Roy Moore accused of sexual contact with 14-year old

[Cow Poke]

he means the johannine comma

It's an inside joke, of sorts. One day, a fellow pastor - a Pakistani - was in my office, and he was going on and on about the johannine comma. My (then) 7 year old daughter had come to work with me that day, and was in the corner of my office playing with her dolls.

That night, at supper, when we were getting ready to pray, it was Jenny's turn - she said, "Dad, should I pray for that Joe Hannon in a Coma?"

(ya had to been there)

[Cerebrum123]

he means the johannine comma

Ah, didn't get that.

I had heard of it in the past, but it didn't come to mind.

[Zymologist]

Well yes, but they only believe it because they want to believe it, not because there is evidence of it. All of the evidence and court rulings have shown it to be a republican scam concocted by conservative think tanks and enacted by republican legislators in order to disenfranchise democrat voters. Those doing it know its a scam. For those taken in by it, it's called cognative dissonance.

Is this an ethnic slur?

[One Bad Pig]

Is this an ethnic slur?

More like an ethic slur.

[guacamole]

Did somebody say "pedantic?"

Drop out the qualifying clause from the sentence and if what remains is still a well-structured sentence you did it right.

There are two independent clauses¹ in the sentence, and one dependent clause:

Drop out the qualifying clause from the sentence and you did it right.

We need a comma before the coordinating conjunction in this case:

Drop out the qualifying clause from the sentence, and you did it right.

Because you've introduced a subordinate clause in the sentence, it is a little more complicated. What you actually have is a compound-complex sentence. Split apart, the three clauses are:

1. [You] Drop out the qualifying clause from the sentence.
2. [If] What remains is a well-structured sentence.
3. You did it right.

In a complex sentence, if the subordinate clause comes first, then it is followed by a comma.

If what remains is a well structured sentence, you did it right.

We could re-write the sentences separately like so:

Drop out the qualifying clause from the sentence. If what remains is a well structured sentence, you did it right.

Join the prior simple sentence to the subsequent complex sentence thusly:

Drop out the qualifying clause from the sentence, and if what remains is a well structured sentence, you did it right.

The comma after "and" is, in this case, a wrong application of the "pause for a breath" test.

Edited for wordiness:

Omit the qualifying clause, and if what remains is well structured, you wrote it correctly.

We do off-set non-essential or interrupting material with commas, but clauses, subordinate or not, are usually not considered non-essential. In this case, the "if" clause is essential to a complete understanding of the thought.

Omit the qualifying clause, and if what remains, which is typically a compound sentence, is well structured, you wrote it correctly.

The "which" phrase in the example above demonstrates material that is actually non-essential. English teachers tend to teach the "pause for a breath" test because otherwise they have to spend three or four months teaching the grammar of phrases and clauses. I teach my students that the "pause for a breath" test is probably 80-90% correct; It is correct enough for people who probably won't be liberal-arts majors, in any case.

fwiw,
grammarmole.

¹: A clause is a grammatical construction with both subject and predicate.

[carpedm9587]

Did somebody say "pedantic?"

Drop out the qualifying clause from the sentence and if what remains is still a well-structured sentence you did it right.

There are two independent clauses¹ in the sentence, and one dependent clause:

Drop out the qualifying clause from the sentence and you did it right.

We need a comma before the coordinating conjunction in this case:

Drop out the qualifying clause from the sentence, and you did it right.

Because you've introduced a subordinate clause in the sentence, it is a little more complicated. What you actually have is a compound-complex sentence. Split apart, the three clauses are:

1. [You] Drop out the qualifying clause from the sentence.
2. [If] What remains is a well-structured sentence.
3. You did it right.

In a complex sentence, if the subordinate clause comes first, then it is followed by a comma.

If what remains is a well structured sentence, you did it right.

We could re-write the sentences separately like so:

Drop out the qualifying clause from the sentence. If what remains is a well structured sentence, you did it right.

Join the prior simple sentence to the subsequent complex sentence thusly:

Drop out the qualifying clause from the sentence, and if what remains is a well structured sentence, you did it right.

The comma after "and" is, in this case, a wrong application of the "pause for a breath" test.

Edited for wordiness:

Omit the qualifying clause, and if what remains is well structured, you wrote it correctly.

We do off-set non-essential or interrupting material with commas, but clauses, subordinate or not, are usually not considered non-essential. In this case, the "if" clause is essential to a complete understanding of the thought.

Omit the qualifying clause, and if what remains, which is typically a compound sentence, is well structured, you wrote it correctly.

The "which" phrase in the example above demonstrates material that is actually non-essential. English teachers tend to teach the "pause for a breath" test because otherwise they have to spend three or four months teaching the grammar of phrases and clauses. I teach my students that the "pause for a breath" test is probably 80-90% correct; It is correct enough for people who probably won't be liberal-arts majors, in any case.

fwiw,
grammarmole.

¹: A clause is a grammatical construction with both subject and predicate.

Sheesh - THAT was thorough. I ran it by my editor and she concurs. I bow at the feet of the master...

[guacamole]

Sheesh - THAT was thorough. I ran it by my editor and she concurs. I bow at the feet of the master...

You may rise.

The thing is, this is only correct if we are talking about traditional English grammar as defended and expounded by organizations such as the MLA--the Modern Language Association. I have no idea if this is correct in other stylistic formats. The "Chicago Style," which I understand is the common style for American journalism, is probably different. They are the people who decided that the Oxford comma was non-essential.

fwiw,
guac.

[carpedm9587]

You may rise.

The thing is, this is only correct if we are talking about traditional English grammar as defended and expounded by organizations such as the MLA--the Modern Language Association. I have no idea if this is correct in other stylistic formats. The "Chicago Style," which I understand is the common style for American journalism, is probably different. They are the people who decided that the Oxford comma was non-essential.

fwiw,
guac.

Ohh.. well, since you provide OPTIONS, I withdraw my homage and stubbornly cling to my comma usage as an acceptable alternative.

Sheesh - you should have quit while you were ahead!

[Cow Poke]

Ah, didn't get that.

I had heard of it in the past, but it didn't come to mind.

Could be because of my simulated phonetic spelling - I've heard it pronounced YO-hawn-ian, Jo HANNON, Jo HANnian, Jo-HAWN-ee-un......

[Teallaura]

OK, just for grins, how would you "study" the number of people who run red lights in the middle of the night (or even in the day) at intersections were nobody else is around?

Could you look at the court docket for that municipality, and accurately extrapolate the number of red light runners based on the number of people actually cited, tried and convicted (or voluntarily paid the fine)? Would you agree there are far more red light runners than the "paid a fine" number would indicate?

Or speeding. You think we could accurately extrapolate the number of people who speed in any municipality based on the number of people who were actually stopped, cited, and paid a fine? I think you'd agree the number would be FAR greater than those actually "caught".

This is pretty much what you're doing when you're only looking at "proven cases of voter fraud". There is no system in place that actually tracks - real time - whether a person is qualified to vote, has voted already in another precinct, is who he/she claims to be, etc.

It stands to reason, however, that those States with Voter ID would make it less likely for somebody to be tempted to cheat, just like the presence of that radar car on the side of the highway discourages speeders (at least temporarily).

So, help me out - what studies are there that are not primarily based on "who got caught"?

None, which means they are all externally invalid. Fancy for 'crap'.

Reading over his link I found maybe two that didn't use conviction as the basis for their numbers.

[guacamole]

Ohh.. well, since you provide OPTIONS, I withdraw my homage and stubbornly cling to my comma usage as an acceptable alternative.

Sheesh - you should have quit while you were ahead!

By vocation and necessity, I am a prescriptive grammarian (think school marm), but by temperament and personality, I am a descriptive grammarian (think anthropologist). I can't help it.

Also, I like to present all the options.
Also, I like to hear myself talk and read my own words.
Also, I find grammar fascinating.
Also, I don't get invited to parties much.

fwiw,
guacamole

[Teallaura]

By vocation and necessity, I am a prescriptive grammarian (think school marm), but by temperament and personality, I am a descriptive grammarian (think anthropologist). I can't help it.

Also, I like to present all the options.
Also, I like to hear myself talk and read my own words.
Also, I find grammar fascinating.
Also, I don't get invited to parties much.

fwiw,
guacamole

Wait, when did we invite you to a party?

[Cow Poke]

Wait, when did we invite you to a party?

Every party needs a pooper...

[JimL]

Um... that would be cognitive dissonance, and you understand it about as well as you can spell it.

Sure I do CP, it's one of your many character flaws. It means that deep down you know that voter fraud is a republican scam, but because you see the scam as being beneficial to yourself, you can't admit it, even to yourself.

[Starlight]

Sure I do CP, it's one of your many character flaws. It means that deep down you know that voter fraud is a republican scam, but because you see the scam as being beneficial to yourself, you can't admit it, even to yourself.

Hmm... I used to think CP was the ignorant and playful buffoon he makes himself out to be and that he was just unaware of the scams he was promoting. Then I came to realize that CP is about as unaware of it as a slimy used car salesman is of the defects in the car he's telling you is top notch. He's a totally complicit bad-faith weasel not an ignorant buffoon. He's not a poor ignorant rube who's been conned by the snake-oil salesman and needs to be rescued by well-intentioned white knights from his situation, he is the snake-oil salesman.