Ok , Officially , MMORPG's are just ****ing scary now.

[KraKto$is8]

Originally Posted by Leshy

Your morphosyntactic breakdown was incorrect, as it was based on the logical fallacy that if individual elements are correct, the result of combining them must also be correct.

Provide me with a counter-example to prove me wrong.

My breakdown shows how it links up: the only prerequisite is that you take the syntactic case-marking preposition "to" (the second one) as part of the verbal phrase, rather than the noun phrase. There is much evidence that English regularly does this.

[Leshy]

You claim "to conform to traditionally" makes sense. Which it indeed does, although not on it's own. It requires an object, namely the object that one needs to conform to. In your example, this object is "rules".

Now, the correct way to add this object into the previous structure is as follows: "to conform to <object> traditionally". And not by haphazardly throwing it onto the end. There is one exception possible, however. But that requires you to take traditionally out of the word flow through the use of commas: "to conform to, traditionally, rules."

By not doing either of these, you are not setting "rules" as the object that is the subject of "to conform to", but the entire phrase "traditionally rules". Which simply does not make sense.

[Inferno]

Shouldn't you just make an english phd university discussion thread elsewhere and leave simple minded people to talk about the other issue at hand? you know, the one at first post on page one. Thats right, the one kura posted.

They guy who spent 26k is businessman. Like all businessmen, they buy/invest/sell and generate income many times more than what they originally spent on the product. And there is always that risk factor of losing that money by some weird and unexpected twist of fate.

But hey! thats what business is all about.

[Dace]

Originally Posted by KraKto$is8

the sentence makes sense as it stands.

no it doesn't

[Thermodynamics]

Oh dear....
A typo guys, Apologies, i meant traditional.

[macros69]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I disagree.

I dont have that much but i think he will make more money than he payed for it. The only problem is finding out whether he does and the timescale.

[KraKto$is8]

Originally Posted by Leshy

You claim "to conform to traditionally" makes sense. Which it indeed does, although not on it's own. It requires an object, namely the object that one needs to conform to. In your example, this object is "rules".

Now, the correct way to add this object into the previous structure is as follows: "to conform to <object> traditionally". And not by haphazardly throwing it onto the end. There is one exception possible, however. But that requires you to take traditionally out of the word flow through the use of commas: "to conform to, traditionally, rules."

By not doing either of these, you are not setting "rules" as the object that is the subject of "to conform to", but the entire phrase "traditionally rules". Which simply does not make sense.

I'll admit that the word order is unorthodox, and as I said it doesn't scan that well, but still makes sense. The use of commas is merely a convention to help indicate timing and to facilitate understanding. They are not 100% necessary.

You say the "correct" way to add the object into the structure. This is both untrue and prescriptivist. It is the most common way, and is the convention usually followed by most people - but it does not mean it is the only way, nor is it any more correct than other methods.
It is ambiguous in its object - but so are many English phrases. We don't notice them however as we interpret the meaning from context - another neat trick our language centres do.

Thermodynamic's (albeit accidental) construction makes sense, and has a feature that can be used to great stylistic effect (the full extent of which has not been displayed here, as it was not used intentionally).

[Kurashima]

Originally Posted by macros69

dont have that much but i think he will make more money than he payed for it. The only problem is finding out whether he does and the timescale.

We do not permit any form of gambling on this forum. We are not a licensed bookmakers, nor do we have the right to encourage or otherwise pursue bets between two persons outwith of a licensed betting establishment. As such i have edited your post to take this into account.

[Leshy]

Originally Posted by KraKto$is8

The use of commas is merely a convention to help indicate timing and to facilitate understanding. They are not 100% necessary.

For a proper understanding of this sentence, they are absolutely necessary, regardless of whether they are in the Big Book of English Grammar.

It is the most common way, and is the convention usually followed by most people

The structure of having the subject of a verb directly following said verb ("to conform to something") is not an arbitrary one. Adding in words between this that are not part of the subject, and remain within the word flow cause confusion and an incorrect and incomprehensible sentence ("to conform to isn't the weather nice by the way something").

Thermodynamic's (albeit accidental) construction makes sense

If anything, it does not make sense. Even if, and that's a fairly big if, the sentence could be ruled to be grammatically correct, it still does not make sense.

Proof? The amount of people that did not comprehend the sentence upon reading it, and the linguistic debate that's required to determine whether the sentence can be considered correct or not. The basic idea behind language is to convey a message. One does this by following the rules and conventions laid out for said language - in other words, to "make sense". If you need to read a sentence multiple times, come to the conclusion that it is incorrect, then have a linguistic discussion about it, it does anything but "make sense".

[Nusselt]

this thread is turning into an rpg

[KraKto$is8]

Originally Posted by Leshy

For a proper understanding of this sentence, they are absolutely necessary, regardless of whether they are in the Big Book of English Grammar.

Then explain why the sentence can make sense without them. Explain how I understood it, and several other people understood it, without the commas. Explain how many people post on message boards in all caps with no punctuation and yet still are understood? You're reducing the power of the mind, claiming that context is nothing and punctuation is everything. Writing is a reflection of the language (i.e. the spoken word), and writing does fine without punctuation. Do you really distinguish between colons, semi colons, and commas when you are speaking? Many things are spoke without any pauses at all, but commas are inserted when it is transcribed to facilitate understanding. Note I say facilitate and not enable - if we can understand it when spoken, why not when written?

Originally Posted by Leshy

The structure of having the subject of a verb directly following said verb ("to conform to something") is not an arbitrary one.

Indeed, it is the standard clause structure of English. Other structures are allowed, however.

Originally Posted by Leshy

Adding in words between this that are not part of the subject, and remain within the word flow cause confusion and an incorrect and incomprehensible sentence ("to conform to isn't the weather nice by the way something").

Your example is flawed. You're basically throwing in another clause into this one. But "traditionally" is not a full clause. It is modifying the verbal phrase. And there are examples from English, of verbal phrase complements occurring after the verbal phrase and before the subject, to support my case: "They're eating quickly tonight", "Approach slowly his presence", and "Do not merrily dance". They are not common, and it is not the first construction you would think of, but it is correct and does make sense. It would most likely be used for stylistic effect, to make a sentence seem archaic or formal. It is not incomprehensible, nor incorrect.

Originally Posted by Leshy

If anything, it does not make sense. Even if, and that's a fairly big if, the sentence could be ruled to be grammatically correct, it still does not make sense.

Proof? The amount of people that did not comprehend the sentence upon reading it, and the linguistic debate that's required to determine whether the sentence can be considered correct or not. The basic idea behind language is to convey a message. One does this by following the rules and conventions laid out for said language - in other words, to "make sense". If you need to read a sentence multiple times, come to the conclusion that it is incorrect, then have a linguistic discussion about it, it does anything but "make sense".

Your logic is flawed. A sentence could be grammatically incorrect, linguistically discussed, and read multiple times, yet still make sense. For example, "Jim him kicked has". It is incorrect, grammatically (incorrect word order, redundant auxiliary). Yet we are still able to salvage, or at least surmise, the semantics of it, that "Jim" kicked "him", whomever "he" is.
And the sentence we're debating is grammatically correct, and does make sense.

[roadrunner_0]

it should read traditional, NOT traditionally, even thermodynamics has admitted this.
being english, i can safely say that you would never say that sentence as it stands.
if you wish, i can even probabally get a degree level english student to explain why, but i would rather not put that much work into it.

[SilverSmoke]

bah, faggotry all over here at the moment

[JonnyBGood]

Oh good grief. Obviously the sentence made sense and I was being deliberately obtuse to convey the point that thermodynamics seems to believe you score internet points through using superfluous words with great frequency, whereas in reality you score internet points through endless debating something nobody cares about until something inside you breaks and dies.

[Sunday8pm]

Originally Posted by SilverSmoke

bah, faggotry all over here at the moment

Seconded.

[Leshy]

Originally Posted by KraKto$is8

Explain how many people post on message boards in all caps with no punctuation and yet still are understood?

This is caused by the human ability to process information and correct what are perceived to be errors in that information. Whether something is understood, however, has virtually no bearing on whether the information is provided in a correctly. If I write the word "eloquense", you immediately understand that I was attempting to say "eloquence". That does not mean that "eloquense" is suddenly correct.

Again, you are using the logical fallacy here that if a sentence can be understood, that it is automatically well-formed.

if we can understand it when spoken, why not when written?

Because writing does not have intonation, and when compared to face to face conversation, it misses the visual aspect of communication altogether. This is a fairly stupid question.

Indeed, it is the standard clause structure of English. Other structures are allowed, however.

And the one mentioned above is not one of the latter.

"They're eating quickly tonight", "Approach slowly his presence", and "Do not merrily dance".

If my example was flawed, this one misses the mark completely. Well, it does that regardless of the quality of mine. These are all examples of verbs that do not require an object. "They're eating", "I approach" and "I do not" are all correct on their own. "I conform to" is not. It requires an object, which follows immediately.

"I am listening to happily the radio", "I'm going to quickly the shop", "I've never heard of fortunately him" are not correct sentences. Plain and simple.


P.S. To all you other faggots: This is General Discussions. I'm discussing a certain issue with someone who apparently has a similar interest in this particular topic. Hence, I'm using this forum closer to it's intended purpose than you when you are increasing your ePenis post count claiming that you see faggots, whereas in reality you see one in the mirror every morning.

[KraKto$is8]

Originally Posted by Leshy

This is caused by the human ability to process information and correct what are perceived to be errors in that information. Whether something is understood, however, has virtually no bearing on whether the information is provided in a correctly. If I write the word "eloquense", you immediately understand that I was attempting to say "eloquence". That does not mean that "eloquense" is suddenly correct.

Correct. That is what I was getting at. The converse, however, is not necessarily true. If I write "colour", an American will immediately understand that I am meaning what he perceives as "color". Does this mean that "colour" is incorrect? No, it is a regional variation, something I will pick up on soon.

Again, you are using the logical fallacy here that if a sentence can be understood, that it is automatically well-formed.

Please, stop generalising. This sentence can be understood, and it is correctly formed (not well formed), and those two facts do not influence the other. One does not cause the presumption of the other.

Because writing does not have intonation, and when compared to face to face conversation, it misses the visual aspect of communication altogether. This is a fairly stupid question.

I knew the answer, and was seeing if you would pick up on it (but in retrospect it is a rather stupid question). It was a rhetorical question.

And the one mentioned above is not one of the latter.

Oh yes it is. At least, I find it perfectly acceptable. My dialect accepts it fine. Perhaps yours doesn't - and this is where our disagreement may lie. The problem with linguistic discussions on whether some phrase or utterance is "correct" or "grammatic" is that regional variance plays a great part - what may be perfectly grammatical in one variety of English may be completly unacceptable in another.

If my example was flawed, this one misses the mark completely. Well, it does that regardless of the quality of mine. These are all examples of verbs that do not require an object. "They're eating", "I approach" and "I do not" are all correct on their own. "I conform to" is not. It requires an object, which follows immediately.

Incorrect. "Approach" and "do" are not intransitive verbs, ever. "I approach" only works in a pro-drop situation where the subject is omitted, due to being mentioned earlier. "Do" is a purely auxiliary verb, and never a predicate on its own - it needs some verbal complement. The verbal complement is often dropped in a similar manner to the subject for "approach" - i.e. only when it has already been mentioned, or is obvious from context.
"Conform", however, does not need a subject. It can function intransitively. I would provide some examples, but that would be off-topic. Conventional analysis would give us [I conform] [to rules], with the case being marked on the noun phrase by the preposition "to", any verbal modifiers being inserted after the verbal phrase (i.e. "I conform traditionally to rules"). But this is an unconventional situation, and calls for an unconventional analysis. [I conform to] [rules], with the case being marked on the verbal phrase and not on the noun (this is not uncommon). We insert the modifier after the verbal phrase; "I conform to traditionally rules". This works.

"I am listening to happily the radio", "I'm going to quickly the shop", "I've never heard of fortunately him" are not correct sentences. Plain and simple.

I agree. Those sentences are not correct. But many with this construction are, like the examples I gave. In addition: "I'm throwing out quickly all this stuff", "I'm jacking off happily now", "she's never warmed to really his taste in shoes".

P.S. To all you other faggots: This is General Discussions. I'm discussing a certain issue with someone who apparently has a similar interest in this particular topic. Hence, I'm using this forum closer to it's intended purpose than you when you are increasing your ePenis post count claiming that you see faggots, whereas in reality you see one in the mirror every morning.

Pld.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by KraKto$is8

I agree. Those sentences are not correct. But many with this construction are, like the examples I gave. In addition: "I'm throwing out quickly all this stuff", "I'm jacking off happily now", "she's never warmed to really his taste in shoes".

Only one of those sentences is even vaguely correct.

[Dead_Meat]

I sense, all over the Internet, English professors are hanging up their modems...

[Kurashima]

Originally Posted by Dead_Meat

I sense, all over the Internet, English professors are hanging up their modems...

Its like a car crash. Except rather than say "Its horrible, but i just have to look" , you say "Its horrible, its put me off driving/posting for life, and i now have to turn off the internet forever so i dont have to read such complete and utter bollocks ever again".

[KraKto$is8]

Originally Posted by Dark_Mage

Leshy is right

I realised that after his second post but I was too stubborn to concede

[JonnyBGood]

Never owned phang, never owned

[KraKto$is8]

I owned you, then Leshy owned me. Hence you're Leshy's bitch. And phang is my hero.

No change there then.

[JonnyBGood]

I wasn't present to respond. Although probably I would have just rolled my eyes, gone "I'm pretty sure I'm correct but anyone willing to put that much effort in is probably right on whatever topic he's discussing".


Like they did with Hitler rite?

[Leshy]

Shut up, bitch.