Thanks, not having a problem now. Didn’t save the page from last night. Exapno, do you still have the problem?
No, it’s gone away even though it was still there when I double-checked after getting the explanation.
Without the page as it was last night, there may not be much use in pursuing this through experimentation. It does make me wonder what the algorithm for ‘Find’ is. If the original source text is not used, each text object in the DOM would have to be accessed, leaving open the possibility of structural flaws created by improper HTML or run-time script processing (not to mention fallibility of the browser).
Not sure where you’re getting this. Death as a concept may be “uncountable,” but deaths of specific individuals certainly are not.
*“There were 2 deaths in my family last month.” *
(Awake is a noun???)
The ‘awake’ are those who are not sleeping, literally or figuratively, like the dead or the ‘unaware’.
Used as such, then, the awake are surely quantifiable.
In the sense that there are specific number of people who are ‘awake’ at any time, then I guess your right. I was only addressing the use of ‘awake’ as a noun. And its a pretty rare form of the word.
Strictly speaking, it’s not a noun at all, but an adjective being used as a noun (which is perfectly respectable in English and many other languages).
Conversion in English can turn just about any class to any other, as shown in that article.
There is a type called partial conversion (part 4), in which an adjective can be said to be acting as a noun, but only if the result would be ungrammatical. The use of “deaths” is grammatical; the “awakes” would probably not be without a strained sentence structure.
Adjectives can therefore certainly be nouns rather than just acting as nouns. It depends, as always, on context.
Wow, I converted an adjective.
Exapno, can you address the term pluperfect tense in English, outside of the ‘Boston Joke’. I recall William Safire claiming there is no such thing in English, or whatever it is we speak here.
Dang! I meant ‘the term pluperfect tense in the English language’. I would appreciate use of English in the response though.
As the Pluperfect Master, I should be qualified to answer that question.
And I shall.
Safire said no such thing, of course. You’re misrememberating. Here’s the column in question.
What doesn’t exist is the phrase stumble “ex-pluperfect past tense.” Not only is that a perfectly understandable mistake to make in an interview, but I give the elder Bush great credit for recognizing the pluperfect to begin with.
One interesting side note that Safire doesn’t mention. (Although he should have, particularly when he writes “Only in grammar can you be more than perfect.” and also “An earlier sense of perfect , however, is “whole, completed, finished”; the Apostle Paul, in the King James translation of his first letter to the Corinthians, defined love of God: “But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.””)
Many commentators (I like Garry Wills’ analysis in A Necessary Evil) point out that the phrase “a more perfect union” in the Constitution uses exactly this meaning. The new system of government was more complete than that of the Articles of Confederation.
That’s not the understanding most people today have of the word and so the perfection of the U.S. is often falsely claimed. The founders most certainly did not think that what they had wrought was perfect in the modern sense.
I shall not have been uncorrectorated. Sorry Bill, my bad.
This reminds me of a dumbass “men are all sexist pigs” joke, whereby the premise is that any man can turn any two words used descriptively about a woman into a sexist statement. As I recall the joke, it went:
yada yada yada: “and she’s a nuclear physicist”
sexist pig: “I’d like to nuke her physics…”
I would call that a smartass joke.
In fact, by their own definitions of the words, they never claimed “perfection”.
They claimed “in order to form a more perfect union…” In other words, they were claiming to be improving what existed, but were not claiming perfection for what they were making. And as no end of “Canada-snobs” and “Euro-weinies” keep pointing out, the founders’ “more perfect union” is far from perfect, and always will be…
Our (US) founders never claimed perfection, and anyone reaming us (US) for not having achieved that (never claimed) perfection, can kiss my “US”.
BTW, I get most steamed by the “Canada-snobs” because I’m also [stand up and be proud to be] Canadian [we need a “maple-leaf” smiley, here]!!!
Hello Mr. Giles, I thank you for your response.
The noun wakefulness is the word that I had intended to use. I apologise for that mistake.
I should have stated that the noun “death” is similar in its syntax to the noun “wakefulness”.
My comparing of the word “death” to the word “wakefulness” is limited to the extent that each word is an uncountable noun to.
The language that all human forms communicate in is our humane language. It is part of our psychology.
If I ask a Greek child for “nero”,
a french child for “un peu d’eau”,
an Ashanti child for “ensuo”,
a German child for “Wasser”,
a Fanti child for “insu”,
an English child for “some water”,
a Spanish child for “agua”,
a Swahilli child for “maji”,
or
an Arab child for “zulal”,
each one of them will comprehend that my request is for dihydrogen monoxide.
The concept of
dihydrogen monoxide,
nero,
eau,
ensuo,
Wasser,
insu,
water,
agua,
maji
or
zulal is not taught to a neo natal child.
Every neo natal human child has the concept of the liquid in his or her brain.
That concept, and the concept of thirst, and the concept of the world are in every neo natal human child’s brain.
These concepts are the components of our humane language.
They are not in Japanese, not in Spanish, not in English, not in German. They are not in any word based language.
They are in a humane form. This is our language, the humane language.
The best name for our humane language is psychology, humane psychology.
Our psychology enables every human form to convey information to, and to decode information from, every other human form.
Even a neo natal human child uses our language, our humane psychology, to communicate with his or her mother.
During our post natal life, if we need water, we scream.
If our mother does not comply, we increase the scream volume till we reach 97 decibels, the loudness of a jack hammer.
The crying a human baby causes a mother’s breasts to release milk.
If our mother does not respond to our crying, her breasts will.
She is human.
A neo natal child learns about the environ from the tempo of his or her mother’s heart.
We share our mother’s emotion inducing hormones for 38 weeks through our umbilical cord.
The emotion that a hormone stimulates occurs with a change in the rythm of our mother’s heart beat.
We learn the link between the emotions that we experience and the tempo of our mother’s heart beat.
During our post natal life, our mothers suckle us predominantly at her left breast, near her heart. She communicates information about the environ to us through her heart beat.
We hear our mother’s heart beat and decode the status of the world from its rythm.
We do not use words. We use our humane psychology.
To us, to any neo natal child, our mother is the world.
A child becomes a gender signal at 20 weeks of gestation.
A man keeps his primary gender signal covered up with clothes and yet we refer to him as “he”.
Before the birth of the child, we enquire in our humane language_
a boy or a girl?,
a boy or a girl?,
a boy or a girl?,
a boy or a girl?,
a boy or a girl?,
a boy or a girl?,
a boy or a girl?,
a boy or a girl?,
a boy or a girl?,
a boy or a girl?.
A boy comes out his mother with his primary gender signal completely exposed and responds in our humane language, the primary message_
“a boy”,
“a boy”,
“a boy”,
“a boy”,
“a boy”,
“a boy”,
“a boy”,
“a boy”,
“a boy”,
“a boy”.
This child has earned the humane pronoun “he”.
A woman keeps her primary gender signal covered up with clothes, and yet we refer to her as “she”.
Before the birth of the child, we enquire in our humane language_
a boy or a girl?,
a boy or a girl?,
a boy or a girl?,
a boy or a girl?,
a boy or a girl?,
a boy or a girl?,
a boy or a girl?,
a boy or a girl?,
a boy or a girl?,
a boy or a girl?.
A girl comes out her mother with her primary gender signal completely exposed and responds in our humane language, the primary message_
“a girl”,
“a girl”,
“a girl”,
“a girl”,
“a girl”,
“a girl”,
“a girl”,
“a girl”,
“a girl”,
“a girl”.
This child has earned the humane pronoun “she”.
We have been using our language for 5 million years.
If you are human, you must speak our language.
The merriam-webster definition of post natal is here_
Date: circa 1859
occurring or being after birth;
specifically_ of or relating to an infant immediately after birth <postnatal care>
The wikipedia definition of post natal is here_
postnatal (Latin for ‘after birth’, from post meaning “after”, and natalis meaning “of birth”)
it is the period beginning immediately after the birth of a child and extending for about six weeks.
Here is a riddle from Africa.
What is the first quality that one notices about a person?.
The person’s gender.
J. Johan Pallen.
Hello Mr. ed malin, I thank you for your response.
The noun wakefulness is the word that I had intended to use. I apologise for that mistake.
I should have stated that the noun “death” is similar in its syntax to the noun “wakefulness”.
My comparing of the word “death” to the word “wakefulness” is limited to the extent that each word is an uncountable noun to.
The subjects of the discussion were human babies, not death.
The death of a human baby should be of concern to every human form.
Death is not a countable noun. There is no unit of death.
If two babies die, their death is still death.
If one is human and one maintains the subject of the discussion and takes account of the fact death is death regardless of the number of dead forms, the sentence that one will produce is_
…some babies have died.
J. Johan Pallen.
Hello Mr. ivan astikov, I thank you for your response.
I thank you very much for your compliment.
I should state that I made a mistake in my message.
The noun wakefulness is the word that I had intended to use. I apologise for that mistake.
I should have stated that the noun “death” is similar in its syntax to the noun “wakefulness”.
My comparing of the word “death” to the word “wakefulness” is limited to the extent that each word is an uncountable noun to.
I thank you.
J. Johan Pallen.
Hello Mr. njtt, I thank you for your response.
The noun wakefulness is the word that I had intended to use. I apologise for that mistake.
I should have stated that the noun “death” is similar in its syntax to the noun “wakefulness”.
My comparing of the word “death” to the word “wakefulness” is limited to the extent that each word is an uncountable noun to.
The subject of a statement takes the plural form.
The subject, baby, takes the plural form_ babies.
The condition of the subject does not take the plural form.
Death is the condition of the babies.
“Wakefulness” is a condition. It does not take the plural form.
An anim is a less highly evolved life form, from practitioners of bestiality to chimpanzees down to bacteria.
J. Johan Pallen.