Teachers

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[TheWindCriesMary]

You just tried to deflect again.

You got convincingly shut down and instead of owning up to it, you deflect to something we've already handled (the completely unrelated notion of you and I pointing out each other's unintentional typos... which is completely futile on both sides as we've found multiple and they aren't the original topic of dissent) and hope I won't notice.


You JUST said sentence structure and the rules governing it were not Syntax. You were proven wrong immediately.


Take responsibility. Learn from it and next time you won't make the same mistake. You're done dude.

[Vermillion_Hawk]

You just tried to deflect again.

You got convincingly shut down and instead of owning up to it, you deflect and hope I won't notice.


You JUST said sentence structure and the rules governing it were not Syntax. You were proven wrong immediately.


Take responsibility. Learn from it and next time you won't make the same mistake. You're done dude.

If you believe you have won you are perhaps more delusional than previously imagined.

Your definition proves nothing anyways. It says syntax is the study of the rules governing sentence structure, not the rules themselves. These rules are conventions.

con·ven·tion (kn-vnshn)

a commonly accepted rule, usage, etc.

[TheWindCriesMary]

Your definition proves nothing anyways. It says syntax is the study of the rules governing sentence structure, not the rules themselves. These rules are conventions.

See Vermillion, now you're being funny.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume you're purposefully trying to sound like one of the most ridiculous people in the history of the world with this statement.

A+

Now try to make a real argument that you actually believe in, or just move on. You are done.

[TheWindCriesMary]

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sentence+structure

Noun   1.   sentence structure - the grammatical arrangement of words in sentences
Synonyms: phrase structure, syntax


More evidence (this is so unnecessary but as you're making a point of being extra obstinate, what choice do we have?)

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/syntax

Thanks for coming out. Again, you're done. Have the courage to just admit defeat and move on.

[Vermillion_Hawk]

See Vermillion, now you're being funny.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume you're purposefully trying to sound like one of the most ridiculous people in the history of the world with this statement.

A+

Now try to make a real argument that you actually believe in, or just move on. You are done.

You begin this absolutely ridiculous argument, it can only be finished in a ridiculous manner. Convince yourself I am finished, but you have not contradicted the previous statements. If various dictionaries differ in the definition, then perhaps you have finally learned that there is only one true rule in English, and that is all rules may be broken. In effect, the entire language is convention. Does it make the obscene flaunting of this convention right? No, but it allows English speakers the freedom to modify and warp the language to their desires, encouraging artistic development and creativity, and also providing the reason why the language will not die anytime soon.

[TheWindCriesMary]

Convince yourself I am finished, but you have not contradicted the previous statements.

You. Are. The. Least. Intelligent. Person. In. All. Of. EiR. Including. Sparta of Armenia.

Convince yourself I am finished, but you have not contradicted the previous statements.

Previous statement being:

Your definition proves nothing anyways. It says syntax is the study of the rules governing sentence structure, not the rules themselves. These rules are conventions.

CONTRADICTED:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sentence+structure

Noun   1.   sentence structure - the grammatical arrangement of words in sentences
Synonyms: phrase structure, syntax


More evidence (this is so unnecessary but as you're making a point of being extra obstinate, what choice do we have?)

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/syntax

Thanks for coming out. Again, you're done. Have the courage to just admit defeat and move on.

Even more evidence to shut you down once and for all:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/syntax

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syntax

You are done. You can't salvage this. Stop trying to squirm out of this. You got owned. Accept it and move on, lick your wounds and try again another day.

[Vermillion_Hawk]

Read the above edit. You'd think you'd be above calling people idiotic and stupid, being such a paragon, but it would seem otherwise.

[TheWindCriesMary]

Read the above edit. You'd think you'd be above calling people idiotic and stupid, being such a paragon, but it would seem otherwise.

The above edit you made is inane nonsense that not only has no backing in any falsifiable source, but it also blatantly imaginary. You don't get to make up whatever rules you want when writing in the English language, THEN try to defend them by saying they don't go against those rules, and THEN when you get proved wrong try to argue "well the rules don't matter anyway". If you had told me "sure my English is technically crap, but I like writing this way" you could never be proven wrong because you're admitting it's just your own personal taste. Instead you made the mistake of a multiple-hour attempt to try and defend yourself with the rules you didn't understand. Hell you didn't even know their definitions, let alone their nuances.

That's called being a vacillating power slug. It also is called making up complete and utter bullshit to vainly try and weasel your way out of a corner. You're seeking refuge in really crappy semantics, but that doesn't fly buddy.

And no, I'm not a paragon. You made that term up, but I lay no claim to it so no thank you m'aam. I'm a high-octane bandit nun with a badly singed frock who has no problem pointing out when someone acts like an extremely stupid person for some reason. When I see bullshit, I don't mind wading into it and doing battle with whatever ceaseless firehose nozzle of semantic acrobatics is spewing it.

In this case, you were that firehose nozzle. And though you tried mightily to lose me in bullshit, you got toasted.

[Spartan_Marine88]

Just to throw my 2 cents in.


http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/578599/syntax

syntax, the arrangement of words in sentences, clauses, and phrases, and the study of the formation of sentences and the relationship of their component parts.

The Encyclopedia Britannica has spoken (in the end it is THE DICTIONARY)

[TheWindCriesMary]

Just wait Spartan, he's either A) going to ignore your post, or B) invent some ludicrous semantic argument like "the dictionary just DEFINES terms, it doesn't lay out their APPLICATION... THEREFORE you haven't proved anything"

The guy has the ethical accountability of a jelly fish greased up with 400 litres of sun-baked, Armenian vaseline.

[Vermillion_Hawk]

The above edit is pretty inane nonsense. You don't get to make up whatever rules you want when writing in the English language, THEN try to defend them by saying they don't go against those rules, and THEN when you get proved wrong try to argue "well the rules don't matter anyway".

That's called being a vacillating power slug. It also is called making up complete and utter bullshit to vainly try and weasel your way out of a corner. You're seeking refuge in really crappy semantics, but that doesn't fly buddy.

And no, I'm not a paragon. I'm a high-octane bandit nun with a badly singed frock who has no problem pointing out when someone acts like an extremely stupid person for some reason.

It's easy to generalize the argument like that for your convenience. It's also easy to take refuge in the inane ramblings of your evidently disturbed mind. I have been saying that English is all conventions, sentence structure included.  That's all.

Spartan, you haven't posted anything that Wind hasn't already, or that he hasn't managed to prove incorrect either.

[Spartan_Marine88]

or that he hasn't managed to prove incorrect either.

So you admit he proved you incorrect.

[Vermillion_Hawk]

No, but that was a poorly-worded sentence.

[TheWindCriesMary]

It's easy to generalize the argument like that for your convenience. It's also easy to take refuge in the inane ramblings of your evidently disturbed mind. I have been saying that English is all conventions, sentence structure included.  That's all.

Spartan, you haven't posted anything that Wind hasn't already, or that he hasn't managed to prove incorrect either.

You have offered no evidence to support your fabricated opinion that "English is all conventions and that conventions can be broken and yet still considered proper English". It doesn't matter though because that's only the latest escape route you've tried to take.

In fact I've lost count on how many times you've tried a new approach (that directly contradicts your previous one) to try and get away.

Let's go to the beginning:

1. You were told you frequently wrote English sentences incorrectly in terms of Syntax and punctuation.

2. You denied this.

3. Your denial was proved to be incorrect via a thorough breakdown which showed how your sentences did not line up with the basic tenets of syntactical or rhetorical sentence structure.


4. You then decided to try and argue that Syntax wasn't the same as sentence structure

5. You were shown extensive evidence which directly contradicted your ludicrous statement.

6. Now you are trying to argue that all English rules are just "guidelines" that can be broken and that no one can ever say you are not a beautiful flower.

7. You have provided no evidence beyond what you want to believe is true, therefore your argument is utter crap.


Thank you again for coming out. You are through.

[Spartan_Marine88]

No, but that was a poorly-worded sentence.

It was a short statement and quite well written.

[TheWindCriesMary]

It was a short statement and quite well written.

Believe me, given how many bizarrely grotesque sentence structures he has thrown out in the past few days... you need not worry about explaining yourself to him.

At this point he's through. The last page and a half have been him trying to salvage some kind of partial escape out of here so don't be surprised if he's willing to try anything to get purchase.

[Vermillion_Hawk]

It was a short statement and quite well written.

I was speaking of my sentence.

You have offered no evidence to support your fabricated opinion that "English is all conventions and that conventions can be broken and yet still considered proper English". It doesn't matter though because that's only the latest escape route you've tried to take.

In fact I've lost count on how many times you've tried a new approach (that directly contradicts your previous one) to try and get away.

Let's go to the beginning:

1. You were told you frequently wrote English sentences incorrectly in terms of Syntax and punctuation.

2. You denied this.

3. Your denial was proved to be incorrect via a thorough breakdown which showed how your sentences did not line up with the basic tenets of syntactical or rhetorical sentence structure.


4. You then decided to try and argue that Syntax wasn't the same as sentence structure

5. You were shown extensive evidence which directly contradicted your ludicrous statement.

6. Now you are trying to argue that all English rules are just "guidelines" that can be broken and that no one can ever say you are not a beautiful flower.

7. You have provided no evidence beyond what you want to believe is true, therefore your argument is utter crap.


Thank you again for coming out. You are through.

What is my proof? Look it up. English is not a prescriptive language. With no clearly-defined central language body, the rules are subject to the authors and English teachers who may, perhaps, edit and bend some here and there.

[Vermillion_Hawk]

The fact of the matter is you have been instructed in a manner which favours a rigid and defined version of the English language with little room for error, and I have been taught that rules are merely conventions. In truth, neither can be proved or disproved.

[TheWindCriesMary]

I was speaking of my sentence.

What is my proof? Look it up. English is not a prescriptive language. With no clearly-defined central language body, the rules are subject to the authors and English teachers who may, perhaps, edit and bend some here and there.

This isn't a matter of you having your own personal, loose style.

This is about us pointing out specific examples of times where you didn't bend the rules of the English language, you completely contradicted them.

Bending a rule of English is writing a run-on sentence.

Writing shitty English is when you write a horrible run-on sentence that has clear and grievous syntactical errors.

Nice try trying to downplay the difference, but no dice.

[Vermillion_Hawk]

This isn't a matter of you having your own personal, loose style.

This is about us pointing out specific examples of times where you didn't bend the rules of the English language, you completely contradicted them.

Bending a rule of English is writing a run-on sentence.

Writing shitty English is when you write a horrible run-on sentence that has clear and grievous syntactical errors.

Nice try trying to downplay the difference, but no dice.

Like you downplayed the difference between a typo and a conscious error earlier. English is not a prescripted language. If I was speaking in French, you could throw all the accusations of butchery that you wanted. However, I'm not. Get over yourself, you have lost, and for every piece of evidence you can summon up, I can summon up one as well proving the opposite, as I already have. It's over.