|
bounty44 -> RE: ESPN strikes back at Confederate legacy. (8/23/2017 7:05:42 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul
quote:
ORIGINAL: bounty44
quote:
ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bosco
...or claiming that you support NAMBLA or whatever, if you mention Milo's name
("Debate" doesn't get any lower or any less intellectual than that) [:D]
I didn't claim you support NAMBLA
I said you support that scum Milo and HE supports them.
I also stated that a Conservative would not support such a person.
That was a whopper of a lie even for you.
its not a "lie" brainiac---its a straight forward rendering of the phrase "you support NAMBLA boy"
meaning, as written, that bosco is "boy", as in "fetch that book boy."
if you wanted to refer to milo you should have written "you support NAMBLA-boy"
hows that for "getting your ass handed to you?"
Incorrect. Your example statement "fetch that book boy" would be correctly written and punctuated as "Fetch that book, boy." When a word is located at the end of a sentence that addresses someone being spoken to, it should be separated from the rest of the sentence by a comma.
If he were referring to bosco, then he should have written it as "you support NAMBLA, boy". The separation of 'boy' from the rest of the sentence would indicate that someone is being directly addressed.
Not using a comma indicates that someone is being talked about, not talked to.
True, the lack of a hyphen doesn't make it immediately clear that 'boy' should be adjoined to 'NAMBLA'. However, the absence of a comma in combination with the context of the post makes the intended meaning clear.
So I don't think anyone got their ass handed to them on this, either.
the absence of a comma does not necessarily change the meaning of a sentence from someone being "talked to" to someone being "talked about." though I agree at least in some cases it could and does.
however, "fetch the book, tom" remains tom being "talked to" even when its changed to "fetch the book tom." theres no such thing as a "booktom" or "book-tom" such that it could be "talked about."
i read a lot and notice that yes, commas precede nouns and pronouns in sentences like the one in question (I just learned that's called the "vocative case" so that was interesting) but when you type "fetch the book tom" or "fetch the book, tom" into Microsoft word, the editor works with both the comma and not the comma. further, if you were speaking the sentence, there is no necessary pause for clarity's sake such that a comma would be required. that is, you wouldn't SPEAK it with a pause and the listener would know he is being "talked to" not "talked about." I suspect some of this is coming down to how we heard it in our heads in terms of the emphasis of the word "boy."
no, given what I just said, the absence of a comma does not make it clear what was meant to be said regardless of the absence of hyphenation. bosco understood it in a way different than what the writer apparently intended, and initially so did I.
and its not clear from the context either. "you support NAMBLA boy" can just as easily be understood, especially given the way so many of us speak to each other here, as the speaker derogatorily calling the reader "boy." afterall, it turns out he's calling milo "boy."
also, apparently we all support Nazi's these days just because we support their right to assemble. its not the least bit far fetched to be accused of supporting NAMBLA because you support a gay man's right to speak without being assaulted. mnottertroll's called bosco a "pedophile" countless times.
the only 100% clarity there would have been "you support NAMBLA-boy."
all that said, I don't have a problem admitting to being overly strident concerning the use or non-use of a comma---but stickin' to my guns on the hyphen.
|
|
|
|
