"Dave H., you can play with semantics all you want."
Correct identification is not semantics. Sorry if it bothers you that I use the correct name for the device. No, wait, I am not sorry it bothers you, so just suck it up, buttercup.
"I'm not planning to shoot anybody and in fact, would never have thought of that -- or of trying to insult anyone by getting so personal. "
Then why bring up dead children? Oh, I see, in order to go off on a tangent which has nothing to do with whether or not the device is a drone or if someone should moon it.
Dave H., you can play with semantics all you want. Doesn't much matter what you call them, drones or remote controlled airplanes, they shouldn't be up there -- anywhere.
I'm not planning to shoot anybody and in fact, would never have thought of that -- or of trying to insult anyone by getting so personal. A picture of a man's butt would be distasteful. A dead child in any culture, killed by any flying machine, is abhorrent and a propaganda victory that we have handed to the very people we oppose. Not a simple cost of war, as we learned in Vietnam and seem to have forgotten.
"What about all those drones in Pakistan and Afghanistan that are driven by "pilots" in Nevada? Are they remote controlled toys, too?" -- Clara McKenna
Where did I say anything about toys? You need to calm down before you hurt yourself.
The UAVs flown out of Nevada generally are not drones, though some have a capability to fly between waypoints. Some of the more advanced ones that can literally fly their entire mission without humans would qualify as drones.
Let me try to break it down for you:
I) Aerial Vehicles
- 1) Manned
- 2) Unmanned (UAV)
- - A) Remote Control/Remotely Piloted (RC/RPV)
- - B) Autonomous (Drone)
"Better your butt posted on the Net than a picture of somebody's dead kid."
And what, exactly, are you trying to say? Are you planning on shooting the operator? If so, please check in to the nearest mental health clinic for evaluation.
What about all those drones in Pakistan and Afghanistan that are driven by "pilots" in Nevada? Are they remote controlled toys, too?
Better your butt posted on the Net than a picture of somebody's dead kid.
To my mind, there is no need to have private fly toys in our parks and wilderness areas. Peace and quiet are too hard to come by as it is.
Is Michael Miller the owner of Biotrackthc?? I thought Dr. Steven Siegel was.
Mr. Faltz asks:
“Fred, where shall we begin to embrace reality and set the Excutive-level political record straight?”
Ans: Well, for “reality”, we certainly wouldn’t begin or end with Jeff Faltz's “expertise”.
Obama, instead of hiding trillion dollar wars, was honest with the American people and put paying for them in the budget. And if you think that halting the inertia of eight years of economic misfeasance should have occurred on January 21st, 2009, then you, truly, live in a fantasy world.
The FACT is that the deficit has been cut in half since Obama took office.
Can you show me any other president that has cut the deficit every year he has been in office? No Republican comes to mind.
You can spin your fantasy opinion into irrelevancy all you want, but the FACTS contained in Fred’s letter still stand.
Considering how much the Republicans, including Mr. Lamborn, have worked to poison the water in DC, Obama has been remarkably successful.
Fred, where shall we begin to embrace reality and set the Excutive-level political record straight?
The deficuit was at appox. 8T when Obama took office, and it took Dubya two full terms (eight years) to get it to that level. It now stands at 18+T which BO reached in less than six years; some improvement.
Spending is down from a peak of 1.4T and we're supposed to cheer? It's like an alcoholic being proud of reducing daily consumption from a daily case to a 12-pack.
As for terrorist activities, the roots of our internal communications breakdowns are easily traced back to Clinton, who had the chance to actually capture bin Laden and avert other jihadist activities, but was too busy busying himself wih other matters regardding the "Oval Orifice".
Yup, Osama was dispatched; just as he would have been regardless of who was occupying 1600 Penn. Ave., and illegals continue to pour over our southern border (will you honestly dispute this?), hardly the efforts of a POTUS that truly wishes to "keep us safe".
For an accurate, unbiased, non-partisan assessment of the people's view on Presidential performance, go to RCP's website and bring up their poll numbers, but be prepared to have your illusions banished...
"It had four small propellers and a red and green light. A drone." -- Chuck Koehler
Technically, not a drone, but rather an RC aircraft. Technically a drone flies autonomously, whereas what you saw would have a ground based pilot. If you moon it, you run the risk of having your butt posted on the 'net.
Wow Rex...this article was awhile back and don't know if you're still with us, but all of this makes me think of Shirley and Don Snyder. Some very good times with very dear people. Hope you are well...Mikki
Out of 270 religious organizations in Colorado Springs, found in the Yellow Pages, there is one local Mosque and, as near as I can find, one Islamic organization. Colorado Springs Muslims don’t seem to organize for involvement in local politics, don’t publish political periodicals, don’t involve their religion in political issues, don’t proselytize, don’t fund institutes that promote intelligent design, anti choice, prayer in public schools, or political candidates.
When/if local Muslims undertake the high intensity, heavily funded, political endeavors of certain Christian organizations, I suspect that they too would gain the Indy’s attention and, well deserved, “disdain”.
"The Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines predicate: "grammar : the part of a sentence that expresses what is said about the subject." No mention of a verb at all."
Sadly dictionaries will be the first to tell you that they are not steadfast standards, but rather just reflections on the current usage of words. If enough people start calling a potato an "orange", the dictionary changes. However, you are just playing sour grapes now since your original dictionary reference used the word "verb".
"Fortunately for me, it does not have to be a predicate for the opening words to be a clause. "We call any clause whose main verb is a non-finite verb a non-finite clause." . Three earnest and erudite English scholars and pedants, yet not a one of you able to point that out."
Unfortunately for you, far more will tell you that a clause must contain a finite verb.
Sorry to put a damper on your victory proclamation.
"Note the word 'verb' as opposed to 'verbal'. The former refers to finite verbs, the latter to non-finite verbs, which includes participles and gerunds."
The Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines predicate: "grammar : the part of a sentence that expresses what is said about the subject." No mention of a verb at all.
I was waiting, in vain, for a citation for the rule that a verbal could not be part of a predicate, so finally I looked it up for myself and confirmed you are all absolutely correct. Fortunately for me, it does not have to be a predicate for the opening words to be a clause. "We call any clause whose main verb is a non-finite verb a non-finite clause." . Three earnest and erudite English scholars and pedants, yet not a one of you able to point that out.
So, you have won the battle, but lost the war. This is what I meant about repeating grammatical rules cribbed from the web without understanding them.
Dave H, if there were no controversy surrounding these words, you would not be writing English language experts for their opinion. I started out thinking it could not possibly be a phrase, but I have changed my position after surfing the web, and now I say it could be read either way. Furthermore, I have already pointed out that it makes no difference to my argument whether it is a clause or a phrase, except that as a phrase it makes the argument even stronger.
So far, everyone has ignored the point of my statement, preferring to waste time on arcane grammatical terminology: things that appear within the same sentence are usually related to each other in some manner. This whole business of labeling parts of sentences as nouns, verbs, phrases, clauses, etc. is the study of these relationships, and thus implies such a relationship exists.
I must confess the only reason I got involved in the grammar war at all was my vanity. I do not enjoy being told I do not understand basic English grammar by condescending ideologues who are cribbing from tendentious sources because they never really paid much attention to English classes in school. Had I known there was so much material to parrot back at me, I would never have stepped into this morass to begin with.
haha what is this corporate shill. Tons of other sites out there that are actually useful. Try Leafbuyer or others that actually have content to navigate.
"The Oxford Dictionaries website, defines predicate as "The part of a sentence or clause containing a verb and stating something about the subject." No mention of any need for the verb to be a finite or action verb.."
Note the word "verb" as opposed to "verbal". The former refers to finite verbs, the latter to non-finite verbs, which includes participles and gerunds.
Well Mr. K, I can't speak for the others, but in my case, beginning in 1996 I wrote to over 20 professors of English and linguistics that I chose at random from various universities and colleges across the US, to include from UCLA, Stanford, and BYU, as well as one from Oxford, UK. Every last one of them told me that the first 13 words are an absolute phrase, not a clause at all.
The term "absolutive clausal adjunct" appears to be an obscure term used by some (primarily appears to trace back to one Geoff Pullum in 2004) to refer to an absolute phrase. So obscure that a Google search will only yield about 10 hits, several of them repeats or references to Pullum's entry in a blog.
Compare to the term "absolute phrase" which pulls in around 20,000 and has been well documented for over 100 years. An absolute phrase stands outside the grammar of the main clause to which they are attached. They are non-restrictive phrases containing an object which is not part of the attached clause and the object is addressed by a participle instead of a finite verb, plus any modifiers to the object and participle. Absolute phrases act adverbially through the predicate of the clause to give background information to the action of the clause.
Considering the criteria to be a clause and the input of bona fide experts in the field, I'd have to say that it is not a clause.
I have been reconsidering my use of the word "effective." From the start my main complaint has been that such arguments are legalistic, so perhaps the grammatical argument is indeed effective in court. But I was speaking of those of us who are not lawyers and inclined to think that lawyers are sometimes the problem, not the solution.
Has the Supreme Court ever taken a position on whether the first part of the amendment is a phrase or a clause?
I would like to apologize to you, Odin and Radio guy, for writing that you believe the case "can be made effectively *only* on a strictly grammatical basis." I dropped the word "only" into the mix at the last moment, and I realized after it was posted that it was wrong. In fact, you have both made excellent historical points.
Nevertheless, I still maintain that a purely grammatical argument is not effective. Since my discovery of the plenitude of such bickering on the web, however, I better understand the impulse. There is as little agreement as to whether the opening words constitute a phrase or a clause on the Internet as there is in this thread, and if I had known the subject had been rehashed so many times by so many real experts on grammar and usage, I would never have touched it. The very fact that all these experts have arrived at opposite conclusions show the weakness of a purely grammatical approach.
"Incorrect assumption on your part." It was not an assumption. It was a speculation.
"Nothing I have written even suggests that it was chosen at random." I do not recall that you ventured a suggestion as to why this particular justification was chosen over all the others possible. Did I miss something? If you do not think it was random, why do you think it was selected?
I must admit to being a bit taken aback when Odin identified "being necessary" as a participial phrase. Now, Radio guy blindsides me with a "catena of finite or action verbs."
The chances of meeting not just one, but two English professors in this blog on the same thread seem to me to be astronomical. So, I decided to do some research and discovered there are dozens of sites dedicated to thrashing this very question out. In fact, they spend many hours and electrons arguing about the meaning of the three commas in the sentence. Here I am, simply depending on my education and training, thinking Odin and Radio guy are doing likewise, but instead they could be merely cutting and pasting grammatical buzz words, without really understanding what they mean.
Here is citation from one of those sites that I particularly admire: "The sentence begins with what is traditionally known as an absolutive clausal adjunct — a gerund-participial clause functioning as an adjunct in clause structure. It is understood as if it began with 'since' or 'because' or 'in view of the fact that' (notice that 'Our situation being hopeless, we surrendered' means 'Since our situation was hopeless, we surrendered')."
So, Radio guy, I see your "catena or chain of verbs which contains a finite or action verb" and raise you "a gerund-participial clause."
All content © Copyright 2015, The Colorado Springs Independent
Website powered by Foundation