The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

Profile: FounDit
About
User Name: FounDit
Forum Rank: Advanced Member
Occupation:
Interests: Psychology, philosophy, thought-provoking discussions
Gender: Male
Home Page
Statistics
Joined: Monday, September 19, 2011
Last Visit: Saturday, May 26, 2018 12:28:26 PM
Number of Posts: 8,929
[1.01% of all post / 3.65 posts per day]
Avatar
  Last 10 Posts
Topic: A dog was running across the road when it was run over by a car.
Posted: Saturday, May 26, 2018 12:26:53 PM
Koh Elaine wrote:
A dog was running across the road when it was run over by a car.

I saw a dog running across the road when it was run over by a car.

Is the second sentence correct in relation to the first sentence?

Thanks.


A couple of things need to be said about this. If you are telling a story about what you saw, and you use the first sentence to begin, then the second sentence is okay, but we would normally say, "I saw the dog..." to indicate that particular dog that was hit by the car — the dog you just mentioned.

But if you only want to say the second sentence without the first one, then you can use, "I saw a dog..." because you are just talking about some kind of dog, and it is the accident that you are making important.


A great many people will think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. ~ William James ~
Topic: less-abled
Posted: Saturday, May 26, 2018 12:16:41 PM
Here in the States, we still use the term "handicap" for parking spaces and the tag that indicates such a condition and is hung from the mirror in a vehicle. The tag and the parking space has a wheelchair symbol on it, but a person need not be confined to a wheelchair to use the tag.

Some health problems are not obvious, such as lung disease, or muscle weakness, so it can be difficult to determine if a person is using the tag properly or not. I think most people use the tags, parking spaces, and toilets responsibly, but of course there will always be the few who don't.



A great many people will think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. ~ William James ~
Topic: With resultant
Posted: Saturday, May 26, 2018 12:01:07 PM
Jigneshbharati wrote:
Nebulised Colomycin is not recommended for use during acute exacerbations,where intravenous antibiotics are more effective. The use of nebulised antibioticsoffers the advantage of delivery of antibiotics to the site of infection, with resultantminimal systemic adverse effects, as well as offering the possibility of treatment athome.

http://www.kgh.nhs.uk/EasysiteWeb/getresource.axd?AssetID=15850&type=full&servicetype=Attachment


What is the grammatical function of the prepositional phrase "with resultant...effects"?
It helps modify the "advantage" of nebulization. Nebulizing delivers the antibiotic to the site of the infection, provides the result of minimum adverse effects, and the possibility of treatment at home.

Do we always use ing form after "as well as"?

As well as offering...
No, not always. You could also omit the word "offering" and the sentence would read fine. "...as well as the possibility of treatment at home."

Thanks


A great many people will think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. ~ William James ~
Topic: ambiguity
Posted: Saturday, May 26, 2018 11:54:53 AM
D00M wrote:
Hello respected teachers,

Fighting soldiers is dangerous.

Could the above be ambiguous in any possible way?


Yes. In fact, as I read it, I initially thought you made a mistake and meant, "Fighting soldiers are dangerous". But this could be taken two ways. Are the soldiers dangerous, or is fighting them dangerous?

But if the word "is" is correct, then does "fighting soldiers" mean the soldiers are fighting, or does it mean fighting against the soldiers? If it means "fighting soldiers", then the word "is" looks like a mistake. But if it means fighting against soldiers, then it is okay, but a reader can't be sure that's what you meant.


A great many people will think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. ~ William James ~
Topic: On Political Correctness
Posted: Saturday, May 26, 2018 11:48:15 AM
Drag0nspeaker wrote:


The "White Privilege Checklist" was handed out showing the stereotyped attitudes non-whites (and some whites) have about whites. It serves as an example of stereotyping and shows that discrimination is not just anti-black/brown.
The rules do not specify that they only apply to whites stereotyping blacks or Christians stereotyping other religions - they just mention 'any stereotyping'.


If this were the way the Checklist was used, that would be fine, but it isn't. It is used exactly as I stated in my post, as a way to insult or shame whites for behavior of our ancestors.

As just one example of that, let's take a look at a feminist webpage listing examples they say "proves" White Privilege:

10 Examples That Prove White Privilege

1) I Have the Privilege of (Generally) Having a Positive Relationship with the Police

2)I Have the Privilege of Being Favored by School Authorities

3. I Have the Privilege of Attending Segregated Schools of Affluence

4. I Have the Privilege of Learning about My Race in School

5. I Have the Privilege of Finding Children’s Books that Overwhelmingly Represent My Race

6. I Have the Privilege of Soaking in Media Blatantly Biased Toward My Race

7. I Have the Privilege of Escaping Violent Stereotypes Associated with My Race

8. I Have the Privilege of Playing the Colorblind Card, Wiping the Slate Clean of Centuries of Racism

9. I Have the Privilege of Being Insulated from the Daily Toll of Racism

10. I Have the Privilege of Living Ignorant of the Dire State of Racism Today

What is "privilege" if it is not a "special benefit" (TFD definition) no one else enjoys? So if it is "special" can it not be said that those who enjoy such a benefit can be labeled as "special"? Does it not follow that if whites enjoy such a benefit that labeling them as privileged implies they are somehow "special"? Makes sense to me, anyway.

But everyone of these so-called "privileges" can be factually refuted as applying to whites and to no one else. The goal is not to bring people together by pointing out stereotypes, but to divide people along the lines of race. So when I say the Political Left uses it to tear down, to criticize, to label, to insult, they provide the evidence of the truth of that statement in webpages such as the one above. Many more can be found in any search, if a person wants to do so.

The fact that all three of you live in other countries and do not see this is evidence that you are not aware of what is really taking place here in the culture. DragOnspeaker wants to see it from the positive side. Hope and Lotje, the negative, and thus their critical remarks directed at me for my "misunderstanding". That gives me a laugh.


A great many people will think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. ~ William James ~
Topic: On Political Correctness
Posted: Friday, May 25, 2018 12:53:38 PM
"White Privilege" is a meme that is currently in vogue on the Political Left.

Wikipedia defines white privilege as “a term for societal privileges that benefit people identified as white in Western countries, beyond what is commonly experienced by non-white people under the same social, political, or economic circumstances.”

So "White Privilege" says “you’re special because you’re white.” But that is both illogical and inherently racist itself. I don't think people who use the term understand the implication of it, which is to somehow bring all white people down to the level of people of color.

Is this what is meant by "equality" from the "Social Justice Warriors" of our society; that we are all to brought down to the lowest level we can find, or that someone may have delineated for all of us? Who has the authority to do that, and why should we listen to anyone who suggests such a thing?

If whites are so privileged, wouldn't it be better to lift everyone else up to that level? But rather than lift, the Political Left always seeks to tear down, to criticize, to label, to insult.

So handing out a worksheet titled "White Privilege" is itself a racist attempt to cause all white students to feel a sense of shame and guilt for something they had absolutely nothing to do with.

In point of fact, it was white people who fought for the abolition of slavery. It was white people who went to war with their own family members to free slaves. It was white people who marched with black and brown people for Civil Rights, and it was white people who formed the majority of people who elected the first Black President of the United States. But we are told we are all racist and enjoy "White Privilege".

Should anyone who uses the label "White Privilege" even be paid any attention? I think not. They should be rebuked, and should certainly not be given any political power.



A great many people will think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. ~ William James ~
Topic: trump
Posted: Friday, May 25, 2018 12:05:57 PM
I've never played Bridge either, but something that "Trumps", usually is superior, or better than something else, so I'm in favor of "Trump".


A great many people will think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. ~ William James ~
Topic: Is the bold part OK?
Posted: Friday, May 25, 2018 11:57:13 AM
Koh Elaine wrote:
Thanks, JJ.

The summit had been scheduled for Singapore on June 12.

I'd rephrased as:

The summit in Singapore had been scheduled for June 12.

Is it OK?

Yes, as is JJ's, which adds a bit for clarity.



A great many people will think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. ~ William James ~
Topic: Another pretty little americanism
Posted: Friday, May 25, 2018 11:51:48 AM
The idea is that if a person remains in one place for a long time, they will be like a tree, or plant, that has grown roots into the ground and cannot move.

The phrase is also used at times as a joke. If someone is in one place for what seems a long time, you might ask, "Have you grown roots?" or, "Are you rooted to that place?"

It is also sometimes used to tease family members or friends who take a long time in the toilet. "Did you grow roots in there?"
Also heard, "Did you fall in?"

Be aware, however, that "root" has a different meaning in Australia. It is my understanding that "root" is a euphemism for sexual intercourse in that country. So you wouldn't want to say you "root" for a particular team, or person. Perhaps one of our Oz members can verify.


A great many people will think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. ~ William James ~
Topic: interrogative who
Posted: Friday, May 25, 2018 11:44:54 AM
D00M wrote:
Hello respected teachers,

Which one is the correct form of the verb for the subject "who"?
Since you have two groups in mind when you ask the question, your listener would also need to have two groups in mind to answer. Therefore, you would need to use "are", but to make your query clear, you should ask: "Who are the groups/entities[/b] trying to preserve...?"

If you only had one group in mind, and required a single group for an answer, you would use, "Who is the group trying to preserve...?"

Who are trying to preserve and revive the traditions handed down from previous generations?
Who is trying to preserve and revive the traditions handed down from previous generations?

The intention is actually to make the following sentence interrogative:

The government and the media are trying to preserve and revive the traditions handed down from previous generations.


A great many people will think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. ~ William James ~

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines. Copyright © 2008-2018 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.