Grammar Question. Help!

Fully agreeā€¦. up to a point;) Society will never be hurt by generational changes in language and how we communicate, unless the objective enhances a lazier society. If a majority believes that itā€™s just too much trouble to write down two syllable words and cancels all words beyond one syllable, something will have gone awry.
You mean like 'text speak?' 'thx' 'U' 'RU" ......etc. And the infamous "K" instead of OK. LOL!!
 
You mean like 'text speak?' 'thx' 'U' 'RU" ......etc. And the infamous "K" instead of OK. LOL!!
Lol yes Leo! So, text speak is text speak, but when reading something I just canā€™t imagine what books are going to look like eventually. All communication could be in shorthand messaging, and youā€™ll have to have a decoder ring to figure it all out- ha! Iā€™m currently reading George Orwellā€˜s 1984, and boy does this conversation fit. Especially with your use of text speak as predicted by GOā€¦ I figured Iā€™d practice a bit there;)
 
Lol yes Leo! So, text speak is text speak, but when reading something I just canā€™t imagine what books are going to look like eventually. All communication could be in shorthand messaging, and youā€™ll have to have a decoder ring to figure it all out- ha! Iā€™m currently reading George Orwellā€˜s 1984, and boy does this conversation fit. Especially with your use of text speak as predicted by GOā€¦ I figured Iā€™d practice a bit there;)
I think formal written language will stay relevant for a very long time. Again, what's important is having the ability to communicate with you. If you can't understand what I'm saying then the language is worthless in the context of me trying to communicate with you. I'll need something else.
 
IMO, It depends on whether the speaker is describing a 1st person account or not. "Its sound was that of an approaching train." Puts the speaker at the scene. "Its sound was that of an approaching train's." Could put the speaker in the 2nd or 3rd person describing an incident where they were not physically present.
That makes sense to me.
 
By the way, I have seen impassioned used as a verb many times, but it's always followed by a specific object.
Give us an example of 'impassioned' being used as a verb. Maybe you should have done that before making the claim. It could move the topic along quicker.
I'm volunteering to help you but if you are going to be contrary then it's going to end.
 
Generally, I'm a competent writer, but it recently occurred to me that I might not be using a particular, metaphoric device of simile correctly. For example, which is correct?

Its sound was that of an approaching train.

OR

Its sound was that of an approaching train's.

In other words: His wont was that of a beggar (or beggar's?). . . .

Thanks.
I dew not like you're misusagedness of pronouns. It iz verry ofensive.
 
Give us an example of 'impassioned' being used as a verb. Maybe you should have done that before making the claim. It could move the topic along quicker.
I'm volunteering to help you but if you are going to be contrary then it's going to end.
I really don't get the point of your reproach over what is nothing more than the first draft of a long essay. It's weird to me. I don't know about others, but in my first draft, grammar is not at the forefront of my mind. I merely tap out the ideas and the feel of the thing as fast as they come to me. I edit for grammar later.

As to your question, see link:
But as I told you, upon reflection, thanks to you, I've only seen impassioned used as a verb when it takes an explicit object, and, of course, most of the time it's strictly used as an adjective or in a transitive verb. Examples of it used as a verb, however, only with an explicit object: it impassioned him, her words impassioned him, the song impassioned them.

The paragraph I posted from my essay, which you excoriated, was being editorially scrutinized by me for the first time that morning, and while I had occasionally wondered about the possessive form of the pertinent expression, I wanted to settle the matter in my mind at that moment--as I use the expression in that paragraph, not once, but twice. I couldn't find anything online addressing that specific issue, so I consulted you guys. I know that many of you are keen grammarians. I had yet to examine it for any typos. But I'm glad I posted the raw draft, as you suggested that my attempt at a fresh play on the old idiom the calm before the storm, which entails a brief description of Paine's style and the term brewing, is ill-advised. Though another avers that brewing is okay, I don't want to disturb the reader's attention. As for impassioned, once again, I've only seen it used when it takes an object. Again, I don't want to disturb the reader's attention.

If you're offering to review my edited version after I've gone through it per my editorial notes from my first reading, I accept. You've already made two very fine suggestions. But I need to go through my process first. In my first reading, I only correct typos, missing words, missing punctuation and the like, and only those that jump out at me. I go through it again for those later, after I've scrutinized key words, phrases and clauses, after I've scrutinized overall structure. I also make notes about this or that, but don't make any related changes during the first reading.
 
Last edited:
I really don't get the point of your reproach over what is nothing more than the first draft of a long essay.
If you can't provide an example of 'impassioned' used as a verb then don't pretend you can. I'm outta here!
 
If you can't provide an example of 'impassioned' used as a verb then don't pretend you can. I'm outta here!
Oh, I see. Contrary to your claim, I gave you a specific link proving that it can be used as a verb and gave you specific examples of how I've seen it used as a verb, howbeit, with an explicit object . . . but you go all obtuse on me, eh? So you were never up to any sincere or helpful advice, You're just an asshole. Got it.
 
Oh, I see. Contrary to your claim, I gave you a specific link proving that it can be used as a verb and gave you specific examples of how I've seen it used as a verb, howbeit, with an explicit object . . . but you go all obtuse on me, eh? So you were never up to any sincere or helpful advice, You're just an asshole. Got it.
Why do I bother with you when you already know everything?
 
Why do I bother with you when you already know everything?
Okay, now where is that handy irony meter Iā€™ve seen used hereā€¦
1635203696486.gif
 
Why do I bother with you when you already know everything?
Dude! It can be correctly used as a verb. I proved that. There's something wrong with your thinker. I also told you that upon reflection, THANKS TO YOU, that I've never seen it used without an explicitly stated object. I neither want to use it with one or use it in a way that's rarely encountered, as I don't want to disturb the reader's attention. I agreed that your suggestions are very good. I took them to heart. Why quibble? That's been your attitude from the jump. I. Don't. Get. It. And. You. Don't. Seem. To. Get. Anything. Outta here! LOL!
 
Dude! It can be correctly used as a verb. I proved that. There's something wrong with your thinker. I also told you that upon reflection, THANKS TO YOU, that I've never seen it used without an explicitly stated object. I neither want to use it with one or use it in a way that's rarely encountered, as I don't want to disturb the reader's attention. I agreed that your suggestions are very good. I took them to heart. Why quibble? That's been your attitude from the jump. I. Don't. Get. It. And. You. Don't. Seem. To. Get. Anything. Outta here! LOL!
Hey Ringtone, just a friendly tip that Iā€™ve come to realize recently- you can give certain personalities a compliment or even just a basic thanks and they will reject it fully. Itā€™s a quandary lol
 
Hey Ringtone, just a friendly tip that Iā€™ve come to realize recently- you can give certain personalities a compliment or even just a basic thanks and they will reject it fully. Itā€™s a quandary lol
Precisely! I should think he'd take note of the compliment and encourage my acknowledgement regarding the value of his input, but. . . .

I. Don't. Get. It.
 
Lol yes Leo! So, text speak is text speak, but when reading something I just canā€™t imagine what books are going to look like eventually. All communication could be in shorthand messaging, and youā€™ll have to have a decoder ring to figure it all out- ha! Iā€™m currently reading George Orwellā€˜s 1984, and boy does this conversation fit. Especially with your use of text speak as predicted by GOā€¦ I figured Iā€™d practice a bit there;)

Books LOL. They won't even exist. Hallmark Channel is proof positive civilization is effed. They take the same three story lines and make 10 different movies with different names out of them, and people will watch them all day long.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top