Hey Dip****.. I mean Dave. I never said this.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 19:13:36 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
said:

Nonsense! You don't seem to be able to work with the original
quotation.
That's OK. I'll try to move down to your level.

Example A: "We hold these truths self-evident."
Example B: "We hold these truths passionately."

By your arguments, Example B should be written as "We hold these
truths
passionate".


Even someone with your limited understanding of basic grammar should be
able
to see that you are wrong.

On the contrary. By my argument Example B is correct as written. Why?
Because there is no understood "to be" verb in Example B. Let me
illustrate:

Example A as Jefferson wrote it: "We hold these truths to be
self-evident."
Example A as Donal wrote if: "We hold these truths self-evident." --Both
entirely correct, since the "to be," though not stated in Example A as
Donal
wrote it, is understood. "Self-evident" is an adjective referring to
truths,
not an adverb describing how the truths are held. The understood reflexive
"to be" tells us that.

Example B as Jefferson wouldn't have written it: "We hold these truths to
be
passionately."--incorrect, since he intends to describe how the truths are
held rather than to describe the truths themselves.
Example B as Donal wrote it: "We hold these truths
passionately" --entirely
correct, since there is no understood "to be." "Passionately" is not an
adjective. It's an adverb telling how the truths are held.

Once you get beyond the sixth grade level, Donal, the grammar requires a
bit
of subtlety and an ear for the language, not the application of simple
formulaic rules, as you would perhaps have seen had you read the
references
I gave you earlier.


Dave
S/V Good Fortune
CS27

Who goes duck hunting with Jamie Gorelick?

So, what you're saying is that you're too stupid to read date stamps
and have so much juice from all the insults that you'll snap at anything.
Looks like the trolls are getting to you.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 20:49:04 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
said:


Hey Dip****.. I mean Dave. I never said this.

Ya gotta learn to read the funny little marks at the beginning of each
line.

In this case, your article quoting Donal showed up on my server before
Donal's article, which only came in this morning. The funny little marks
would tell you you're being quoted quoting someone else.


Dave
S/V Good Fortune
CS27

Who goes duck hunting with Jamie Gorelick?

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 19:13:36 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
said:

Nonsense! You don't seem to be able to work with the original
quotation.
That's OK. I'll try to move down to your level.

Example A: "We hold these truths self-evident."
Example B: "We hold these truths passionately."

By your arguments, Example B should be written as "We hold these
truths
passionate".


Even someone with your limited understanding of basic grammar should be
able
to see that you are wrong.

On the contrary. By my argument Example B is correct as written. Why?
Because there is no understood "to be" verb in Example B. Let me
illustrate:

Example A as Jefferson wrote it: "We hold these truths to be
self-evident."
Example A as Donal wrote if: "We hold these truths self-evident."

Please do NOT misrepresent me.

I *very* deliberately enclosed "We hold these truths to be self-evident." in
quotation marks because they were *your* words.

Let me make it absolutely clear - you (Dave) wrote those words. That is
why I enclosed them in QUOTATION MARKS. Geddit??


That phrase demonstrated, beyond reasonable doubt, that you are totally
ignorant of basic grammatical constructs.

--Both
entirely correct, since the "to be," though not stated in Example A as
Donal
wrote it, is understood.

Correction!!!! I *Quoted* it. *YOU* wrote it.

"Self-evident" is an adjective referring to truths,
not an adverb describing how the truths are held. The understood reflexive
"to be" tells us that.

Well done. You are beginning to show a glimmer of understanding.
Perhaps you are now capable of understanding *your* original example.
"How shameful that the commission's attack dogs hold their sacrifices so
cheaply.""

You consistently seek to avoid your own original quotation.



Example B as Jefferson wouldn't have written it: "We hold these truths to
be
passionately."--incorrect, since he intends to describe how the truths are
held rather than to describe the truths themselves.
Example B as Donal wrote it: "We hold these truths
passionately" --entirely
correct, since there is no understood "to be." "Passionately" is not an
adjective. It's an adverb telling how the truths are held.

Em ...... so was "cheaply" in ***your*** original quotation.


Once you get beyond the sixth grade level, Donal, the grammar requires a
bit
of subtlety and an ear for the language, not the application of simple
formulaic rules, as you would perhaps have seen had you read the
references
I gave you earlier.

I read them. They were wrong.

If I were you, I would sue the university. They were guilty of a very
serious fraud when they gave you a degree in English.


Regards


Donal
--

Then learn to post properly dip****.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 08:49:59 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
said:

So, what you're saying is that you're too stupid to read date stamps

Jonathan, I'm not really interested in getting into one of your childish
food fights.


Dave
S/V Good Fortune
CS27

Who goes duck hunting with Jamie Gorelick?

"Dave" wrote:

On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 20:49:04 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
said:


Hey Dip****.. I mean Dave. I never said this.

Ya gotta learn to read the funny little marks at the beginning of each
line.

In this case, your article quoting Donal showed up on my server before
Donal's article, which only came in this morning. The funny little marks
would tell you you're being quoted quoting someone else.

You might want to draw, and then color a picture for our ASA Jonathan... :-)


Who goes duck hunting with Jamie Gorelick?

I'm not sure what the punch line is, but I was supscious of Jamie as soon as
she didn't want to interview Freeh and Reno. Then the next couple of days
the "memo" came out... I think she should excuse herself, claiming
"conflict of interest". But I only wished to be an attorney 20 years ago,
but I'm sure I would have made a good one if I had went that way early in
life.

Listening to you and Donal is just like being in court! :-D

LP

I'm no good at coloring, except when criticized.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Lady Pilot" wrote in message
news:qSphc.11109$c%3.244@okepread02...

"Dave" wrote:

On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 20:49:04 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
said:


Hey Dip****.. I mean Dave. I never said this.

Ya gotta learn to read the funny little marks at the beginning of each
line.

In this case, your article quoting Donal showed up on my server before
Donal's article, which only came in this morning. The funny little
marks
would tell you you're being quoted quoting someone else.

You might want to draw, and then color a picture for our ASA Jonathan...
:-)


Who goes duck hunting with Jamie Gorelick?

I'm not sure what the punch line is, but I was supscious of Jamie as soon
as
she didn't want to interview Freeh and Reno. Then the next couple of days
the "memo" came out... I think she should excuse herself, claiming
"conflict of interest". But I only wished to be an attorney 20 years ago,
but I'm sure I would have made a good one if I had went that way early in
life.

Listening to you and Donal is just like being in court! :-D

LP

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

| I'm no good at coloring, except when criticized.



Eventually you'll learn to stay within the lines Jon......

Then you can be really good with those crayons!

CM

Yeah... not good with crayons.. I guess I have to chalk that up
to lack of recent experience.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Capt. Mooron" wrote in message
...
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

| I'm no good at coloring, except when criticized.



Eventually you'll learn to stay within the lines Jon......

Then you can be really good with those crayons!

CM

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 23:34:58 +0100, "Donal" said:

I read them. They were wrong.


LOL. That pretty much says it all. The whole world's wrong except for you,
right? (Well, you and illiterates at the NY Post)

Perhaps you would be able to quote something from any of your links that
proves that I am wrong??????

I bet that you cannot. Furthermore, I will admit that I didn't bother to
read your links, because I am so confident about my position.




BTW in a decent education system one learns this sort of linguistic
mechanics no later than about the 7th or 8th grade, not at the university
level. The papers I pointed you to were dealing with the theory rather
than
the practice. The authors assumed a basic knowledge of the grammar on the
reader's part.

So what? Are you able to post a couple of lines that prove me wrong?


Ler's face it, Dave. You are a pompous ass, who believes that his
education gives him an innate superiority in matters of language.

I disagree. Furthermore, I am willing, and able to discuss the matter with
you.

Your degree is beginning to look pretty useless - don't you think?




Regards


Donal
--

I would certainly rather sound like John Kerry then that thief
in the White House. Perhaps you think it's ok to make a deal
of oil for a Presidential election. Gee, reminds with of arms
for hostages, except this time the hostages are in this country.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 00:10:20 +0100, "Donal" said:

I read them. They were wrong.


LOL. That pretty much says it all. The whole world's wrong except for
you,
right? (Well, you and illiterates at the NY Post)

Perhaps you would be able to quote something from any of your links that
proves that I am wrong??????

I bet that you cannot. Furthermore, I will admit that I didn't bother
to
read your links, because I am so confident about my position.

You're starting to sound like John Kerry, Donal. First "I read them," and
now "I didn't bother to read" them. I know how you vote for something and
then vote against it. But how do you unread something? Is it like starting
a
flood? (I trust you've heard the joke about "How do you start a flood?")

Dave
S/V Good Fortune
CS27

Who goes duck hunting with Jamie Gorelick?