Originally posted by Enzeru
For the love of God, can you people stop talking about commas?
Lol its because JBL doesn't understand that they are used for concurrent adjectives.
Christ, that applies in a sentence like... I'm going to pick big apples, pears, oranges and peaches. Even if you remove the comma in the statement... Most tenacious powerful beings in the universe, it still means most tenacious and the word MOST does NOT transfer over to powerful like BIG transfer over to the other fruits.
Originally posted by JBLthere are combined you moron. Is English your second language?
Christ, that applies in a sentence like... I'm going to pick big apples, pears, oranges and peaches. Even if you remove the comma in the statement... Most tenacious powerful beings in the universe, it still means most tenacious and the word MOST does NOT transfer over to powerful like BIG transfer over to the other fruits.
Originally posted by DiesldudeThey are not combined you idiot. The only way to combine them is if you remove the word MOST idiot. Hire tenacious, powerful beings in the universe. By placing the word MOST in front of tenacious, he ELEVATED the word tenacious to it's highest point, he did not elevate the word powerful idiot. Even if you turn it around it shows you how stupid you are... Hire powerful, most tenacious beings in the universe. Now how do you get most powerful out of powerful idiot? This is correct.... Hire the most tenacious, most powerful beings in the universe or most powerful, most tenacious beings in the universe. Now remove the word most and see what happens idiot.
there are combined you moron. Is English your second language?
Originally posted by JBLGo sit in your son’s zoom class and and learn English again. Don’t skip out raz kids either. Read 2 books a day for the next 12 years then come back here. While you’re at it, work on your GED after.
They are not combined you idiot. The only way to combine them is if you remove the word MOST idiot. Hire tenacious, powerful beings in the universe. By placing the word MOST in front of tenacious, he ELEVATED the word tenacious to it's highest point, he did not elevate the word powerful idiot.
Originally posted by JBL
They are not combined you idiot. The only way to combine them is if you remove the word MOST idiot. Hire tenacious, powerful beings in the universe. By placing the word MOST in front of tenacious, he ELEVATED the word tenacious to it's highest point, he did not elevate the word powerful idiot. Even if you turn it around it shows you how stupid you are... Hire powerful, most tenacious beings in the universe. Now how do you get most powerful out of powerful idiot? This is correct.... Hire the most tenacious, most powerful beings in the universe or most powerful, most tenacious beings in the universe. Now remove the word most and see what happens idiot.
Lol. I made it my business to pick my son up from school today. And low and behold, I asked a teacher and showed her that statement. This is how she explained it... For the sake of argument let's take 100 people. All 100 are tenaciouss and powerful. Now take the words tenacious and powerful, now out of those two words he want a certain attribute. Now to get that attribute he has to highlight something to show what he wants. We already know that they are tenacious and powerful, all 100 of them, but he want the most tenacious of The 100. So for the sake of argument let's say 50 of them are the most tenacious. By him inserting the word most in front of tenacious, he separated the group, just like the comma separated the two attributes. Without the word most, both attributes are equal. But by inserting the word most in front of tenacious, tenacious now become the more dominant attribute because it has now become enhanced. So bentley, go back to school.
Ok, so I'm going to check that for sake of loving the arts and come back to yoou after checking with a few experts in semantics. Maybe your point stands, we'll see it can be a honest confusion from my part
The result of my review probably doesn't change a lot of the end meaning of your argument though as you'd be searching the "most tenacious" exclusively among powerful beings and even if tenacity is the core focus of your research, you are still solely considering the powerful. It's not as if you could measure tenacity in a way that you are going your way to pick less powerful individuals with "more" tenacity than others.
