|
Real0ne -> RE: NY Police Threaten to Frame Protestor as Terrorist (11/6/2007 6:19:21 AM)
|
For anyone who has not followed this along as to what is going on here:
The users of this board are not allowed to post "complete articles", only snippets and then a link so save bandwidth, (as this is a free site), and then people who want to read further can simply click on the link and of course this method can on some occasions result in minor ambiguities that the greater majority of readers have no problem navigating.
Some posters make it their business to maliciously draw false conclusions and slander others using any ambiguity they can find in attempts to discredit opponent users rather than investigate their meaning and intent and then engage them on an intellectual level.
Case in point is where I went to the extreme to verify with a grammar professor, (that is a grammar professor to insure absolute accuracy), a statement that had two possible meanings if certain linguistic flags were not present. At my request the grammar professor reduced the statement in quotes below into its fundamental components such that any grade school graduate can easily understand its structure and meaning in an effort to help him read and understand it in its proper perspective.
This poster has inappropriately slandered and denounced several others, (as can be seen in the Alumbrado instance), as well as myself in this manner and is known for his inability to comprehend what he reads. A clear pattern seems to be developing that would indicate that he targets anyone who does not agree with him.
Please note the case in point below, and if there are any readers who would like to help him with his linguistics i am sure his victims out here would sincerely appreciate it.
quote:
Sorry. I get your meaning now. And you're right, and the word "And" is part of the linguistic flag here:
pull it = demolish the building
"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it (to demolish the building).' And they made that decision to pull (to demolish) and then we watched the building collapse."
Linguistic evidence
If we assume that pull it means to pull (the plug on) the operation, to stop the operation, then the second pull doesn't fit grammatically, because it would have to carry the same meaning. It'd have to be "....they made the decision to pull out ...", a different verb altogether.
The problem here, or rather the apparent problem, is the phrase pull it. It's ambiguous, that is, it has two potential meanings:
1) to end an operation, to pull out of an operation
2) to demolish a building
If the idiom pull it means to pull out of an operation, then its base verb form to pull should follow semantically. That is, in order to keep the same meaning, which is evident by the speaker's use of the conjunction "And" which connects the two sentences, to pull would have to be to pull out.
In short, you are correct. Good eye! Pull in pull it and to pull means to demolish, not to pull out.
To pull is short for pull it.
For you lucky feel free to refute the linguistic evidence with your linguistic PROOF or continue to show everyone your real motives here as I have uncovered.
Response Prediction:
a) Evasive manuever
b) Distraction to another subject
c) Further obfuscation
d) Create a straw man
e) Argue against his own point and attach it to me
f) become the victim and get emotional
g) present a specious argument
h) simply call me a liar
i) inappropriately discredit all sources
j) AWOL; simply ignore everything and continue to blather the same mistakes
k) ANYTHING BUT put up linguistic evidence.
So got any new ones I can add to the list?
|
|
|
|
