Originally posted by Grampy Bobby What criteria would you employ?
I was just exercising Martin Heidegger's approach from his essay on Aristotle's law of identity A=A, transcribing his journey into ontology into more-less broadway-like crime story-like game of twins-and-identity (plus a man vanishes in disguise), like in the movie "Sleuth", for example.
Oh it's so good to be surrounded by dictionaries again, even when I have a strange feeling that I actually invented some words...
Originally posted by lolof I googled help to understand this:
Tom, while Tim had had "had", had had "had had"; "had had" had had a better effect on the teacher.
Noone else seemed to want to try - are you angry with me...?
That's complete and utter rubbish.
It should read: Tom, while Tim had had 'had', Tom's 'had had' had a better effect on the teacher.
Anything else is nonsense.
I didn't google, and don't need to. Offer me a sentence using 5 (five) logical and ordered adjectives of different mode, and let's screw that one apart too!
Originally posted by mikelom That's complete and utter rubbish.
It should read: Tom, while Tim had had 'had', Tom's 'had had' had a better effect on the teacher.
Anything else is nonsense.
I didn't google, and don't need to. Offer me a sentence using 5 (five) logical and ordered adjectives of different mode, and let's screw that one apart too!
-m.
Should but doesn't. Is complete rubbish more inexcusable than utter rubbish?