|
|
|
Monday, September 12, 2011 |
|
Thursday, April 2, 2020 11:42:13 AM |
33,701
[3.44% of all post / 10.78 posts per day] |
|
Quote:"You were seen entering a church yesterday. We do not need the likes of you so put your партбилет on the table." That's just as bad as the idea I quoted (not better or worse).
I got a bit confused by your reply, though.
Which "nice lady" who believes the Earth was created 6000 years ago?
There's no lady mentioned in the earlier posts. 
But then you'd have to also imprison the people who put this on the buses.
It's not good to run such buses in the cities full of those who don't believe in God.
We have free speech here, so long as it doesn't incite violence.
Neither of those bus campaigns violate anything. Both are actually quite cheerful messages.
This sort of thing - yes, that incites hatred.
|
Yes - I answered the grammar question.
The rest was a comment added on the end.
Reiko07 wrote:Does the following version work?
Genomics is so much a feature of modern biology that it comes as a surprise to learn that not a single gene has been discovered that enables the result of genetic mutation to be inherited from generation to generation.
Drag0nspeaker wrote:It's grammatically correct and sounds good.
|
Probably a bit broader for us.
"I want to go to the cinema" or "I want an apple" would bring the reply "'I want' doesn't get."
Today, I wanted to walk you through a few of the features . . .
Today, I would like to walk you through a few of the features . . .
Those sound OK.
Today, I want to walk you through a few of the features . . .
Because of the habit of never saying "I want", it's not so likely that I would say this one.
|
Yes. "nowhere to be found" is a common phrase.
|
Yes.
People can believe in whatever they want to. No problem.
Posting jokes and satire - no problem.
The only limit I propose is that no-one should try to FORCE someone to change, or persecute anyone. "You spoke up against radical fundamental Christianity - you're fired!"
I'm far from atheist, but I know that the Earth is more than 6000 years old.
|
It's grammatically correct and sounds good.
***************
It's not true, but the grammar is good.
Sixteen particular Y-chromosome mutations have been found and followed through many generations to present time.
National Geographic
The Smithsonian
European Journal of Human Genetics
|
It's not common to just use "go/went" alone like that.
EDITED to add: As Wilmar says in your other thread, "The second went is also awkward, in my opinion."
They went on their way, and continued until dawn.
"Go" (with no destination or direction) is not a continuing verb really. When it is used just as "we went" it means "we started" not "we travelled" or "we continued".
"Go/went" is usually followed by a place, direction or point in time, not a time period.
go vb (mainly intr) , goes, going, went or gone
1. to move or proceed, esp to or from a point or in a certain direction: to go to London; to go home.
2. (tr; takes an infinitive, often with to omitted or replaced by and) to proceed towards a particular person or place with some specified intention or purpose: I must go and get that book.
3. to depart: we'll have to go at eleven.
"They went on their way and went till dawn came" doesn't sound right. "till dawn came" is a period, not a point. It sounds like it's missing a direction or destination.
The question which would be asked if you said that would be "Went where?"
"They went on their way and went towards the mountain till dawn came."
"They went on their way and went north till dawn came."
"They went at dawn" would be OK.
"They went at dawn and went on their way" is not bad, but would probably be re-phrased so that "went" is not repeated.
|
Just looking grammatically, I'd agree with Wilmar that only #1 works very well.
The other two would easily be understood in conversation, but #2 and #3 say that the people are in a language family.
I'd add #1a. Peoples whose languages are in the Germanic/Mongolic language family ...
|
Hi!
Not taking much notice of the meaning or science of it (I'm just looking at how the sentence sounds grammatically), the phrase "not even a gene" doesn't quite sound right.
"Even" is (by the sequence of words) related to "gene" - but it should really be related to "discovered".
It's not easy to change in the passive voice.. There's nothing wrong with the passive - this is a very good use of it - but it seems simpler to use "even" in the active.
Genomics is so much a feature of modern biology that it comes as a surprise to learn that we haven't even discovered a gene that enables evolution.
If you want the passive, it would be:
Genomics is so much a feature of modern biology that it comes as a surprise to learn that a gene hasn't even been discovered that enables evolution.
*************
Looking at the science of it, I agree with thar - a gene would not enable evolution. Evolution occurs due to random "accidental" changes in genes and the results of these changes.
|
tautophile wrote:bafflegab or bureaucratese That is a habit of politicians and their ilk, which, IMHO, should be avoided.
I've not heard "bafflegab" before.
Good word!
|
|