The Grammar of Politics Thread
Now that I think about it, the "with your bullshit" part is actually always there when you tell a person to **** off. It's implied. No one ever gets told to **** off unless they just said some bullshit.
But the subject wouldn't be "you"-- "you" is the direct object. The speaker (in this case me), would be the subject. Since it's an imperative (e.g. a command), think of it as "[strike]I want you to[/strike] **** off [strike]with your bullshit
Well this brings me back to the horrors of grammar classes taught by Sister Martin. But the subject of an imperative sentence is always you. 😀
This may sound strange, but every single command has the same subject! Yikes! How is that even possible?
Well, since commands are always speaking to someone or something (you've got to address them if you're going to ask them to do something), the subject is always the word you.
You may have noticed that the word "you" is not even in a command. Because of this, the subject is actually called you understood, and it is written like this: (you)
This means that the subject is the word you, but since you is not written or spoken in the sentence, it is simply understood and is written in parentheses.
How about often or gift?
For the official position on caring:
Strength was what I was looking for and I didn't consider making it a plural noun----but I don't think the "ng" is a single phoneme there like it is in a word like "tangy"-- there is a 'release' with the g when the tongue moves from your velum to between your teeth-- you could pronounce it without the release but no one does.
In "scripts", the t there is just silent. "Scrimps" works though.
Do you pronounce "scripts" the same as "scrips"? I don't think I do.
obfuscating
Can I post obfuscatingly?
How many letters?
Longer than obfuscatingly? I don't know if that is really proper English, though there are plenty of uses online.
15 letters. It is an adjective. Think suitable prefixes and endings for maximum padding. Or in other words, find a long enough noun or verb and then pad it out.
Upon googling, there is a really obscure answer with 17 letters which is definitely not the word I'm thinking of. There is also a second pretty obscure answer with 15 letters which is also not the word I'm thinking of. The word I am thinking of is not hugely obscure, certainly not for its length, i.e. it is gettable for the posters ITT.
The Corpus of Contemporary America English hosted by BYU-- it's a 1 billion word sampling of American english that allows you to search for word usage and phraseology. It requires a login to access but no academic affiliation. I use it all the time to settle debates about what is "correct"-- since there isn't really such a thing only what is used and what isn't.
It's how I was determining that "could care less" is used 11x more than "couldn't care less" in American english.
Obviously longer words tend to be more obscure (i.e. encountered less frequently in speech or writing) than shorter words, so when gauging the relative obscurity of a word it makes sense to weigh it on a scale of words of similar length. "Going" is more common than "circumlocutory", but that doesn't tell us much about the obscurity of the latter, relatively speaking.
