Free Education

Mr. Sanders clearly misunderstands the difference between "nouns" and "adjectives." I worry that this misconception permeates the electorate.

In support of his push for free education, I thought I would provide a short grammar lesson for the day (for FREE).

An adjective is a describing word, the main syntactic role of which is to qualify a noun or noun phrase, giving more information about the object signified.

A noun, on the other hand, is a part of speech that denotes a person, animal, place, thing, or idea.

The adjectival forms of the nouns used by Mr. Sanders would be “greedy,” “fraudulent,” “dishonest,” and “arrogant.”

Below I use the words in very basic illustrative sentences, highlighting both forms:

- - The greedy investment banking industry caused the financial crisis due to their greed.

- - A lot of people think Hillary Clinton is a fraud because of her allegedly fraudulent conduct.

- - The country feels betrayed by dishonesty after years of dishonest conduct on the part of politicians.

- - Although Trump gives arrogant victory speeches, some might argue arrogance is synonymous with victory.

BUT TEACHER, aren't there circumstances where a noun can act as an adjective?

Great question, Timmy!

In certain circumstances, we can use a noun to describe another noun such that the first noun "acts as" an adjective.

For example:

- - A race horse is a horse that runs in races.
- - A love story is a story about love.
- - A soccer ball is a ball for playing soccer.

BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE!

Real adjectives can still be used to qualify a "noun as adjective" structure:

- - empty coffee jar
- - rising car production costs

It is difficult, however, to find ways to use "greed," "fraud," "dishonesty," and "arrogance" in the "noun as adjective" structure in a manner that describes Wall Street. Feel free to include your suggestions in the comments.

originally posted by: ExNihiloRed
Mr. Sanders clearly misunderstands the difference between "nouns" and "adjectives." I worry that this misconception permeates the electorate.

I don't think it was Sanders who personally made that tweet but one of his aides who has access to the account, it would be interesting to know however if Sanders knows the difference.

My only pet grammar hate for people typing is when they confuse their, there and they're as well as were, we're and where

Me flunk English? That umpossible!

These are human traits applied to a place, as well.

Wall Street can't be 'dishonest', its a 'place'.

originally posted by: intrptr


These are human traits applied to a place, as well.

Wall Street can't be 'dishonest', its a 'place'.

It's meant as a personification of the totality of the people whom make up what Wall Street is.

a reply to: Bluntone22
Don't worry. I'll soon learn you to talk English proper like what I do.

originally posted by: ExNihiloRed

Mr. Sanders clearly misunderstands the difference between "nouns" and "adjectives." I worry that this misconception permeates the electorate.

In support of his push for free education, I thought I would provide a short grammar lesson for the day (for FREE).

An adjective is a describing word, the main syntactic role of which is to qualify a noun or noun phrase, giving more information about the object signified.

A noun, on the other hand, is a part of speech that denotes a person, animal, place, thing, or idea.

The adjectival forms of the nouns used by Mr. Sanders would be “greedy,” “fraudulent,” “dishonest,” and “arrogant.”

Below I use the words in very basic illustrative sentences, highlighting both forms:

- - The greedy investment banking industry caused the financial crisis due to their greed.

- - A lot of people think Hillary Clinton is a fraud because of her allegedly fraudulent conduct.

- - The country feels betrayed by dishonesty after years of dishonest conduct on the part of politicians.

- - Although Trump gives arrogant victory speeches, some might argue arrogance is synonymous with victory.

BUT TEACHER, aren't there circumstances where a noun can act as an adjective?

Great question, Timmy!

In certain circumstances, we can use a noun to describe another noun such that the first noun "acts as" an adjective.

For example:

- - A race horse is a horse that runs in races.
- - A love story is a story about love.
- - A soccer ball is a ball for playing soccer.

BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE!

Real adjectives can still be used to qualify a "noun as adjective" structure:

- - empty coffee jar
- - rising car production costs

It is difficult, however, to find ways to use "greed," "fraud," "dishonesty," and "arrogance" in the "noun as adjective" structure in a manner that describes Wall Street. Feel free to include your suggestions in the comments.

Curious if Bernie thinks the average American should give back the gains in the pensions, 401ks, mutual funds, and other investments? After all, they are benefiting from Wall Street's greed, dishonesty, arrogance, and fraud. Just saying...

a reply to: Edumakated


I don't think he wants them to "give" it back,,,,wink,wink,

originally posted by: Discotech

originally posted by: ExNihiloRed
Mr. Sanders clearly misunderstands the difference between "nouns" and "adjectives." I worry that this misconception permeates the electorate.

My only pet grammar hate for people typing is when they confuse their, there and they're as well as were, we're and where

Agreed. Also, add "it's" and "its" to the list.

a reply to: ExNihiloRed
But surely worst of all is the confusion between "You can", meaning "You are able, you are allowed", and "You can" meaning "You are NOT able, you are NOT allowed".
A generation which cannot clearly express the difference between "Yes" and "No" really is losing the ability to communicate.

a reply to: ExNihiloRed

It is consistent with his platform to make everyone education free.

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: intrptr


These are human traits applied to a place, as well.

Wall Street can't be 'dishonest', its a 'place'.

It's meant as a personification of the totality of the people whom make up what Wall Street is.

Personificationofaplace? Convenient that, just as long as we don't actually name any names.

Do you go along with corporations are people too?

a reply to: intrptr

I think he means the anthropomorphization of the entire financial sector.

Like many constitutional issues, the facts have been almost completely overlooked.

Thank Citizens United That You Can See ‘13 Hours’ This Weekend

Citizens United Wasn’t Really about Corporations as People

If you hadn’t heard this before, it is likely because Citizens United has been presented in the popular media as a case about the rights of corporations. Maybe in 2010, when the case was decided, you saw some opinion piece forwarded around Facebook that said “Today, the Supreme Court said corporations are people.” Certainly, you’ve heard talking points from Democratic politicians about the need to overturn Citizens United because of the dangerous new powers the court bestowed on Big Business.

In their lie, there is a kernel of truth. There was a corporation involved in the case: Citizens United, which claimed its film was protected speech under the First Amendment. But this is nothing new. As early as 1936, the Supreme Court had held that newspapers, although they were corporations, were entitled to the protection of the First Amendment (that case, Grosjean v. American Press Co., also involved a Democratic administration trying to silence unfavorable coverage).

The principle was reaffirmed many times since then. Much of the unfavorable coverage of the court’s decision was carried in media outlets owned by for-profit corporations. Many were newspapers that, like Citizens United, make explicit endorsements of candidates before every election and do so under the protection of the First Amendment.

a reply to: ExNihiloRed

Feel better ?

Nothing like a good old fashioned self-righteous pedantic tirade to perch one back up on their pedestal.


Gold star for you !

originally posted by: CranialSponge
a reply to: ExNihiloRed

Feel better ?

Nothing like a good old fashioned self-righteous pedantic tirade to perch one back up on their pedestal.


Gold star for you !

Expecting our next president to understand basic grammar is "self-righteous" and being perched on a pedestal?

I'm not doing rocket science here, it is nouns v. adjectives.

a reply to: ExNihiloRed

Yeah, and here's one:

Donald Trump's campaign apparently has an issue with spelling in Oklahoma.

When he came to Tulsa, photos of the media passes went viral after Trump's campaign misspelled Tulsa (spelling it Tusla).

For his Friday event in Oklahoma City, Trump's campaign posted an event on his Facebook page spelling OKC as "Oaklahoma City."

The photo has gone viral on Facebook.

Link

Aaaand apparently they revised it a few times...as they couldn't get the spelling right.

And, just like Sander's Twitter page -- one of Trump's staffers made the mistake. Sander's doesn't sit around and Tweet all day, he has his campaign staff do it for him. They've no doubt got an entire social media team (even if it's 2-3 people) on various social media platforms at all times representing Sanders.

So, I fail to see how this dig at Sanders really matters or is any kind of justification for argument or position.

a reply to: Discotech

I've got you all beat. I proofread for a living. There are things I see here that make me cringe, but:

1.) I am not on the clock and don't take the time to make myself perfect.

2.) This is an international forum. Some come by it honestly.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

I'm not advocating for either candidate you listed. I'm trying to support free education. Also, if it is sent out under your verified Twitter account (unless you are hacked) you take responsibility for it. I don't accept the "staffer excuse."

None of you would probably believe the number of things that make it into print with mistakes in them. Election material is hardly unique. I saw an ad campaign for a triple-AAA video game title that had "lastest" instead of latest in the text. Proofread as long as I have and your "eye" never really shuts off, so you start to notice things everywhere.

You might be surprised at the number of things that make it into print that you would think would have been proofed better. And once you see the mistake, it seems so obvious to you. But, the reality is that your brain really wants to see what it knows should be there, so the mistakes really tend to be invisible. I'll admit that I had to look at the Trump example twice before I noticed Oaklahoma.

And your own writing is the hardest of all to proof because you're also working against the knowledge of what you meant to write, not just against the knowledge of what your brain knows should be there. So it's doubly hard to notice the subtle errors like form instead of from.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Discotech

I've got you all beat. I proofread for a living. There are things I see here that make me cringe, but:

1.) I am not on the clock and don't take the time to make myself perfect.

2.) This is an international forum. Some come by it honestly.

Generally the latter is easy to see. If someone's post has egregious grammatical errors (especially in the simplest respects), their post loses credibility for me. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending who you are), I am in the minority viewpoint on that here it seems. Not sure if it is because the audience is also oblivious or does not care. I get that there are occasional typos, but I don't get how you can support or give credence to what anyone says when it is riddled with basic mistakes. If they can't take the time to write properly (or don't know how to), how can I trust anything they do or say as proper, informed, educated, or worth considering? Just my obnoxious opinion.