Quote (Zekdawg @ May 22 2017 01:11pm)
You spelled it wrong.
You spelled it wrongly.
Both are correct, so stop trying to get smart with me. We'll name this 1
Process A ensures B C blah blah blah. These are explanatipns on how you got your answers, not based on any grammatical rules of English. We'll name this 2
The sentence as is makes sense but it is poorly constructed because it is verbose. The sentence would function without the latter 'is' because the implied <subject> ensures a payment every 24 months. I dont believe it woukd be constitued as a complete sentence though since the subject is missing yet it has logical implied meaning. We'll name this 3
The sentence does not imply that the people get paid in months and the limit being redefined every 24 months...what? Let's call this 4
You think im just being a dick but no i just dont like people who talk down to others when they teach them This'll be 5, especially if they are teaching others wrong or not doing their research That'll be 6. You dont even sound like a native speaker We'll set this as 7, not that it matters, but in your case it does because youre wrong all over the place And we'll call this 8.
As you can see, I numbered things that we're going to break down, just so that we're on the same page. (See that reference to Tower of Power? but never mind all that)
One. Formally, "you spelled it wrong" is not correct. Everybody says it is, and several great philosophers and authors have stated that "thinking makes it so" (or an equivalent statement), but it is technically quite wrong.
Two. Aye, my explanation uses rationalities rather than grammatical rules here. I figured it would be easier to understand. At least, I think it is. But that's me.
Three. I don't quite know how you can possibly get to your explanation at all. Perhaps that's my shortcoming, I don't know. I can't say for sure because I am not arrogant enough to call an argument false without understanding the argument in the first place.
The original sentence was: Ensures / the limit / of amount paid per person over 19 / is / every 24 months
Something is ensuring something else. We do not know what this original something is. I believe this is called the dangling participle in english, but I'm not sure. So we don't know who or what is ensuring anything at point, but we do know something is being ensured.
What is being ensured is the limit of amount paid per person over 19. We can replace pretty much the entirety of this bit by "the limit of something". We're being ensured of a limit, regardless of the parameters.
At this point we reach what the original poster was actually interested in. Here's a parameter of the limit. Indeed, it states "the limit of something / is / something else". In fact, if you leave out the word "is" here, the sentence would imply that the limit of amount paid per person over 19 is redefined every 24 months.
Then, we've got / every 24 months left. We haven't got an indirect object yet. Here it is. Your limit is set in every 24 months.
Look, I'm sure the sentence at this point has implications that I somehow don't see. But this is what the line says as I read it.
Four. See three.
Five. Aye, I think you're being very cocky at this point, and I can only imagine it is because you went out of your way to tell me I spelled something wrongly (and in doing so, I emphasize, made a mistake of your own) just because I had turned down your offer. Which I still think is beyond acceptable attitude, even on a forum, to offer in the first place. Then, in a thread where I simply view something differently than you do, you come back to that mistake that I had made in a
private message, despite the fact that this is completely and utterly unrelated to said thread. So that's just your attempt at making a personal bash. I don't care, quite frankly I enjoy things like these up to a certain extend lol, but that's beside the point. But aye. I think you're a dick.
Oh, wait. Five again. Oops. I actually numbered it to comment on the "looking down on people" part. Browse through threads and see my posts. I am a dick to dicks, a student to tutors, an additional vote in polls, an opinion when asked, a tutor to students, whatever fits the situation. You apparently don't realize, but I'm only treating you equally. A little more elaborated as to the "why" part, perhaps, but there you have it. If you feel that I am treating others like I am looking down on them, then I can only take blame for my personality to be triggered easily. Nevertheless, and I hate to having to attribute this to anybody else but myself, I feel that you had this coming for being an inappropriate dick in the PM's, and for being an inappropriate dick after my first post in this thread, where miraculously we shared an initial goal. To help somebody else.
Six. I have yet to see you explain where I'm wrong and where you're right. So far, we've just been two opinions and, as far as I'm concerned, we're equally qualified. As a jsp member to one another, nothing more, nothing less. I hold no degree in any language, but I felt I could help this original poster anyway. I apologize if that was not in accordance to your expectations. Not sure where you got the idea to make it personal after that, but apparently your rude PM to me was cause for you to think I hold some sort grudge(?) where I belittle you by trying to post something in a homework help hotline subforum. Because gee, every second poster in a homework help hotline thread can only be bashing on the first poster.
Seven. True. I intend to get C2 after I found a full time job. But that's a long way within my branch sadly. Until then, I am but a man with a very small affinity for the English language.
Eight. See six.
Looking forward to your next reply,
Rik