Gramar Nazis Help Please

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: Perknose
Silly semi-literate untermenschen, "secretes" doesn't specifically mean what you might assume it does:

se·crete 2 (s-krt)
tr.v. se·cret·ed, se·cret·ing, se·cret·es
1. To conceal in a hiding place

. . . As in any hiding place, such as the inner pocket of one's black leather Gestapo coat.

True, but the primary definition is still to form and give off as in a secretion. Like my mother always said, if you start secreting iron crosses, you should probably skip the doctor and go straight for the priest.

If YOU only know the primary definition of any English word, then your education date-raped you and posted the pics on-line.

IOW, you cannot call yourself fluent in English.

First off, whether or not I knew the secondary definition of secretes is irrelevant, as my interpretation of it was based on finding humor in what you wrote, and the idea of someone secreting iron crosses from any orifice or pore on their body is inherently amusing (and disturbing). In point of fact I do know the word secretes as you used it, though I will profess that I had incorrectly assumed it was spelled secrets in that particular conjugation (my own ignorance, as you correctly point out).

However, to equate incorrectly assuming one form of a homonym when the other was intended in written speech as being equivalent to not being fluent... well that's just completely fucking nuts. But I like it; from now on, I'm declaring that no one may claim fluency in a language lest they know the proper spelling and conjugation of every single word in said language.

I'm now fluent in exactly zero languages. Booyah.

Do0d, you can't even successfully follow a simple discussion of alliteration, consonance and disonance, even when it had already been outlined for you in the thread, so STOP trying to pretend you're more erudite than you are, k?

 

[KeithTalent]

Originally posted by: shortylickens
Since you asked the question you probably already know the word THAT is the most overused word in the english language.

I came in here to say the same thing, except I would have capitalized English, so not quite the same.

KT

 

[Howard]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero
I invoke Godwin's law. Everybody out.

Gott Im Himmel!

<---- Secretes his iron cross and swastika and gingerly goosesteps away.

It's from all the minimalists I hide in the closet.

 

[kranky]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: Perknose
Silly semi-literate untermenschen, "secretes" doesn't specifically mean what you might assume it does:

se·crete 2 (s-krt)
tr.v. se·cret·ed, se·cret·ing, se·cret·es
1. To conceal in a hiding place

. . . As in any hiding place, such as the inner pocket of one's black leather Gestapo coat.

True, but the primary definition is still to form and give off as in a secretion. Like my mother always said, if you start secreting iron crosses, you should probably skip the doctor and go straight for the priest.

If YOU only know the primary definition of any English word, then your education date-raped you and posted the pics on-line.

IOW, you cannot call yourself fluent in English.

First off, whether or not I knew the secondary definition of secretes is irrelevant, as my interpretation of it was based on finding humor in what you wrote, and the idea of someone secreting iron crosses from any orifice or pore on their body is inherently amusing (and disturbing). In point of fact I do know the word secretes as you used it, though I will profess that I had incorrectly assumed it was spelled secrets in that particular conjugation (my own ignorance, as you correctly point out).

However, to equate incorrectly assuming one form of a homonym when the other was intended in written speech as being equivalent to not being fluent... well that's just completely fucking nuts. But I like it; from now on, I'm declaring that no one may claim fluency in a language lest they know the proper spelling and conjugation of every single word in said language.

I'm now fluent in exactly zero languages. Booyah.

Do0d, you can't even successfully follow a simple discussion of alliteration, consonance and disonance, even when it had already been outlined for you in the thread, so STOP trying to pretend you're more erudite than you are, k?

Holy mackerel, Perk, you are en fuego tonight with the knowledge!

And AtomicPlayboy, everyone has an off-night. Sometimes you just let it go. You can only conjugate verbs, not every word.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: kranky
Holy mackerel, Perk, you are en fuego tonight with the knowledge!

And AtomicPlayboy, everyone has an off-night. Sometimes you just let it go. You can only conjugate verbs, not every word.

Secretes is a verb...

 

[IGBT]

Originally posted by: JDawg1536

Originally posted by: bolomite
Now that that's out of the way, tackle your spelling -- grammar has two M's 🙂

A poor attempt at subtle irony. 😎

Can anyone tell me why the word should stay in the sentence?

the sentence or that sentence?

 

[Taejin]

Originally posted by: Baked

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: Perknose
Left that in.

Fixed.

Fixed your error.

Fixed it better.

 

[Redfraggle]

Originally posted by: JDawg1536
In the following sentence, should the word "that" be left out as an unnecessary word? It sounds funny without it in there, but would it be correct?


They share much more than just the fact [that] each has its own delicious taste.

Does nobody else notice the real problem here? You are saying that things have something in common, and then saying that each has an individual quality. This is awkward.

I'd rewrite it: Each has its own delicious taste, but they share qualities such as [insert quality they share].

Or: While each has its distinct, delicious taste, they all share many characteristics. (you could also use the word qualities, or another suitable descriptor)

 

[JJChicken]

Originally posted by: Redfraggle

Originally posted by: JDawg1536
In the following sentence, should the word "that" be left out as an unnecessary word? It sounds funny without it in there, but would it be correct?


They share much more than just the fact [that] each has its own delicious taste.

Does nobody else notice the real problem here? You are saying that things have something in common, and then saying that each has an individual quality. This is awkward.

I'd rewrite it: Each has its own delicious taste, but they share qualities such as [insert quality they share].

Or: While each has its distinct, delicious taste, they all share many characteristics. (you could also use the word qualities, or another suitable descriptor)

good pickup imho

perknose what say u on this

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: JDawg1536
In the following sentence, should the word "that" be left out as an unnecessary word? It sounds funny without it in there, but would it be correct?


They share much more than just the fact [that] each has its own delicious taste.

the "that" in this case is correect.
it is a subordinating conjunction which transitions into your noun clause.

 

[Legendary]

Originally posted by: Redfraggle

Originally posted by: JDawg1536
In the following sentence, should the word "that" be left out as an unnecessary word? It sounds funny without it in there, but would it be correct?


They share much more than just the fact [that] each has its own delicious taste.

Does nobody else notice the real problem here? You are saying that things have something in common, and then saying that each has an individual quality. This is awkward.

I'd rewrite it: Each has its own delicious taste, but they share qualities such as [insert quality they share].

Or: While each has its distinct, delicious taste, they all share many characteristics. (you could also use the word qualities, or another suitable descriptor)

:thumbsup:

Also, I would remove 'that' in your original sentence.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: Barack Obama

Originally posted by: Redfraggle

Originally posted by: JDawg1536
In the following sentence, should the word "that" be left out as an unnecessary word? It sounds funny without it in there, but would it be correct?


They share much more than just the fact [that] each has its own delicious taste.

Does nobody else notice the real problem here? You are saying that things have something in common, and then saying that each has an individual quality. This is awkward.

I'd rewrite it: Each has its own delicious taste, but they share qualities such as [insert quality they share].

Or: While each has its distinct, delicious taste, they all share many characteristics. (you could also use the word qualities, or another suitable descriptor)

good pickup imho

perknose what say u on this

I fundamentally disagree. The "delicious taste" of any two foods will differ, of course. The deliciousness of a curry is distinct from the deliciousness of a sorbet is distinct from the deliciousness of a perfectly prepared steak, OF COURSE.

But what they share is the quality of being "delicious." It is a COMMON quality shared between the two.

See? No?

Let me put this another way:

Eliza Dushku and Cameron Diaz each has her own highly distinctive hotness, clearly different one from the other, but they both share the SAME overall quality of "hotness." See?

Therefore Redfraggle is mixed up, overthinking, and has this all wrong when he says:

You are saying that things have something in common, and then saying that each has an individual quality.

It is NOT an "individual quality", they share a COMMON quality, "delicious taste"; it is just expressed differently, which, again, is a fundamental given between any two things.

Reread my Dushku/Diaz example above until you understand this point.

Btw, a stunningly simple and totally effective rewrite was offered very early in this thread by Howard. It is elegant in the extreme:

They share much more than just delicious taste.

^^^ There you go, that's a rewrite, yup, that's yer rewrite right there! 😛

 

[ObiDon]

Originally posted by: Perknose
Do0d, you can't even successfully follow a simple discussion of alliteration, consonance and disonance, even when it had already been outlined for you in the thread, so STOP trying to pretend you're more erudite than you are, k?

jeez, what an assonance 😉

 

[Zolty]

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero
I invoke Godwin's law. Everybody out.

Godwin does not apply to this thread since the OP made the nazi reference

 

[Redfraggle]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: Barack Obama

Originally posted by: Redfraggle

Originally posted by: JDawg1536
In the following sentence, should the word "that" be left out as an unnecessary word? It sounds funny without it in there, but would it be correct?


They share much more than just the fact [that] each has its own delicious taste.

Does nobody else notice the real problem here? You are saying that things have something in common, and then saying that each has an individual quality. This is awkward.

I'd rewrite it: Each has its own delicious taste, but they share qualities such as [insert quality they share].

Or: While each has its distinct, delicious taste, they all share many characteristics. (you could also use the word qualities, or another suitable descriptor)

good pickup imho

perknose what say u on this

I fundamentally disagree. The "delicious taste" of any two foods will differ, of course. The deliciousness of a curry is distinct from the deliciousness of a sorbet is distinct from the deliciousness of a perfectly prepared steak, OF COURSE.

But what they share is the quality of being "delicious." It is a COMMON quality shared between the two.

See? No?

Let me put this another way:

Eliza Dushku and Cameron Diaz each has her own highly distinctive hotness, clearly different one from the other, but they both share the SAME overall quality of "hotness." See?

Therefore Redfraggle is mixed up, overthinking, and has this all wrong when he says:

You are saying that things have something in common, and then saying that each has an individual quality.

It is NOT an "individual quality", they share a COMMON quality, "delicious taste"; it is just expressed differently, which, again, is a fundamental given between any two things.

Reread my Dushku/Diaz example above until you understand this point.

Btw, a stunningly simple and totally effective rewrite was offered very early in this thread by Howard. It is elegant in the extreme:

They share much more than just delicious taste.

^^^ There you go, that's a rewrite, yup, that's yer rewrite right there! 😛

First, I'm a she. Now I understand why xstatic has that in her signature...

Second. I see what you are saying and understand, but still disagree. In the way you state it, it's correct and clear. The sentence in question says things are similar, and then different while trying to incorporate them into one thought. So which is it? If the word "own" was not in the sentence, I would more inclined to agree with it.

I would agree with: They share much more than just the fact that both are delicious.

Also, having the word taste is redundant. It's a food, taste is implied.

 

[ObiDon]

Originally posted by: Redfraggle
First, I'm a she. Now I understand why xstatic has that in her signature...

that can be a double-edged sword around here... uhhh... i mean OMG HI2U!!!

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: Redfraggle
I would agree with: They share much more than just the fact that both are delicious.

Also, having the word taste is redundant. It's a food, taste is implied.

Lol, you try WAY too hard for such negative results.

You prefer "They share much more than just the fact that both are delicious." to "They share much more than just delicious taste"?

Please! Re-read each sentence and you will see which is more BLOATED. (Hint, it's yours.)

You wish to exchange the simple word "taste" with "the fact that both are."

Your improvement . . . isn't.

Your wrong-headed insistence that the word "taste" is redundant simply fails the obvious test, removing it from the sentence!

If it is truly redundant, you should be able to simply remove it and have the sentence still make grammatical sense.

It doesn't.

They share much more than just delicious taste.

They share much more than just delicious. <------ Lololololol

Can you hear me now? :laugh:

First, I'm a she.

Sorry! My bad. 😱

 

[SphinxnihpS]

Remove just AND that.

Also... leave? "Left that in", fixed? wtf?!?!?

 

[Turin39789]

Perknose are always wrong

 

[ruu]

Originally posted by: Turin39789
Perknose are always wrong

Lol, what are you saying? Perknose is a beast. His grammar comments = probably almost always right. 😀

Also, if we're going to get into critiquing the content/intent of the original sentence, I'd like to point out that stylistically, it's better to combine a compare-and-contrast statement into one sentence than it is to split it into two.

That is, whatever other similarity that "the two" share, besides taste, should be mentioned along with taste, in order to construct a satisfyingly complex sentence.

The sentence as it stands is a rocking horse type---it doesn't really say anything that couldn't be deduced from context and is a waste of words.

It's kind of like, "This is the [word] book I've ever read." Slightly inane. 😉

 

[Turin39789]

ruu :heart: Perkie