I've given myself a stern talking to.

Kushner just seems like a not very good crook. He's also a vicious predatory landlord, I was reading the other day. In one instance he sued a woman for a new carpet who'd been forced to move out because sewage backed up through her shower and flooded her lounge.

Real estate. Bunch of crooks. Shrug.

I can vouch for MB that this was a fair and equitable, even-handed treatment :-)

That article is super long and well worth a read. A total scumbag. He buys uprebtal properties in poor neighborhoods and then goes after back rent from people who had it excused before leaving long before he purchased the place. And gee, I wonder what skin hue the majority of the people he sues might be? He and daddy Trump are birds of a ****ing feather.

I'm not sure what you are talking about, I was just saying that I stand by the position you identified as "ridiculous" or whatever.

all landlords are vicious predators

at least they aren't poker players

i hope to be both, soon

The point i was trying to make is that it isn't convention....that bound and unbound morphemes don't have the same psychological status.

Although i do think i understand the larger point you are trying to make--which is that Zorkman is wrong--which is fine.

adjectives are reactionary, tbh

I guess it's convention in the sense that the rules of English are particular to English. There are likely some languages in which the plural maker is a separate word although I'm not aware of any. So in that sense yes it would be a 'convention of English', but our orthography at least in this particular sense is not arbitrary.

The big issue with the whole determiners as adjectives thing is that it's unscientific. You'd have to rewrite the laws of syntax to make it work.

The big thing is you can't have English teachers tell you about language or even English tbph. Find me the linguist zork who say that determiners are adjectives. Someone with a phd there must be a paper somewhere. And I'll pay you $10 paypal. Otherwise admit you are wrong please.

I don't know why you think "the" isn't bound.

It's conventional because orthography is the only reason we consider "the" unbound. Compare Norse languages to see just how arbitrary it is.

Of course I accept that folk analysis plays a part. So French is seen as having pronouns or clitics rather than infixes, even though something like "je l'ai vu" is functionally no different than it would be in an infixing language.

Once you are agreeing that lesbians are "Cis sexist" cos they won't suck a dick, you're off the board, bro.

The genius of the Simpsons retweeted by POG's Zurvan:

A+

that's like...your opinion, man

If the is bound just because it's a head that requires a complement then that's an analysis of bound vs unbound morphemes that is new to me. We would have to consider most if not all prepositions bound too..that can't be right

Stop posting about posters.

Oh Cartesian dualism...

Who shall reign Supreme?

Let the student pervert the teachings he never understood and raise a cult to smear the unwashed!


Tale as old as time
Song as old as rhyme
Bougie and the beast

I have extra space in my house.

I let friends stay for a while, asking only for contribution to utilities. So I'm not exploiting them, but I am rendering them #privileged - to earn my good graces!

*throws back head and laughs with maniacal glee*

Antitheses! Hark!!

The unsung hero of the late classical tragedy, given voice by the petulant and narcissistic, the weavers of #fortune and #failure, the matadors poisoning their bulls before grotesquing the idle and licentious crowd.


That the windmills tilt back, such is heroism!

really gone down hill.

MB is a liberal, birdman really??