Originally posted by DeVi| D0do
BTW, it should be "Emperor's" not "Emperors'"...
I'll have to say that you're wrong. "Emperor's = Emperor is"
If so, this would assimilate "The Emperor is appearance"...etc."
And that sounds hardly sensible. But thanks for the attempted punctuation lesson, though. It shows mindfulness.
Sorry, FOTN, but DD was right. "Emperor's" does NOT mean 'Emperor is', it's the singular possessive- the appearance of the Emperor.
It being my job to teach this stuff, I consider it a public service to make that clear.
However, I'd welcome more on topic comments, if any more can be found, rather than more acrimony.
I think of palpatine as a kind of shape-shifter. I think he purposefully changed during the mace windu battle to trick anakin into thinking that windu was disfiguring him.
He then used his real face in the senate to decieve the masses into thinking the jedi had done that to him, thus making it easier to pass his decree against them.
Originally posted by FistOfThe NorthNo. As Ush pointed out, "Emperor's" does not only mean "Emperor is"... in this context it means the appearance belongs to the Emperor. "Emperors'" would imply the appearance belonged to more than one Emperor, and considering there is only one Emperor in ROTS, I'm sure you can see how little sense that makes.
I'll have to say that you're wrong. "Emperor's = Emperor is"If so, this would assimilate "The Emperor is appearance"...etc."
And that sounds hardly sensible. But thanks for the attempted punctuation lesson, though. It shows mindfulness.
Originally posted by zombiemanclap ✅
I think of palpatine as a kind of shape-shifter. I think he purposefully changed during the mace windu battle to trick anakin into thinking that windu was disfiguring him.He then used his real face in the senate to decieve the masses into thinking the jedi had done that to him, thus making it easier to pass his decree against them.
Originally posted by DeVi| D0do
No. As Ush pointed out, "Emperor's" does not only mean "Emperor is"... in this context it means the appearance belongs to the Emperor. "Emperors'" would imply the appearance belonged to more than one Emperor, and considering there is only one Emperor in ROTS, I'm sure you can see how little sense that makes.clap ✅
How little sense what you just said made? Or...
I thought "Emperors" meant many Emperors. So " Emperors' " doesn't exist? Just asking..
I digress. back to the subject
If there were two Emperors and you were talking about their collective appearance it would be Emperors'. But because we are only talking about one Emperor, it is Emperor's.
I'd get back to the subject, but frankly I find discussing this much more appealing than repeating something that's already been said a thousand times...
Originally posted by DeVi| D0doI'd get back to the subject, but frankly I find discussing this much more appealing than repeating something that's already been said a thousand times...
Nah, I don't.
Anythings better than a grammar lesson.
Rewatching Ep. 1 would be better, even.
Wouldn't you think so?
😎
Originally posted by Sith Master X
Palps even says in the movie, "The attempt on my life has left me scarred and deformed." That's all the evidence you need right there.
But with that I could ask, did the Emperor just say what the Senate wanted or should hear?
After all, Palpatine did say in his speech that "the Jedi "Plot" has been foiled." And a "Plot" is a secret plan to accomplish a hostile or illegal purpose. Like a scheme.
Were the Jedi "Plotting" as Palpatine had told the Senators during his Imperial Declaration speech? No.
So who knows what else, in his speech, was a lie as well.
Just my opinion.