Topics I have posted in
Subject: I
Verb: have posted
Object: topics
Adverbial phrase: in ... (In? In what?)
The parsing above clearly demonstrates the grammatical inaccuracy of the sentence under review. The sentence is incomplete.
Aw look what you done, now he ain't never gonna to write no more posts here.
Didn't read this whole thing (yeah, that's short for "I did not read this entire set of postings"), so somebody else may have already said this, but in my experience almost nobody understands what the word "only" means. As in, "I only played one game" or "I only had two eggs" -- certainly very common structures. Phrased in this manner, the only excludes everything other than "played" or "had" -- I had the two eggs, but nothing more. Did not eat them, cook them, look at them, purchase them, digest them, ... Clearly, the intention is to exclude numbers beyond two, so it should read "I had only two eggs".
GeoffreyBernardo wrote: I only had two eggs might also mean I, but nobody else, had two eggs.
horas non numero nisi serenas: 'I number none but shining hours' ( an inscription on a sundial).
This is just silly.
Topics I have posted in
Subject: I
Verb: have posted
Object: topics
Adverbial phrase: in ... (In? In what?)
The parsing above clearly demonstrates the grammatical inaccuracy of the sentence under review. The sentence is incomplete.
Geoffrey,
You are incorrect. "In" is not the beginning of a prepositional/adverbial phrase. This is the particle of a phrasal verb, and thus does not introduce an unfinished phrase. The entire phrasal verb is " to post in".
For example... "I threw the garbage out" What is out? Clearly not a preposition.
For example... "I threw the garbage out" What is out? Clearly not a preposition.
Yes 'tis. The fact that you've arranged the the sentence so that the object of the preposition ("garbage") precedes the preposition itself changes nada. 
there is perscriptive grammer where the convention is rigid and descriptive grammer which describes what people actually do and use.
Lingusitically neither is more correct, as long as a large group of people use and understand "Improper grammer" Linguists will argue there is actually nothing improper going on. You could get a english phd to debate it with a linguist phd and they would be arguing weather the evolution of language through usage is correct or the rigid scholastic system is correct.
Ever hear of old english?
For example... "I threw the garbage out" What is out? Clearly not a preposition.
Yes 'tis. The fact that you've arranged the the sentence so that the object of the preposition ("garbage") precedes the preposition itself changes nada.
No deepgreene. Sometimes the object can split the main verb from its particle. Open any generative sytax book and it will tell you this. It is not a preposition.
For example... "I threw the garbage out" What is out? Clearly not a preposition.
Yes 'tis. The fact that you've arranged the the sentence so that the object of the preposition ("garbage") precedes the preposition itself changes nada.
No deepgreene. Sometimes the object can split the main verb from its particle. Open any generative sytax book and it will tell you this. It is not a preposition.
Yeah, I realized the gaffe after my response, but was rather hoping you'd step into an elevator shaft before seeing my response. You win this round, redwood. This.. Round.. 
Also, "particle"?
It is not correct to begin a sentence or paragraph with a conjuction (And or But) either. However, there are 10's of thousands here on Chess.com whose first languages are not English. In the interest of pragmatism and practicality the general population here should not need to bother with the rules of English grammar. They can pay attention if they have an interest in doing so, or if their college major is the English language. If English is one's first language then we should always stand ready to learn without exception. There seems to be a lot of nit picking amongst the posts and topics though. Some people have that personality, and that is not a crime either.
It is not correct to begin a sentence or paragraph with a conjuction (And or But) either. However, there are 10's of thousands here on Chess.com whose first languages are not English. In the interest of pragmatism and practicality the general population here should not need to bother with the rules of English grammar. They can pay attention if they have an interest in doing so, or if their college major is the English language. If English is one's first language then we should always stand ready to learn without exception. There seems to be a lot of nit picking amongst the posts and topics though. Some people have that personality, and that is not a crime either.
But it *is* perfectly acceptable for a sentence to begin with a conjunction, despite what some have told us throughout our formative years.
Prescriptive grammarians may try to impose their rules but so what? The grammar as constituted by usage determines how the language can be used. Descriptive grammar.
As was noted above, english would not look like it does today if the users weren't able to change it through different "rule breaking" usage over time. Old english looks nothing like middle english which is very different from modern english.
In the end we have a very elastic and modern language with relatively few rules. Still a very expressive one in no small part due to a very large and eclectic vocabulary.
This simplification is typical as languages age and remain used by large populations. Chinese, they say, is simple as can be, while the most modern languages, like Flemish, are chock full of layers of grammatical controls.
I also studied Old English grammar as part of my linguistics study at University. Those rules of old grammar aren't being broken nowadays; they are in effect extinct, yet we seem to be doing just fine.
All that being said, I'd hope anyone would be fluent in their mother tongue of a somewhat formal usage. It's just handy to not be thought an idiot at times. "Duh hey yo mister president yo!"
this is one of my favorite threads! please. Carry on~
ROFLMAO, they will afaf, they will. ad infinitum, ad nauseum, but still, it is funny reading the 'back and forth' and they do remain so civilized and 'proper' in their grammatical darts and arrows at each other.
too funny. (more so because I'm not involved in either side, merely sitting on the side, reading and laughing at it all.)
I completely agree with you Billy Idle. I say "communication is communication".
It is not correct to begin a sentence or paragraph with a conjuction (And or But) either. However, there are 10's of thousands here on Chess.com whose first languages are not English. In the interest of pragmatism and practicality the general population here should not need to bother with the rules of English grammar. They can pay attention if they have an interest in doing so, or if their college major is the English language. If English is one's first language then we should always stand ready to learn without exception. There seems to be a lot of nit picking amongst the posts and topics though. Some people have that personality, and that is not a crime either.
But it *is* perfectly acceptable for a sentence to begin with a conjunction, despite what some have told us throughout our formative years.
Prescriptive grammarians may try to impose their rules but so what? The grammar as constituted by usage determines how the language can be used. Descriptive grammar.
As was noted above, english would not look like it does today if the users weren't able to change it through different "rule breaking" usage over time. Old english looks nothing like middle english which is very different from modern english.
In the end we have a very elastic and modern language with relatively few rules. Still a very expressive one in no small part due to a very large and eclectic vocabulary.
This simplification is typical as languages age and remain used by large populations. Chinese, they say, is simple as can be, while the most modern languages, like Flemish, are chock full of layers of grammatical controls.
I also studied Old English grammar as part of my linguistics study at University. Those rules of old grammar aren't being broken nowadays; they are in effect extinct, yet we seem to be doing just fine.
All that being said, I'd hope anyone would be fluent in their mother tongue of a somewhat formal usage. It's just handy to not be thought an idiot at times. "Duh hey yo mister president yo!"
Good points! Descriptive grammar is, in my opinion, the correct way to view a language. It accounts for more variability and the dynamic nature of language over time. I believe that prescriptivists stifle the true creativity that can be found in the natural, casual usage of language.
I also find it interesting that most of the "fringe" or "non-standard" dialects often times contain the most creative and clever usages of language, but at the same time are considered backwards and undesirable.
Anyway, most of my musings on this topic are to show how the original poster was wrong about the first sentence being "ungrammatical" and how one should not so harshly judge others' use of the language. I think everyone should realize that the concept of a sentence being "grammatical" is just an artificial and static construct imposed over a dynamic system and in no way really reflects the reality of the phenomenon. Trying to force a square peg into a round hole will get you nowhere, as the prescriptivists always try to do.
"Doh" Homer Simpson
Non-standard use of grammar and language can be clever and interesting if it's done on purpose in limited situations. However, when it's done repeatedly with no thought behind it, it's just a poor grasp of English.
Many people feel vulnerable on this issue and resort to "communication is just communication" (not directed at anyone in particular) because they are afraid of being judged when they make mistakes. This is a cowardly stance and a barrier to improvement. Not all expressions are equally eloquent and precise just as not all opinions are equally valid. We all make mistakes but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to better ourselves. I'm still trying to improve my English (not my first language), my chess and just about everything else.
BTW: A dialect usually has a different set of rules with its own logic. This is totally different. The problem is that many people just don't understand the plural and singular while speaking otherwise standard English.
Back in the 80's when I was working on a language translation project, we came across some interesting pathalogical sentences:
The horse raced past the barn fell.
Had had 'had had'. Had-Had had 'had'. Had-Had had the right answer.
We had most fun with German idioms such as: Wo sich Fuchs und Hase gute Nacht sagen. Though not too difficult to translate literally: 'Where fox and rabbit say goodnight to each other', you then had to figure out what it actually meant, and identify the corresponding English idiom.
We had most fun with German idioms such as: Wo sich Fuchs und Hase gute Nacht sagen. Though not too difficult to translate literally: 'Where fox and rabbit say goodnight to each other', you then had to figure out what it actually meant, and identify the corresponding English idiom.
So what does it mean? It's like agreeing to a truce for a brief time? That's cute, whatever it means.
Retguvvie. lol. I had missed the thread when it took a long pause. I thought they might need a little encouragement. :)
Back in the 80's when I was working on a language translation project, we came across some interesting pathalogical sentences:
The horse raced past the barn fell.
Had had 'had had'. Had-Had had 'had'. Had-Had had the right answer.
We had most fun with German idioms such as: Wo sich Fuchs und Hase gute Nacht sagen. Though not too difficult to translate literally: 'Where fox and rabbit say goodnight to each other', you then had to figure out what it actually meant, and identify the corresponding English idiom.
It makes sense with punctuation:
John, whereas Peter had had "had", had had "had had"; "had had" had had the Headmaster's approval.
Didn't read this whole thing (yeah, that's short for "I did not read this entire set of postings"), so somebody else may have already said this, but in my experience almost nobody understands what the word "only" means. As in, "I only played one game" or "I only had two eggs" -- certainly very common structures. Phrased in this manner, the only excludes everything other than "played" or "had" -- I had the two eggs, but nothing more. Did not eat them, cook them, look at them, purchase them, digest them, ... Clearly, the intention is to exclude numbers beyond two, so it should read "I had only two eggs".
I only had two eggs might also mean I, but nobody else, had two eggs.