"Dave" wrote in message
...
Looks like Jonathan isn't the only one who has a bit of a problem with the
nuances of the understood "to be," the adjective "cheap" and the adverb
"cheaply." In an otherwise fine front page editorial, today's Post,
referring to the young Americans under arms in Iraq, said "How shameful
that
the commission's attack dogs hold their sacrifices so cheaply."


The word "cheaply" is qualifying the word "hold". "Hold" is a verb.
Therefore "cheaply" is an adverb.

Now, Dave. The word "so" before the word "cheaply" makes a slight change
to its gramatical status. Are you capable of explaining it to us?


Grammatical flames are almost as much fun as spelling flames!!!!


Regards


Donal
--

hey dickhead, nobody gives a ****.


"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 22:19:07 +0100, "Donal" said:

The word "cheaply" is qualifying the word "hold". "Hold" is a verb.
Therefore "cheaply" is an adverb.

Now, Dave. The word "so" before the word "cheaply" makes a slight
change
to its gramatical status. Are you capable of explaining it to us?

Thank God we had Jefferson rather than Donal writing the Declaration of
Independence. Otherwise it would have come out reading "We hold these
truths
to be self-evidently."

The correct word in the Declaration is, as Jefferson wrote,
"self-evident."
And the correct word in the Post would have been "cheap." Why? Because of
the words "to be." "Be" in its variations (is, are, etc.) is a reflexive
verb. It's followed by either a noun (or pronoun) or an adjective
referring
in either case back to the subject of the sentence or clause. E.g. "I am
cold." In the case of the Post's line, the words "to be" are there, but
silently--they're understood. Thus ""How shameful that the commission's
attack dogs hold their sacrifices" [to be] "so" _cheap_. "Cheap" refers
back
via the reflexive "hold [to be]" to the noun "sacrifices," not to the verb
"hold."

Dave
S/V Good Fortune
CS27

He does, and he's a dickhead.

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

"Scott Vernon" wrote in message
...
hey dickhead, nobody gives a ****.


"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 22:19:07 +0100, "Donal" said:

The word "cheaply" is qualifying the word "hold". "Hold" is a verb.
Therefore "cheaply" is an adverb.

Now, Dave. The word "so" before the word "cheaply" makes a slight
change
to its gramatical status. Are you capable of explaining it to us?

Thank God we had Jefferson rather than Donal writing the Declaration of
Independence. Otherwise it would have come out reading "We hold these
truths
to be self-evidently."

The correct word in the Declaration is, as Jefferson wrote,
"self-evident."
And the correct word in the Post would have been "cheap." Why? Because
of
the words "to be." "Be" in its variations (is, are, etc.) is a reflexive
verb. It's followed by either a noun (or pronoun) or an adjective
referring
in either case back to the subject of the sentence or clause. E.g. "I am
cold." In the case of the Post's line, the words "to be" are there, but
silently--they're understood. Thus ""How shameful that the commission's
attack dogs hold their sacrifices" [to be] "so" _cheap_. "Cheap" refers
back
via the reflexive "hold [to be]" to the noun "sacrifices," not to the
verb
"hold."

Dave
S/V Good Fortune
CS27

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 22:19:07 +0100, "Donal" said:

The word "cheaply" is qualifying the word "hold". "Hold" is a verb.
Therefore "cheaply" is an adverb.

Now, Dave. The word "so" before the word "cheaply" makes a slight
change
to its gramatical status. Are you capable of explaining it to us?

Thank God we had Jefferson rather than Donal writing the Declaration of
Independence. Otherwise it would have come out reading "We hold these
truths
to be self-evidently."

Dear me!
I notice that you have snipped your own example.
"How shameful that
the commission's attack dogs hold their sacrifices so cheaply."





The correct word in the Declaration is, as Jefferson wrote,
"self-evident."
And the correct word in the Post would have been "cheap." Why? Because of
the words "to be."

The words "to be" do **NOT** appear in your quotation.


"Be" in its variations (is, are, etc.) is a reflexive
verb.

Perhaps! However, the word "Be" didn't appear in your quatation either.


It's followed by either a noun (or pronoun)

It wasn't followed by anything at all. "Be" DIDN'T APPEAR in your
quotation.


or an adjective referring
in either case back to the subject of the sentence or clause. E.g. "I am
cold."

The verb "To be" did *NOT* appear in your original post.

In the case of the Post's line, the words "to be" are there, but
silently--they're understood.

Bwahahahaha! You mean that they were NOT there, but you *thought* that
they were?

Thus ""How shameful that the commission's
attack dogs hold their sacrifices" [to be] "so" _cheap_. "Cheap" refers
back
via the reflexive "hold [to be]" to the noun "sacrifices," not to the verb
"hold."

You are a complete idiot! The words "to be" weren't there. You know as
little about language as you do about sailing.



Regards


Donal
--

So, which words don't you understand:

a) Dave
b) is
c) stooopid

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

"Dave" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 22:36:53 +0100, "Donal" said:

Bwahahahaha! You mean that they were NOT there, but you *thought* that
they were?

No, I mean that when one's understanding of the English language reaches
beyond the sixth grade he comes to realize there are something called
"understood" words--words that do not appear in the literal text but that
must be regarded as present for a correct analysis of the sentence's
grammatical structure and meaning. For another example of understood
words,
see the second bullet point of

http://www.grammardoctor.com/archive6.htm

For a somewhat pedantic discourse on the topic, see

http://www.geocities.com/eowilliams11/guide.html

And for a truly dense paper on the topic, full of jargon, see

http://home.hum.uva.nl/fg/working_papers/wpfg76.html#06


Dave
S/V Good Fortune
CS27

Who goes duck hunting with Jamie Gorelick?

"Dave" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 22:36:53 +0100, "Donal" said:

Bwahahahaha! You mean that they were NOT there, but you *thought* that
they were?

No, I mean that when one's understanding of the English language reaches
beyond the sixth grade he comes to realize there are something called
"understood" words-

OK! Now I understand.

If anybody proves that you are wrong, you will (retrospectivley) add words
to justify your position!!!!

If you are correct, then why do you need to keep snipping your own
quotation? Huh?
Here it is again.
"How shameful that the commission's attack dogs hold their sacrifices so
cheaply."

"Cheaply", in your quotation, is qualifying the verb "hold". As such, it it
obviously an adverb.

If you wish to disagree with me, then you should confine your comments to
the actual quotation that we are discussing. Your attempts to bring in other
examples are, patently pathetic, efforts to divert attention from your
initial error.




Regards


Donal
--

Betterly....

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

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 00:18:18 +0100, "Donal" said:

If you are correct, then why do you need to keep snipping your own
quotation? Huh?
Here it is again.
"How shameful that the commission's attack dogs hold their sacrifices so
cheaply."

"Cheaply", in your quotation, is qualifying the verb "hold". As such, it
it
obviously an adverb.

If you wish to disagree with me, then you should confine your comments to
the actual quotation that we are discussing. Your attempts to bring in
other
examples are, patently pathetic, efforts to divert attention from your
initial error.

Sorry, Donal. You're just wrong on this one, and Jefferson was right. Try
the exactly parallel construction: "We hold these truths self-evidently"?
I
don't think so. "We hold these truths self-evident." Better? I think so.


Dave
S/V Good Fortune
CS27

Who goes duck hunting with Jamie Gorelick?

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 00:18:18 +0100, "Donal" said:

If you are correct, then why do you need to keep snipping your own
quotation? Huh?
Here it is again.
"How shameful that the commission's attack dogs hold their sacrifices so
cheaply."

"Cheaply", in your quotation, is qualifying the verb "hold". As such, it
it
obviously an adverb.

If you wish to disagree with me, then you should confine your comments to
the actual quotation that we are discussing. Your attempts to bring in
other
examples are, patently pathetic, efforts to divert attention from your
initial error.

Sorry, Donal. You're just wrong on this one, and Jefferson was right. Try
the exactly parallel construction: "We hold these truths self-evidently"?
I
don't think so. "We hold these truths self-evident." Better? I think so.

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.


Regards


Donal
--

It's more a limitation of his general level of intelligence.

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

"Donal" wrote in message
...

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 00:18:18 +0100, "Donal" said:

If you are correct, then why do you need to keep snipping your own
quotation? Huh?
Here it is again.
"How shameful that the commission's attack dogs hold their sacrifices
so
cheaply."

"Cheaply", in your quotation, is qualifying the verb "hold". As such,
it
it
obviously an adverb.

If you wish to disagree with me, then you should confine your comments
to
the actual quotation that we are discussing. Your attempts to bring in
other
examples are, patently pathetic, efforts to divert attention from your
initial error.

Sorry, Donal. You're just wrong on this one, and Jefferson was right.
Try
the exactly parallel construction: "We hold these truths
self-evidently"?
I
don't think so. "We hold these truths self-evident." Better? I think so.

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.


Regards


Donal
--

Sounds like "to be" or "not to be" to me.

Cheers

Dave wrote:
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?