Oops, forgot some things.
The phrase “you fucking fuck” is a vocative phrase. I cannot for the life of me find anything on the Internet which explains how to diagram a vocative phrase. The rest of the sentence is easy. The (understood) subject is “You.” The verb is “fuck.” The object is “you.”
Incidentally, sentence diagrams are technically referred to as Reed-Kellogg diagrams. They are considered horrendously out of date. Heck, when I was a grad student in linguistics from 1974 to 1977, they were horrendously out of date. I remember once joking with some fellow students about writing a linguistics paper that showed that the only way to analyze a particular sentence was to use Reed-Kellogg diagrams. This was considered a joke because we all knew that Reed-Kellogg diagrams were useless for most purposes.
This thread is why I love the Dope. Where else on the whole world wide web could you get a 20+ post thread in under 7 hours on how to correctly diagram the sentence, “Fuck you, you fucking fuck.” ?
Is this why my 6th grade teacher didn’t want us to say things like:
My brother, he went out to eat yesterday, and he spilled on his pants!
We were brought up to be religious, but that didn’t pan out so well.
I know, cause that’s exactly what I was thinking when you said that!
hey, is the first “fuck” supposed to be a verb phrase and pronoun droppage? ffffffuck! there is no command. it’s the speaker who is doing the action. unless its you be cursed or you be fucked.
CitizenPained, I have no idea what the things you quote from your sixth grade teacher have to do with anything that I wrote. What are you talking about? If you want to get your questions answered on the SDMB, you’re going to have to learn to ask them more carefully.
“Fuck you” might also be considered to be just an interjection in English, so perhaps you might want to consider it to be an single item that can’t be further analyzed. It presumably derived from “You fuck yourself,” in which “you” was the subject, “fuck” was the verb, and “yourself” was the object. However, it’s not really even clear what the phrase derived from. In any case, the whole idea that you can make English sentences easily fit into traditional Reed-Kellogg diagrams is misguided, so maybe this whole discussion isn’t getting us anywhere.
And so enters the Skinner.
My grammar teacher had a problem with us saying anything aloud he had problem parsing out on paper. The more complex, he figured, the less understood.
If you are going to talk to someone, it’s widely assumed you want them to listen. With that being said, you may want to tone it down about fourteen decibels.
In this case, “diagram” was shorthand for ‘please parse this sentence into parts of speech for me’. Let’s not have a fight over this, please.
CitizenPained writes:
> And so enters the Skinner.
What does that even mean?
> If you are going to talk to someone, it’s widely assumed you want them to
> listen. With that being said, you may want to tone it down about fourteen
> decibels.
CitizenPained, your posts are very hard to read. Are you interested in communicating with other people here or are you just talking with yourself? If you want to be understood, you’re going to have to quit using private references that other people don’t understand.
Sorry; I thought an accomplished linguist would get the Principal Skinner reference, but maybe that’s a generational thing.
Maybe you are not down with the metaphors, either.
I love this board.
bibliophage, I think I will memorize that sentence just to toss around at church suppers. I want to be able to say it very quickly before anyone has time to really think about it. Lovely, lovely!
CitizenPained, no one here has claimed to be a linguistic expert. I would think that you did not get this sentence from your grammar teacher: “My grammar teacher had a problem with us saying anything aloud he had problem parsing out on paper. The more complex, he figured, the less understood.”
Since no one is linguistically perfect here, why not set your hostility aside when talking about grammar? I know that you are new and certainly I am not a mod. I think you have a lot to offer. Welcome to the SDMB.
It’s not just you. I’m familiar with Principal Skinner from the Simpsons and B.F. Skinner, and I still have no idea what is trying to be said with that post or, for that matter, most of the others.
Well, I probably shouldn’t be posting at 2am. 
But I didn’t think I was particularly hostile until someone came in here and lambasted us for being morons for trying to ‘diagram’ a sentence. If I don’t get what someone said then I just ask for clarification. There was nothing hostile in my conversation until Dr. Linguistics came in.
I’m* far *from linguistically perfect. I hyper-correct all the time. It’s probably a result of having a language disorder. :dubious:
Anyway, a certain someone hated his professor, Dr. B.F. Skinner (the poor behavioral scientist that was assaulted by Noam Chomksy and is a known to every linguistics student in America), while at Harvard and later named a character after him when he started writing for a new TV show. Apparently the original Skinner was a dick to learn from and would constantly moan about the failure of the peons to understand anything and he hated him so much he got his revenge by making a cartoon out of him.
I actually thought he’d catch what I meant. Oops. I guess I was wrong. But if this guy studied linguistics or English, I figured he’d know Skinner and if I put in the bit about how Principal Skinner was named after him, then, well, the point would fall into place. Guess not. 
::retreats::