. You don't need all that shit. Eat the fruit you already have at home, and drink a beer tonight (and get l...) 
2. Guys, I honestly thought we'd have some fun with those unusual words. You guys are sooooo serious, and sooooo nitpicking. Man ! I'm not out to improve your "structure, spelling, grammar, and punctuation". I hope you learned that stuff in school. And if not, too bad. And it's OK, dude, I'l take ya as ya are 
3. "Languages and linguistics". That's a concept, Mike, where the two words belong together - just like "linguistics" is singular. It would have sounded stupid to say "Languages and linguistics are passions with me", cause it's one passion. I really thought about that one. I think one can use both singular and plural, and argue for both, and I chose the singular form, cause I found that it described my condition best.
4. You'l see that it's my style, and I hope you'l take me as I am 
5. I'l gladly take the "brotherly love", but leave the "kisses" for yer wife. With her, you can also place'm where ya want 
Nicky.
| |
|
Deep Freeze wrote: |
| |
I cannot stay long this morning, as I have errands to run, but I simply must make a quick comment regarding this Thread.
While I am always very pleased to see that there are members trying to improve their language skills, I hardly think that posting a few fancy words from a dictionary and providing definitions are what I had in mind!! HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I mean, I do appreciate the effort but I should think that , if we truly want to improve our writing, we should further examine our STRUCTURE as well as spelling, grammar and punctuation! As an example;
And it so happens that languages and linguistics is a passion with me ... Very nice, however, when one employs plurals (languages AND linguistics) one would use the plural combining form "are" to express the state of being or possession. Also, when using contractions, we must remember that a contraction is a shortening of a word or word group and needs to include the proper word abbreviation to be accurate. Example ; You'll find that I am.. not you'l. You are contracting (shortening) the word "will" and are required to use both "l"s for the contraction to be properly completed.
Sorry to pick on you, Nicky but this IS your Thread! HAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!! It's nice to see interest in "languages" and "linguistics", however, I am really hoping to see improvement in our structure first!!! Pulling words from a dictionary is far too easy. HAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAAA!!!!!!!!! (*Kisses* and "brotherly" love). HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
|
Edited at: Saturday, February 27, 2010 3:46:49 AM Edited at: Saturday, February 27, 2010 3:47:09 AM Edited at: Saturday, February 27, 2010 3:47:22 AM |
Edited at: Saturday, February 27, 2010 7:22:00 AM |
|
|
| [Deep Freeze] Saturday, February 27, 2010 7:18:12 AM | |
|
OK man, I can get onboard with that. Please keep in mind that I am truly "having fun" when I am breaking down writing and speech. It's what I do. There is no malice intended. Having said this, there is something that occurs to me which I feel calls for some expansion;
I see that you have responded to Guido regarding education, travel and basic all-around "worldliness". It is interesting that there are many who find travel to be so educational. At worst, the exposure to other social environments is certainly a lesson in and of itself. Nonetheless, I am fiercely proud of my formal education. It was not somethng that was just "handed" to me. I earned my degrees. I put in the time and effort and THAT is an achievement.
While I am well acquainted with people that have an above-average intelligence and capability, I stand by formal education with tremendous fervor. With all a person can learn in life, there is still something to be said for staying in school, working hard and earning a degree. I refuse to look upon this achievement as just "something I did". While it is possible to be as well-read in some areas and use of a dictionary is wonderful, even vital, to properly expressing a point of grammar or speech, a formal education allows one to understand the disciplines of their chosen area of study. The theory. The origin. There is also the correct use of context and that all too misunderstood structure. All things that you will NOT find in a dictionary or "Google".
I was under the assumption that you created this Thread as a means of discussing language in all its facets. I do not believe one is necessarily being fastidious when one insists upon proper usage and context in a LANGUAGE Thread. All of this being said, I appreciate that you truly are above average. You seem to have a grasp of language that one would expect from a more formally educated person and that is something in which you can take pride. However, when you decide to argue points of fact, especially regarding word usage and context, please remember that not everything is available online.
Now then, ON WITH THE PUMMELING!!! HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Nicky007 from Saturday, February 27, 2010 3:45:41 AM)
| |
|
Nicky007 wrote: |
| |
OK, Mike, I'l buy your argument in part. I should have written "the subject of languages and linguistics". Then I could have used singular without complications.
OK, I learned something there
Yeah, you already told me that you'v slashed alcohol. But nowadays one can get excellent non-alcoholic beer, in Denmark iac.
My approach to posting is that if there's something that I find interesting, and I myself have somethin to add that I expect others to find interesting, well, then I post. As simple as that.
I propose that we be less critical of each other in this forum, and more inclusive.
It's quite possible that some of the newbies who have been banned or who have left in frustration could have been wonderful regulars had they not been "pummeled".
Nicky. (Quoting Message by Deep Freeze from Friday, February 26, 2010 10:12:47 AM)
| |
|
Deep Freeze wrote: |
| |
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Point by point, eh?? Hmm..well, as you wish.
I do not drink therefore, I will not be getting a beer. My sex life is irrelevant and I was out getting medicine for my wife, not fecal matter. As for your "unusual" words, I AM "having fun". You seem to be taking ME too seriously.
Languages and Linguistics are NOT mutually inclusive terms simply because they are defined as similar subject matter (I thought you learned THAT stuff in school??) and I assumed you meant them as they are properly defined. Again, perhaps I was mistaken. It could simply be where one went to school, eh? I will not argue that you can refer to them as a "passion" and perhaps use them as one in a singular, inclusive thought but it was my understanding that we were "having fun" AND learning...? Mistaken again, I'm afraid.
I choose to "take you" as you present yourself. Nothing more, nothing less. The good folks of this Board are not all that "serious" but they do have feelings and thoughts of thier own. Concepts notwithstanding, I believe it is important to say what one means and say it as well as one can. If this is a matter of me taking things in the wrong context, perhaps I would be better served by keeping MY thoughts out of this particular Thread? No offense, of course. I would rather just avoid a silly "tit for tat" argument.
| |
|
Nicky007 wrote: |
| |
OK, Mike, let's just do it point by point:
1. You do not have errands to run. You don't need all that shit. Eat the fruit you already have at home, and drink a beer tonight (and get l...)
2. Guys, I honestly thought we'd have some fun with those unusual words. You guys are sooooo serious, and sooooo nitpicking. Man ! I'm not out to improve your "structure, spelling, grammar, and punctuation". I hope you learned that stuff in school. And if not, too bad. And it's OK, dude, I'l take ya as ya are
3. "Languages and linguistics". That's a concept, Mike, where the two words belong together - just like "linguistics" is singular. It would have sounded stupid to say "Languages and linguistics are passions with me", cause it's one passion. I really thought about that one. I think one can use both singular and plural, and argue for both, and I chose the singular form, cause I found that it described my condition best.
4. You'l see that it's my style, and I hope you'l take me as I am
5. I'l gladly take the "brotherly love", but leave the "kisses" for yer wife. With her, you can also place'm where ya want
Nicky.
| |
|
Deep Freeze wrote: |
| |
I cannot stay long this morning, as I have errands to run, but I simply must make a quick comment regarding this Thread.
While I am always very pleased to see that there are members trying to improve their language skills, I hardly think that posting a few fancy words from a dictionary and providing definitions are what I had in mind!! HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I mean, I do appreciate the effort but I should think that , if we truly want to improve our writing, we should further examine our STRUCTURE as well as spelling, grammar and punctuation! As an example;
And it so happens that languages and linguistics is a passion with me ... Very nice, however, when one employs plurals (languages AND linguistics) one would use the plural combining form "are" to express the state of being or possession. Also, when using contractions, we must remember that a contraction is a shortening of a word or word group and needs to include the proper word abbreviation to be accurate. Example ; You'll find that I am.. not you'l. You are contracting (shortening) the word "will" and are required to use both "l"s for the contraction to be properly completed.
Sorry to pick on you, Nicky but this IS your Thread! HAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!! It's nice to see interest in "languages" and "linguistics", however, I am really hoping to see improvement in our structure first!!! Pulling words from a dictionary is far too easy. HAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAAA!!!!!!!!! (*Kisses* and "brotherly" love). HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
|
Edited at: Saturday, February 27, 2010 3:46:49 AM Edited at: Saturday, February 27, 2010 3:47:09 AM Edited at: Saturday, February 27, 2010 3:47:22 AM |
Edited at: Saturday, February 27, 2010 7:22:00 AM |
|
| [Budred] Saturday, February 27, 2010 6:19:13 AM | |
|
It's brutally heavy and sonically overpowering to the senses but it's not barbaric. Quite a wondrous noise actually. [Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Nicky007 from Saturday, February 27, 2010 4:42:35 AM)
| |
|
Nicky007 wrote: |
| |
Now let's take the adjectives barbarian, barbaric, and barbarous. They have different meanings.
I'l quote from Dictionary.com again, simply cause it has the best explanation that I'v seen:
Barbarian, barbaric, barbarous pertain to uncivilized people. Barbarian is the general word for anything uncivilized: a barbarian tribe. Barbaric has both unfavorable and mildly favorable connotations, implying crudeness of taste or practice, or conveying an idea of rude magnificence and splendor: barbaric noise. Barbarous emphasizes the inhumanity and cruelty of barbarian life: barbarous customs.
Now tell me, guys: Is the music of Judas Priest barbaric noise ?
And of course the last test question in my original thread was a prank
Nicky. Edited at: Saturday, February 27, 2010 4:43:11 AM |
Edited at: Saturday, February 27, 2010 6:20:09 AM |
|
| [Nicky007] Saturday, February 27, 2010 4:42:35 AM | |
|
Now let's take the adjectives barbarian, barbaric, and barbarous. They have different meanings.
I'l quote from Dictionary.com again, simply cause it has the best explanation that I'v seen:
Barbarian, barbaric, barbarous pertain to uncivilized people. Barbarian is the general word for anything uncivilized: a barbarian tribe. Barbaric has both unfavorable and mildly favorable connotations, implying crudeness of taste or practice, or conveying an idea of rude magnificence and splendor: barbaric noise. Barbarous emphasizes the inhumanity and cruelty of barbarian life: barbarous customs.
Now tell me, guys: Is the music of Judas Priest barbaric noise ?
And of course the last test question in my original thread was a prank
Nicky.
Edited at: Saturday, February 27, 2010 4:43:11 AM |
|
| [Nicky007] Saturday, February 27, 2010 4:23:48 AM | |
|
OK, Guido, you'r sharp but factual. So let me respond:
You might know better than I, but I thought it was optional to put a comma before "and" in English. I put one there cause "grammar" and "punctuation" are not more related to each other than they are to "structure" and "spelling". If you disagree, I'd like you to find some documentation for your position.
People who know me well know that I'm both serious and humorous.
I'd be happy to see an example of where I'm wrong and have not acknowledged it.
The reason I quote dictionaries, especially Dictionary.com, is that I consider their definitions and explanations more apprehensible than my own explanations. It's as simple as that. Why should I try to explain something in my own words here when the dictionaries do it better ?
Yes, I do read what I write, for the simple reason that I know I'm not yet fluent enough to write things perfectly at first attempt.
Numbering points can add to clarity. I don't care if people consider me fastidious; I wanna be understood properly.
As I have already said, I don't care about status and degrees. If I consider that I know something better than my discussion partner, I take the liberty to express my opinion.
Travel experience I have quite a lot of. I'm born in Birmingham, England (famous for a great metal band) and lived there for 5 years. My Dad is from South Dakota, and my Mom from Silesia. When I was 5 y/o we moved to Copenhagen. So I grew up with 3 languages. I lived 2 years in the States, went to school in Boston and Princeton, and crossed the continent twice by car. I'v also been in Canada, and about twenty European countries. My Dad and sis live on Long island, my bro in Paris, and I have family and friends all over the world. So I'm pretty international.
And basically I can hear all the music I want. I have 1300 carefully selected cd's in my collection, an excellent selection at the Main Library in Copenhagen (altho I miss a few albums there), and I can find all the rest on MySpace and YouTube.
Nicky. [Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by guidogodoy from Friday, February 26, 2010 10:57:59 AM)
| |
|
guidogodoy wrote: |
| |
"Not out to improve our structure, spelling, grammar and punctuation" (notice the lack of the last comma?). THAT is a point upon which to argue were I to care about "nitpicking."
In my eyes, you are the one being far too serious. I have yet to see you acknowledge when you are wrong (you tend to use double negatives improprely: "neither...NOR), and you are just pulling things from an online dictionary. Not condescending? I ask yet again, do you read what you write? You want to "test" us yet you don't seem to have gotten far in school as per your own admission. It is clear in your own sentence structure and misuse / poor spelling of certain words. Most of us do not care to comment, myself included, as you seem to take it FAR too seriously. Numbering your response?! You don't find that more than a bit anal?
Nope, that is why I also stay away from such threads (and, quite frankly, people). While you claim to be willing to learn, I have yet to see it. Especially when you are "kindly" corrected by those with superior degrees and travel experience.
This is not what is going on here. You state a word / point and use an online dictionary to try and defend yourself. Please refer to point #3. "Languages and linguistics" ARE two separate terms as many a grade-school child could tell you. Argue all you wish but it is a fact. Perhaps with more formal training in the hobby you so love, you'll come to realize that many of us not only hold advanced degrees in languages AND lingustics (different disciplines) but we also choose not to waste our time trying to convince someone that the sky is blue. Perhaps why we also hold jobs that permit us to buy all the JP albums we like without having to "save up."
The last point you'll hear from me on this subject as well as I'll now keep to my word and avoid this thread.
| |
|
Nicky007 wrote: |
| |
OK, Mike, let's just do it point by point:
1. You do not have errands to run. You don't need all that shit. Eat the fruit you already have at home, and drink a beer tonight (and get l...)
2. Guys, I honestly thought we'd have some fun with those unusual words. You guys are sooooo serious, and sooooo nitpicking. Man ! I'm not out to improve your "structure, spelling, grammar, and punctuation". I hope you learned that stuff in school. And if not, too bad. And it's OK, dude, I'l take ya as ya are
3. "Languages and linguistics". That's a concept, Mike, where the two words belong together - just like "linguistics" is singular. It would have sounded stupid to say "Languages and linguistics are passions with me", cause it's one passion. I really thought about that one. I think one can use both singular and plural, and argue for both, and I chose the singular form, cause I found that it described my condition best.
4. You'l see that it's my style, and I hope you'l take me as I am
5. I'l gladly take the "brotherly love", but leave the "kisses" for yer wife. With her, you can also place'm where ya want
Nicky.
| |
|
Deep Freeze wrote: |
| |
I cannot stay long this morning, as I have errands to run, but I simply must make a quick comment regarding this Thread.
While I am always very pleased to see that there are members trying to improve their language skills, I hardly think that posting a few fancy words from a dictionary and providing definitions are what I had in mind!! HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I mean, I do appreciate the effort but I should think that , if we truly want to improve our writing, we should further examine our STRUCTURE as well as spelling, grammar and punctuation! As an example;
And it so happens that languages and linguistics is a passion with me ... Very nice, however, when one employs plurals (languages AND linguistics) one would use the plural combining form "are" to express the state of being or possession. Also, when using contractions, we must remember that a contraction is a shortening of a word or word group and needs to include the proper word abbreviation to be accurate. Example ; You'll find that I am.. not you'l. You are contracting (shortening) the word "will" and are required to use both "l"s for the contraction to be properly completed.
Sorry to pick on you, Nicky but this IS your Thread! HAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!! It's nice to see interest in "languages" and "linguistics", however, I am really hoping to see improvement in our structure first!!! Pulling words from a dictionary is far too easy. HAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAAA!!!!!!!!! (*Kisses* and "brotherly" love). HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Edited at: Saturday, February 27, 2010 4:26:01 AM |
|
| [Nicky007] Saturday, February 27, 2010 3:45:41 AM | |
|
OK, Mike, I'l buy your argument in part. I should have written "the subject of languages and linguistics". Then I could have used singular without complications.
OK, I learned something there
Yeah, you already told me that you'v slashed alcohol. But nowadays one can get excellent non-alcoholic beer, in Denmark iac.
My approach to posting is that if there's something that I find interesting, and I myself have somethin to add that I expect others to find interesting, well, then I post. As simple as that.
I propose that we be less critical of each other in this forum, and more inclusive.
It's quite possible that some of the newbies who have been banned or who have left in frustration could have been wonderful regulars had they not been "pummeled".
Nicky. [Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Deep Freeze from Friday, February 26, 2010 10:12:47 AM)
| |
|
Deep Freeze wrote: |
| |
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Point by point, eh?? Hmm..well, as you wish.
I do not drink therefore, I will not be getting a beer. My sex life is irrelevant and I was out getting medicine for my wife, not fecal matter. As for your "unusual" words, I AM "having fun". You seem to be taking ME too seriously.
Languages and Linguistics are NOT mutually inclusive terms simply because they are defined as similar subject matter (I thought you learned THAT stuff in school??) and I assumed you meant them as they are properly defined. Again, perhaps I was mistaken. It could simply be where one went to school, eh? I will not argue that you can refer to them as a "passion" and perhaps use them as one in a singular, inclusive thought but it was my understanding that we were "having fun" AND learning...? Mistaken again, I'm afraid.
I choose to "take you" as you present yourself. Nothing more, nothing less. The good folks of this Board are not all that "serious" but they do have feelings and thoughts of thier own. Concepts notwithstanding, I believe it is important to say what one means and say it as well as one can. If this is a matter of me taking things in the wrong context, perhaps I would be better served by keeping MY thoughts out of this particular Thread? No offense, of course. I would rather just avoid a silly "tit for tat" argument.
| |
|
Nicky007 wrote: |
| |
OK, Mike, let's just do it point by point:
1. You do not have errands to run. You don't need all that shit. Eat the fruit you already have at home, and drink a beer tonight (and get l...)
2. Guys, I honestly thought we'd have some fun with those unusual words. You guys are sooooo serious, and sooooo nitpicking. Man ! I'm not out to improve your "structure, spelling, grammar, and punctuation". I hope you learned that stuff in school. And if not, too bad. And it's OK, dude, I'l take ya as ya are
3. "Languages and linguistics". That's a concept, Mike, where the two words belong together - just like "linguistics" is singular. It would have sounded stupid to say "Languages and linguistics are passions with me", cause it's one passion. I really thought about that one. I think one can use both singular and plural, and argue for both, and I chose the singular form, cause I found that it described my condition best.
4. You'l see that it's my style, and I hope you'l take me as I am
5. I'l gladly take the "brotherly love", but leave the "kisses" for yer wife. With her, you can also place'm where ya want
Nicky.
| |
|
Deep Freeze wrote: |
| |
I cannot stay long this morning, as I have errands to run, but I simply must make a quick comment regarding this Thread.
While I am always very pleased to see that there are members trying to improve their language skills, I hardly think that posting a few fancy words from a dictionary and providing definitions are what I had in mind!! HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I mean, I do appreciate the effort but I should think that , if we truly want to improve our writing, we should further examine our STRUCTURE as well as spelling, grammar and punctuation! As an example;
And it so happens that languages and linguistics is a passion with me ... Very nice, however, when one employs plurals (languages AND linguistics) one would use the plural combining form "are" to express the state of being or possession. Also, when using contractions, we must remember that a contraction is a shortening of a word or word group and needs to include the proper word abbreviation to be accurate. Example ; You'll find that I am.. not you'l. You are contracting (shortening) the word "will" and are required to use both "l"s for the contraction to be properly completed.
Sorry to pick on you, Nicky but this IS your Thread! HAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!! It's nice to see interest in "languages" and "linguistics", however, I am really hoping to see improvement in our structure first!!! Pulling words from a dictionary is far too easy. HAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAAA!!!!!!!!! (*Kisses* and "brotherly" love). HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
|
Edited at: Saturday, February 27, 2010 3:46:49 AM Edited at: Saturday, February 27, 2010 3:47:09 AM
Edited at: Saturday, February 27, 2010 3:47:22 AM |
|
| [Budred] Friday, February 26, 2010 11:26:48 AM | |
|
I did it again. I'm really having troubles with the he/she thing.
I'm glad I'm married. If I went to a bar to pick up a girl I would probably
come home with a tranny.(LOL)
No disrespect to trannies!
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Budred from Friday, February 26, 2010 9:42:05 AM)| | | Budred wrote: | | I'm not a linguist but it sounds like #5 is her way of telling you to kiss her ass.(LOL)
Am I reading too deeply? |
|
|
| [guidogodoy] Friday, February 26, 2010 10:57:59 AM | |
|
"Not out to improve our structure, spelling, grammar and punctuation" (notice the lack of the last comma?). THAT is a point upon which to argue were I to care about "nitpicking."
In my eyes, you are the one being far too serious. I have yet to see you acknowledge when you are wrong (you tend to use double negatives improprely: "neither...NOR), and you are just pulling things from an online dictionary. Not condescending? I ask yet again, do you read what you write? You want to "test" us yet you don't seem to have gotten far in school as per your own admission. It is clear in your own sentence structure and misuse / poor spelling of certain words. Most of us do not care to comment, myself included, as you seem to take it FAR too seriously. Numbering your response?! You don't find that more than a bit anal?
Nope, that is why I also stay away from such threads (and, quite frankly, people). While you claim to be willing to learn, I have yet to see it. Especially when you are "kindly" corrected by those with superior degrees and travel experience.
This is not what is going on here. You state a word / point and use an online dictionary to try and defend yourself. Please refer to point #3. "Languages and linguistics" ARE two separate terms as many a grade-school child could tell you. Argue all you wish but it is a fact. Perhaps with more formal training in the hobby you so love, you'll come to realize that many of us not only hold advanced degrees in languages AND lingustics (different disciplines) but we also choose not to waste our time trying to convince someone that the sky is blue. Perhaps why we also hold jobs that permit us to buy all the JP albums we like without having to "save up."
The last point you'll hear from me on this subject as well as I'll now keep to my word and avoid this thread.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Nicky007 from Friday, February 26, 2010 9:30:26 AM)| | | Nicky007 wrote: | | OK, Mike, let's just do it point by point:
1. You do not have errands to run. You don't need all that shit. Eat the fruit you already have at home, and drink a beer tonight (and get l...)
2. Guys, I honestly thought we'd have some fun with those unusual words. You guys are sooooo serious, and sooooo nitpicking. Man ! I'm not out to improve your "structure, spelling, grammar, and punctuation". I hope you learned that stuff in school. And if not, too bad. And it's OK, dude, I'l take ya as ya are
3. "Languages and linguistics". That's a concept, Mike, where the two words belong together - just like "linguistics" is singular. It would have sounded stupid to say "Languages and linguistics are passions with me", cause it's one passion. I really thought about that one. I think one can use both singular and plural, and argue for both, and I chose the singular form, cause I found that it described my condition best.
4. You'l see that it's my style, and I hope you'l take me as I am
5. I'l gladly take the "brotherly love", but leave the "kisses" for yer wife. With her, you can also place'm where ya want
Nicky.
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | I cannot stay long this morning, as I have errands to run, but I simply must make a quick comment regarding this Thread.
While I am always very pleased to see that there are members trying to improve their language skills, I hardly think that posting a few fancy words from a dictionary and providing definitions are what I had in mind!! HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I mean, I do appreciate the effort but I should think that , if we truly want to improve our writing, we should further examine our STRUCTURE as well as spelling, grammar and punctuation! As an example;
And it so happens that languages and linguistics is a passion with me ... Very nice, however, when one employs plurals (languages AND linguistics) one would use the plural combining form "are" to express the state of being or possession. Also, when using contractions, we must remember that a contraction is a shortening of a word or word group and needs to include the proper word abbreviation to be accurate. Example ; You'll find that I am.. not you'l. You are contracting (shortening) the word "will" and are required to use both "l"s for the contraction to be properly completed.
Sorry to pick on you, Nicky but this IS your Thread! HAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!! It's nice to see interest in "languages" and "linguistics", however, I am really hoping to see improvement in our structure first!!! Pulling words from a dictionary is far too easy. HAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAAA!!!!!!!!! (*Kisses* and "brotherly" love). HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
| [Deep Freeze] Friday, February 26, 2010 10:12:47 AM | |
|
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Point by point, eh?? Hmm..well, as you wish.
I do not drink therefore, I will not be getting a beer. My sex life is irrelevant and I was out getting medicine for my wife, not fecal matter. As for your "unusual" words, I AM "having fun". You seem to be taking ME too seriously.
Languages and Linguistics are NOT mutually inclusive terms simply because they are defined as similar subject matter (I thought you learned THAT stuff in school??) and I assumed you meant them as they are properly defined. Again, perhaps I was mistaken. It could simply be where one went to school, eh? I will not argue that you can refer to them as a "passion" and perhaps use them as one in a singular, inclusive thought but it was my understanding that we were "having fun" AND learning...? Mistaken again, I'm afraid.
I choose to "take you" as you present yourself. Nothing more, nothing less. The good folks of this Board are not all that "serious" but they do have feelings and thoughts of thier own. Concepts notwithstanding, I believe it is important to say what one means and say it as well as one can. If this is a matter of me taking things in the wrong context, perhaps I would be better served by keeping MY thoughts out of this particular Thread? No offense, of course. I would rather just avoid a silly "tit for tat" argument.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Nicky007 from Friday, February 26, 2010 9:30:26 AM)| | | Nicky007 wrote: | | OK, Mike, let's just do it point by point:
1. You do not have errands to run. You don't need all that shit. Eat the fruit you already have at home, and drink a beer tonight (and get l...)
2. Guys, I honestly thought we'd have some fun with those unusual words. You guys are sooooo serious, and sooooo nitpicking. Man ! I'm not out to improve your "structure, spelling, grammar, and punctuation". I hope you learned that stuff in school. And if not, too bad. And it's OK, dude, I'l take ya as ya are
3. "Languages and linguistics". That's a concept, Mike, where the two words belong together - just like "linguistics" is singular. It would have sounded stupid to say "Languages and linguistics are passions with me", cause it's one passion. I really thought about that one. I think one can use both singular and plural, and argue for both, and I chose the singular form, cause I found that it described my condition best.
4. You'l see that it's my style, and I hope you'l take me as I am
5. I'l gladly take the "brotherly love", but leave the "kisses" for yer wife. With her, you can also place'm where ya want
Nicky.
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | I cannot stay long this morning, as I have errands to run, but I simply must make a quick comment regarding this Thread.
While I am always very pleased to see that there are members trying to improve their language skills, I hardly think that posting a few fancy words from a dictionary and providing definitions are what I had in mind!! HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I mean, I do appreciate the effort but I should think that , if we truly want to improve our writing, we should further examine our STRUCTURE as well as spelling, grammar and punctuation! As an example;
And it so happens that languages and linguistics is a passion with me ... Very nice, however, when one employs plurals (languages AND linguistics) one would use the plural combining form "are" to express the state of being or possession. Also, when using contractions, we must remember that a contraction is a shortening of a word or word group and needs to include the proper word abbreviation to be accurate. Example ; You'll find that I am.. not you'l. You are contracting (shortening) the word "will" and are required to use both "l"s for the contraction to be properly completed.
Sorry to pick on you, Nicky but this IS your Thread! HAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!! It's nice to see interest in "languages" and "linguistics", however, I am really hoping to see improvement in our structure first!!! Pulling words from a dictionary is far too easy. HAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAAA!!!!!!!!! (*Kisses* and "brotherly" love). HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
| [Budred] Friday, February 26, 2010 9:42:05 AM | |
|
I'm not a linguist but it sounds like #5 is her way of telling you to kiss her ass.(LOL)
Am I reading too deeply? |
|
| [Nicky007] Friday, February 26, 2010 9:30:26 AM | |
|
OK, Mike, let's just do it point by point:
1. You do not have errands to run. You don't need all that shit. Eat the fruit you already have at home, and drink a beer tonight (and get l...)
2. Guys, I honestly thought we'd have some fun with those unusual words. You guys are sooooo serious, and sooooo nitpicking. Man ! I'm not out to improve your "structure, spelling, grammar, and punctuation". I hope you learned that stuff in school. And if not, too bad. And it's OK, dude, I'l take ya as ya are
3. "Languages and linguistics". That's a concept, Mike, where the two words belong together - just like "linguistics" is singular. It would have sounded stupid to say "Languages and linguistics are passions with me", cause it's one passion. I really thought about that one. I think one can use both singular and plural, and argue for both, and I chose the singular form, cause I found that it described my condition best.
4. You'l see that it's my style, and I hope you'l take me as I am
5. I'l gladly take the "brotherly love", but leave the "kisses" for yer wife. With her, you can also place'm where ya want
Nicky.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Deep Freeze from Friday, February 26, 2010 8:59:29 AM)| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | I cannot stay long this morning, as I have errands to run, but I simply must make a quick comment regarding this Thread.
While I am always very pleased to see that there are members trying to improve their language skills, I hardly think that posting a few fancy words from a dictionary and providing definitions are what I had in mind!! HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I mean, I do appreciate the effort but I should think that , if we truly want to improve our writing, we should further examine our STRUCTURE as well as spelling, grammar and punctuation! As an example;
And it so happens that languages and linguistics is a passion with me ... Very nice, however, when one employs plurals (languages AND linguistics) one would use the plural combining form "are" to express the state of being or possession. Also, when using contractions, we must remember that a contraction is a shortening of a word or word group and needs to include the proper word abbreviation to be accurate. Example ; You'll find that I am.. not you'l. You are contracting (shortening) the word "will" and are required to use both "l"s for the contraction to be properly completed.
Sorry to pick on you, Nicky but this IS your Thread! HAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!! It's nice to see interest in "languages" and "linguistics", however, I am really hoping to see improvement in our structure first!!! Pulling words from a dictionary is far too easy. HAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAAA!!!!!!!!! (*Kisses* and "brotherly" love). HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Friday, February 26, 2010 9:06:28 AM | |
|
exactly. a blasphemous remark. not currently in use.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Budred from Friday, February 26, 2010 7:20:16 AM)| | | Budred wrote: | | I know who Judas is and I know what a priest is. I've heard the term Judas Priest used in old movies.
I take it to be a "Goddamn" type of remark.
Any insight as to where the term came from and what it actually means? |
|
|
| [Deep Freeze] Friday, February 26, 2010 8:59:29 AM | |
|
I cannot stay long this morning, as I have errands to run, but I simply must make a quick comment regarding this Thread.
While I am always very pleased to see that there are members trying to improve their language skills, I hardly think that posting a few fancy words from a dictionary and providing definitions are what I had in mind!! HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I mean, I do appreciate the effort but I should think that , if we truly want to improve our writing, we should further examine our STRUCTURE as well as spelling, grammar and punctuation! As an example;
And it so happens that languages and linguistics is a passion with me ... Very nice, however, when one employs plurals (languages AND linguistics) one would use the plural combining form "are" to express the state of being or possession. Also, when using contractions, we must remember that a contraction is a shortening of a word or word group and needs to include the proper word abbreviation to be accurate. Example ; You'll find that I am.. not you'l. You are contracting (shortening) the word "will" and are required to use both "l"s for the contraction to be properly completed.
Sorry to pick on you, Nicky but this IS your Thread! HAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!! It's nice to see interest in "languages" and "linguistics", however, I am really hoping to see improvement in our structure first!!! Pulling words from a dictionary is far too easy. HAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAAA!!!!!!!!! (*Kisses* and "brotherly" love). HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
| [Budred] Friday, February 26, 2010 8:29:53 AM | |
|
I'm familiar with how Priest got the name, I'm curious as to what the term actually stands for and/or where it originated.
There is an old B&W movie called Judas Priest and I've heard the term mentioned in old movies as well.
...Anyone?...
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Vaillant 3.0 from Friday, February 26, 2010 7:45:28 AM)| | | Vaillant 3.0 wrote: | | | "Judas Priest" was used as the name of a person in Bob Dylan's song "The Ballad of Frankie Lee and Judas Priest". That was where the band got the name and used it ever since. Plus, the name itself does have a bit of the "shock factor" to it, being that it has the name Judas and the word priest in it...a sort of light/dark combination that most people either like or dislike. |
|
|
| [Vaillant 3.0] Friday, February 26, 2010 7:45:28 AM | |
|
| "Judas Priest" was used as the name of a person in Bob Dylan's song "The Ballad of Frankie Lee and Judas Priest". That was where the band got the name and used it ever since. Plus, the name itself does have a bit of the "shock factor" to it, being that it has the name Judas and the word priest in it...a sort of light/dark combination that most people either like or dislike. |
|
| [Nicky007] Friday, February 26, 2010 7:31:02 AM | |
|
Seconded, by all means !!!
I'v also wondered a lot about that.
There's a very dramatic moment in the Bible (ya know, that big fantasy book), where Judas calls upon the high priests, but as to the compaction "Judas Priest", I'm lost 
Nicky.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Budred from Friday, February 26, 2010 7:20:16 AM)| | | Budred wrote: | | I know who Judas is and I know what a priest is. I've heard the term Judas Priest used in old movies.
I take it to be a "Goddamn" type of remark.
Any insight as to where the term came from and what it actually means? |
|
|
| [Nicky007] Friday, February 26, 2010 7:23:09 AM | |
|
Thanks, Strat !
I have to admit that I didnt either know about "unexceptionable" till about a year ago 
It's also a hard one, took me quite some effort to get into place.
un·ex·cep·tion·a·ble
–adjective
not offering any basis for exception or objection; beyond criticism: an unexceptionable record of achievement.
—Related forms
un·ex·cep·tion·a·ble·ness, noun
un·ex·cep·tion·a·bly, adverb
—Can be confused: unexceptionable, unexceptional.
Usage Note: The confusion between unexceptionable and unexceptional is understandable, since both derive from the noun exception. Unexceptionable takes its meaning from exception in the sense "objection," as in the idiom take exception to ("find fault with, object to"). Thus unexceptionable is commendatory, meaning "not open to any objection or criticism," as in A judge's ethical standards should be unexceptionable. Unexceptional, by contrast, is related to the adjective exceptional ("outstanding, above average), which takes its meaning from exception in the sense "an unusual case"; thus unexceptional generally has a somewhat negative meaning, "not superior, run-of-the-mill" as in Some judges' ethical standards have unfortunately been unexceptional.
- Dictionary.com
I think that the example in the Usage Note is very good: A judge's ethical standards (or judgement) should be unexceptionable. If you ponder long enough on that, you should get "unexceptionable" into place.
Nicky.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Thursday, February 25, 2010 2:20:21 PM)
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
(NOTE: I dont know what you and Freeze have going on, but I think its a great thread, so ill give it a shot)
1. Unexceptional - I would say that it means roughly the same as "nothing special" (not exceptional) - the other would mean something like not controversial2. No idea - I always thought barbarian is only a noun. For barbaric and barbarous, I would say that they are synonimous
3. If Im not much mistaken reprove and rebuke mean the same thing, but reprove is a gentler way of saying it. Both mean to disagree, while refute means to prove something wrong. I dont know what rebut means, rebuff is (I think) synonimus with refuse.
As for the rest - I know c*cksucker, but thats it.
| |
|
Nicky007 wrote: |
| |
As several of us are interested in languages, I'v started this thread as a place where we can share and test each other.
What's nice about it is that it's a win-win situation: We all extend our knowledge.
I'l start with some of the tests that I give people who should know English well, or claim to do so.
What's the difference between unexceptional and unexceptionable ?
- between the adjectives barbarian, barbaric, and barbarous ?
- between reprove, rebuke, refute, rebut, and rebuff ?
- between cockscomb and coxcomb ?
- between c*cksucker and coxsucker ? (Remember, we're just discussing linguistics)
OK, guys, have fun ! Try to first answer these questions without any aids. Then you can use whatever aids you want. I'l fill in with the rest.
And remember: Ya can't fool me !
Mike, I committed the most abominable sin: I started a new thread 
But as we love each other (Christian love), I expect that you can forgive me; love forgives ! (Slowly ushering ya in) 
Nicky. |
|
Edited at: Friday, February 26, 2010 7:24:15 AM Edited at: Friday, February 26, 2010 7:24:33 AM Edited at: Friday, February 26, 2010 7:24:58 AM Edited at: Friday, February 26, 2010 7:25:20 AM Edited at: Friday, February 26, 2010 7:26:39 AM Edited at: Friday, February 26, 2010 7:33:33 AM
Edited at: Friday, February 26, 2010 7:34:19 AM |
|
| [Budred] Friday, February 26, 2010 7:20:16 AM | |
|
I know who Judas is and I know what a priest is. I've heard the term Judas Priest used in old movies.
I take it to be a "Goddamn" type of remark.
Any insight as to where the term came from and what it actually means? |
|
| [Nicky007] Friday, February 26, 2010 7:04:34 AM | |
|
OK, now we're talkin, Guido.
The "pompous" I can understand, I'v heard it before, but that's cause I don't like to hold back with the knowledge that I actually have. Likewise you'l notice that I am very open to learning from others stuff that I don't know yet - and I'm aware that there's a lot more that I don't know than that I do know.
Also re "pompous", I like to banter a lot, but as I said in the beginning, I try to respect people's feelings. I'v already made one apology on this board, and I'l readily make more, where merited. But till now I can only acknowledge this one time when I overstepped limits of decency, and honestly, I wasnt aware of the circumstances beforehand.
The "condescending" is not on my part. As I also wrote, I, if anyone, regard every other being on this planet as equal to me. I have some more experiences and knowledge in some areas, and others have'm in other areas. I mean, isnt that why we're here ? To share and learn from each other ?
And it so happens that languages and linguistics is a passion with me, and I'v worked excruciatingly hard to gain the knowledge that I have in this field. (I never took courses in languages beyond high school.) Further, I felt that there was enough interest from other members to start this thread and write my stuff in the other threads.
So, Guido, with this exchange, I'm willing to brush away all bad feelings between us and continue in a friendly and respectful manner, hopefully also bantering.
I gladly accept and consider all types of personal criticism, if it's rendered in a friendly and respectful manner. Else, I tend to ignore unnecessarily base comments directed towards me (not always towards others), unless it affects the general discussion climate, at which I react, as I did here.
Honestly, after having been born in an academic environment and lived in it for 45 of my 55 years (my Dad is professor in physics and I almost took a MSc in maths and physics), and then left it (apart from good friends) ten years ago, I really care f*a* about status and titles. Honestly ! Almost all of these guys are totally ignorant about Judas Priest, Dream Theater, Symphony X etc etc, and to my mind they'r thus missing something far far bigger than all those claps on their shoulders. Trust me, I know the academic world, and particularly I know its limits - tho I speak and write like an academic. But what dya wanna do about that ? Give me a lobotomy ?
Nicky. [Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by guidogodoy from Friday, February 26, 2010 6:17:46 AM)
| |
|
guidogodoy wrote: |
| |
Likewise, you should notice that some find your statements pompous and condescending.
No worries. Had you been around for at least 100 posts, you would have found that I make a habit of avoiding topics that deal with education, politics and religion. I get far too much of that in my day job as a chimney sweep.
| |
|
Nicky007 wrote: |
| |
Guido, we might not be sharing that much at the moment, but you ought to accept that some people find my stuff interesting.
You should stop acting like a censor here.
Why do you need to create so much negativity ?
Respond to the posts that you find interesting, and let the other discussions go by.
Nicky. (Quoting Message by guidogodoy from Thursday, February 25, 2010 7:30:55 PM)
| |
|
guidogodoy wrote: |
| |
| Only one word I would "test" my fellow JP mates that "should" know English here: "hubris." Edited at: Thursday, February 25, 2010 7:32:07 PM |
Edited at: Friday, February 26, 2010 3:06:57 AM |
|
Edited at: Friday, February 26, 2010 7:06:44 AM Edited at: Friday, February 26, 2010 7:07:41 AM
Edited at: Friday, February 26, 2010 7:10:48 AM |
|
| [guidogodoy] Friday, February 26, 2010 6:17:46 AM | |
|
Likewise, you should notice that some find your statements pompous and condescending.
No worries. Had you been around for at least 100 posts, you would have found that I make a habit of avoiding topics that deal with education, politics and religion. I get far too much of that in my day job as a chimney sweep.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Nicky007 from Friday, February 26, 2010 3:06:24 AM)| | | Nicky007 wrote: | | Guido, we might not be sharing that much at the moment, but you ought to accept that some people find my stuff interesting.
You should stop acting like a censor here.
Why do you need to create so much negativity ?
Respond to the posts that you find interesting, and let the other discussions go by.
Nicky. (Quoting Message by guidogodoy from Thursday, February 25, 2010 7:30:55 PM)
| |
|
guidogodoy wrote: |
| |
| Only one word I would "test" my fellow JP mates that "should" know English here: "hubris." Edited at: Thursday, February 25, 2010 7:32:07 PM |
Edited at: Friday, February 26, 2010 3:06:57 AM |
|
|
| [Nicky007] Friday, February 26, 2010 3:44:41 AM | |
|
Yeah, I was of course kiddin, Mike
If there's one area where I absolutely don't wanna manipulate, it's faith and religion 
Nicky.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Deep Freeze from Thursday, February 25, 2010 7:26:36 AM)| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | HA!!!!!!!!!!!!! Oh Nicky, my dear, confused new friend. I fear you have misinterpreted some of my past comments! "Ushering" me in, are you?? I can assure you that you are wasting your time...time better spent helping orphans or healing the sick. Perhaps a "mission" to deepest Africa or something? Do good where it is most needed, my friend. Mine is a lost cause. I "love" only myself.
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
| | | Nicky007 wrote: | | As several of us are interested in languages, I'v started this thread as a place where we can share and test each other.
What's nice about it is that it's a win-win situation: We all extend our knowledge.
I'l start with some of the tests that I give people who should know English well, or claim to do so.
What's the difference between unexceptional and unexceptionable ?
- between the adjectives barbarian, barbaric, and barbarous ?
- between reprove, rebuke, refute, rebut, and rebuff ?
- between cockscomb and coxcomb ?
- between c*cksucker and coxsucker ? (Remember, we're just discussing linguistics)
OK, guys, have fun ! Try to first answer these questions without any aids. Then you can use whatever aids you want. I'l fill in with the rest.
And remember: Ya can't fool me !
Mike, I committed the most abominable sin: I started a new thread
But as we love each other (Christian love), I expect that you can forgive me; love forgives ! (Slowly ushering ya in)
Nicky. |
|
|
|
| [Nicky007] Friday, February 26, 2010 3:31:22 AM | |
|
Right, Headbanger !
–noun
1. the steersman of a racing shell.
2. a person who is in charge of a ship's boat and its crew, under an officer, and who steers it.
Origin:
1425–75; late ME cokeswayne. See cockboat, swain
There is a difference between cockscomb and coxcomb :
–noun
1.
the comb or caruncle of a cock.
2.
the cap, resembling a cock's comb, formerly worn by professional fools.
3.
a garden plant, Celosia cristata, of the amaranth family, with flowers, commonly crimson or purple, in a broad spike somewhat resembling the comb of a cock.
4.
any of several other species of the genus Celosia.
5.
an elongate prickleback, Anoplarchus purpurescens, living among submerged rocks along the Pacific coast of North America.
6.
a gaslight burner having four or more jets.
Origin:
1350–1400; ME; see cock, 's1, comb1
–noun
1. a conceited, foolish dandy; pretentious fop.
2. Archaic. head; pate.
3. Obsolete. cockscomb (def. 2).
Origin: 1565–75; sp. var. of cockscomb
—Related forms
cox·comb·i·cal cox·comb·ic, adjective
cox·comb·i·cal·ly, adverb
—Synonyms 1. dude, popinjay, jackanapes.
All dictionary.com.
(I tried to improve the typography here, but it turned out to be rather difficult.)
Nicky.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Thursday, February 25, 2010 6:50:54 PM)
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
cockscomb is the thing on top of a roosters head (or other male birds)
cox is short for coxswain, which is a dude on a boat.
| |
|
Vaillant 3.0 wrote: |
| |
Hmmm...while I may not know what cockscomb means, I'm pretty sure that both cockscomb and coxcomb have the exact same definition. It's kind of like the color vs colour scenario, or sucks vs sux. Same goes for c*cksucker and coxsucker, I bet.
| |
|
Nicky007 wrote: |
| |
As several of us are interested in languages, I'v started this thread as a place where we can share and test each other.
What's nice about it is that it's a win-win situation: We all extend our knowledge.
I'l start with some of the tests that I give people who should know English well, or claim to do so.
What's the difference between unexceptional and unexceptionable ?
- between the adjectives barbarian, barbaric, and barbarous ?
- between reprove, rebuke, refute, rebut, and rebuff ?
- between cockscomb and coxcomb ?
- between c*cksucker and coxsucker ? (Remember, we're just discussing linguistics)
OK, guys, have fun ! Try to first answer these questions without any aids. Then you can use whatever aids you want. I'l fill in with the rest.
And remember: Ya can't fool me !
Mike, I committed the most abominable sin: I started a new thread
But as we love each other (Christian love), I expect that you can forgive me; love forgives ! (Slowly ushering ya in)
Nicky. |
|
|
Edited at: Friday, February 26, 2010 3:32:59 AM Edited at: Friday, February 26, 2010 3:34:08 AM Edited at: Friday, February 26, 2010 3:35:39 AM Edited at: Friday, February 26, 2010 3:36:12 AM Edited at: Friday, February 26, 2010 3:37:22 AM
Edited at: Friday, February 26, 2010 3:38:19 AM |
|
| [Nicky007] Friday, February 26, 2010 3:14:53 AM | |
|
Vail, I think you mean:
so·phros·y·ne
–noun
moderation; discretion; prudence.
Origin:
< Gk sôphrosýnç, deriv. of sṓphrôn prudent
- Dictionary.com
Nicky.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Vaillant 3.0 from Thursday, February 25, 2010 11:19:16 PM)
| |
|
Vaillant 3.0 wrote: |
| |
How about "sophroseny"?
| |
|
guidogodoy wrote: |
| |
| Only one word I would "test" my fellow JP mates that "should" know English here: "hubris." Edited at: Thursday, February 25, 2010 7:32:07 PM |
|
Edited at: Friday, February 26, 2010 3:15:09 AM Edited at: Friday, February 26, 2010 3:15:27 AM Edited at: Friday, February 26, 2010 3:32:09 AM
Edited at: Friday, February 26, 2010 3:39:40 AM |
|
| [Nicky007] Friday, February 26, 2010 3:06:24 AM | |
|
Guido, we might not be sharing that much at the moment, but you ought to accept that some people find my stuff interesting.
You should stop acting like a censor here.
Why do you need to create so much negativity ?
Respond to the posts that you find interesting, and let the other discussions go by.
Nicky. [Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by guidogodoy from Thursday, February 25, 2010 7:30:55 PM)
| |
|
guidogodoy wrote: |
| |
| Only one word I would "test" my fellow JP mates that "should" know English here: "hubris." Edited at: Thursday, February 25, 2010 7:32:07 PM |
Edited at: Friday, February 26, 2010 3:06:57 AM |
|
| [Vaillant 3.0] Thursday, February 25, 2010 11:19:16 PM | |
|
How about "sophroseny"?
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by guidogodoy from Thursday, February 25, 2010 7:30:55 PM)| | | guidogodoy wrote: | | Only one word I would "test" my fellow JP mates that "should" know English here: "hubris."
Edited at: Thursday, February 25, 2010 7:32:07 PM |
|
|
| [spapad] Thursday, February 25, 2010 8:42:02 PM | |
|
Jam packed full of it Guid. lol I don't know how the head fits through the doors of local establishments? Seems a shame to be so "full of it". lol
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by guidogodoy from Thursday, February 25, 2010 7:30:55 PM)| | | guidogodoy wrote: | | Only one word I would "test" my fellow JP mates that "should" know English here: "hubris."
Edited at: Thursday, February 25, 2010 7:32:07 PM |
|
|
| [guidogodoy] Thursday, February 25, 2010 7:30:55 PM | |
|
Only one word I would "test" my fellow JP mates that "should" know English here: "hubris."
Edited at: Thursday, February 25, 2010 7:32:07 PM |
|
| [Head banger] Thursday, February 25, 2010 6:50:54 PM | |
|
cockscomb is the thing on top of a roosters head (or other male birds)
cox is short for coxswain, which is a dude on a boat.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Vaillant 3.0 from Thursday, February 25, 2010 5:21:42 PM)| | | Vaillant 3.0 wrote: | | Hmmm...while I may not know what cockscomb means, I'm pretty sure that both cockscomb and coxcomb have the exact same definition. It's kind of like the color vs colour scenario, or sucks vs sux. Same goes for c*cksucker and coxsucker, I bet.
| | | Nicky007 wrote: | | As several of us are interested in languages, I'v started this thread as a place where we can share and test each other.
What's nice about it is that it's a win-win situation: We all extend our knowledge.
I'l start with some of the tests that I give people who should know English well, or claim to do so.
What's the difference between unexceptional and unexceptionable ?
- between the adjectives barbarian, barbaric, and barbarous ?
- between reprove, rebuke, refute, rebut, and rebuff ?
- between cockscomb and coxcomb ?
- between c*cksucker and coxsucker ? (Remember, we're just discussing linguistics)
OK, guys, have fun ! Try to first answer these questions without any aids. Then you can use whatever aids you want. I'l fill in with the rest.
And remember: Ya can't fool me !
Mike, I committed the most abominable sin: I started a new thread
But as we love each other (Christian love), I expect that you can forgive me; love forgives ! (Slowly ushering ya in)
Nicky. |
|
|
|
| [Vaillant 3.0] Thursday, February 25, 2010 5:21:42 PM | |
|
Hmmm...while I may not know what cockscomb means, I'm pretty sure that both cockscomb and coxcomb have the exact same definition. It's kind of like the color vs colour scenario, or sucks vs sux. Same goes for c*cksucker and coxsucker, I bet.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Nicky007 from Thursday, February 25, 2010 3:03:12 AM)| | | Nicky007 wrote: | | As several of us are interested in languages, I'v started this thread as a place where we can share and test each other.
What's nice about it is that it's a win-win situation: We all extend our knowledge.
I'l start with some of the tests that I give people who should know English well, or claim to do so.
What's the difference between unexceptional and unexceptionable ?
- between the adjectives barbarian, barbaric, and barbarous ?
- between reprove, rebuke, refute, rebut, and rebuff ?
- between cockscomb and coxcomb ?
- between c*cksucker and coxsucker ? (Remember, we're just discussing linguistics)
OK, guys, have fun ! Try to first answer these questions without any aids. Then you can use whatever aids you want. I'l fill in with the rest.
And remember: Ya can't fool me !
Mike, I committed the most abominable sin: I started a new thread
But as we love each other (Christian love), I expect that you can forgive me; love forgives ! (Slowly ushering ya in)
Nicky. |
|
|
| [_strat_] Thursday, February 25, 2010 2:20:21 PM | |
|
(NOTE: I dont know what you and Freeze have going on, but I think its a great thread, so ill give it a shot)
1. Unexceptional - I would say that it means roughly the same as "nothing special" (not exceptional) - the other would mean something like not controversial
2. No idea - I always thought barbarian is only a noun. For barbaric and barbarous, I would say that they are synonimous
3. If Im not much mistaken reprove and rebuke mean the same thing, but reprove is a gentler way of saying it. Both mean to disagree, while refute means to prove something wrong. I dont know what rebut means, rebuff is (I think) synonimus with refuse.
As for the rest - I know c*cksucker, but thats it.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Nicky007 from Thursday, February 25, 2010 3:03:12 AM)| | | Nicky007 wrote: | | As several of us are interested in languages, I'v started this thread as a place where we can share and test each other.
What's nice about it is that it's a win-win situation: We all extend our knowledge.
I'l start with some of the tests that I give people who should know English well, or claim to do so.
What's the difference between unexceptional and unexceptionable ?
- between the adjectives barbarian, barbaric, and barbarous ?
- between reprove, rebuke, refute, rebut, and rebuff ?
- between cockscomb and coxcomb ?
- between c*cksucker and coxsucker ? (Remember, we're just discussing linguistics)
OK, guys, have fun ! Try to first answer these questions without any aids. Then you can use whatever aids you want. I'l fill in with the rest.
And remember: Ya can't fool me !
Mike, I committed the most abominable sin: I started a new thread
But as we love each other (Christian love), I expect that you can forgive me; love forgives ! (Slowly ushering ya in)
Nicky. |
|
|
| [Deep Freeze] Thursday, February 25, 2010 7:26:36 AM | |
|
HA!!!!!!!!!!!!! Oh Nicky, my dear, confused new friend. I fear you have misinterpreted some of my past comments! "Ushering" me in, are you?? I can assure you that you are wasting your time...time better spent helping orphans or healing the sick. Perhaps a "mission" to deepest Africa or something? Do good where it is most needed, my friend. Mine is a lost cause. I "love" only myself.
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Nicky007 from Thursday, February 25, 2010 3:03:12 AM)| | | Nicky007 wrote: | | As several of us are interested in languages, I'v started this thread as a place where we can share and test each other.
What's nice about it is that it's a win-win situation: We all extend our knowledge.
I'l start with some of the tests that I give people who should know English well, or claim to do so.
What's the difference between unexceptional and unexceptionable ?
- between the adjectives barbarian, barbaric, and barbarous ?
- between reprove, rebuke, refute, rebut, and rebuff ?
- between cockscomb and coxcomb ?
- between c*cksucker and coxsucker ? (Remember, we're just discussing linguistics)
OK, guys, have fun ! Try to first answer these questions without any aids. Then you can use whatever aids you want. I'l fill in with the rest.
And remember: Ya can't fool me !
Mike, I committed the most abominable sin: I started a new thread
But as we love each other (Christian love), I expect that you can forgive me; love forgives ! (Slowly ushering ya in)
Nicky. |
|
|
| [Nicky007] Thursday, February 25, 2010 3:03:12 AM | |
|
As several of us are interested in languages, I'v started this thread as a place where we can share and test each other.
What's nice about it is that it's a win-win situation: We all extend our knowledge.
I'l start with some of the tests that I give people who should know English well, or claim to do so.
What's the difference between unexceptional and unexceptionable ?
- between the adjectives barbarian, barbaric, and barbarous ?
- between reprove, rebuke, refute, rebut, and rebuff ?
- between cockscomb and coxcomb ?
- between c*cksucker and coxsucker ? (Remember, we're just discussing linguistics)
OK, guys, have fun ! Try to first answer these questions without any aids. Then you can use whatever aids you want. I'l fill in with the rest.
And remember: Ya can't fool me !
Mike, I committed the most abominable sin: I started a new thread
But as we love each other (Christian love), I expect that you can forgive me; love forgives ! (Slowly ushering ya in)
Nicky. |
|
ɪkˈsɛp