This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
Drop by and say hi! (Recycle Bin)
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
However, you have failed to recognize the fact that things are capitalized for other reasons, in this case due to the former being a proper name.
So, no, your premise that "B = b when it's at the start of a sentence" is erroneous.
Post by
Deepthought
However, you have failed to recognize the fact that things are capitalized for other reasons, in this case due to the former being a proper name.
So, no, your premise that "B = b when it's at the start of a sentence" is erroneous.
I never said that >_>
I rebuked this though. There is no context given in the sentence for them being different things, but there is a plausible reason for the "bush" at the start of the sentence being capitalized (it's at the start of the sentence).
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
However, you have failed to recognize the fact that things are capitalized for other reasons, in this case due to the former being a proper name.
So, no, your premise that "B = b when it's at the start of a sentence" is erroneous.
I never said that >_>
http://www.wowhead.com/?forums&topic=77103.2461#p1878922
I rebuked this though. There is no context given in the sentence for them being different things, but there is a plausible reason for the "bush" at the start of the sentence being capitalized (it's at the start of the sentence).
Of course there is no context given for them being different things...it's explicitly stated that they are the same thing.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Om nom nom.
Post by
Deepthought
However, you have failed to recognize the fact that things are capitalized for other reasons, in this case due to the former being a proper name.
So, no, your premise that "B = b when it's at the start of a sentence" is erroneous.
I never said that >_>
http://www.wowhead.com/?forums&topic=77103.2461#p1878922
Check your post again. It has me quoted as saying the entire thing, not what you(not me) were refuting.I rebuked this though. There is no context given in the sentence for them being different things, but there is a plausible reason for the "bush" at the start of the sentence being capitalized (it's at the start of the sentence).
Of course there is no context given for them being different things...it's explicitly stated that they are the same thing.
And they are. Why has this gone on for about three quarters of a page?
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
And they are. Why has this gone on for about three quarters of a page?
Because you saw me post and instinctively decided to find fault with it, even though you agreed with it without realizing it.
Post by
Deepthought
And they are. Why has this gone on for about three quarters of a page?
Because you saw me post and instinctively decided to find fault with it, even though you agreed with it without realizing it.
I didn't disagree with it, they are both spelled the same?
They're also spelled the same.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Om nom nom.
Part 2
Part 3
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
They're also spelled the same.
They aren't spelled the same.
One has a capital letter, the other doesn't.
Post by
Deepthought
They're also spelled the same.
They aren't spelled the same.
One has a capital letter, the other doesn't.
They are spelled the same, you said yourself they are the same, the only reason one has a capital letter is because one is at the start of a sentence.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
They are spelled the same, you said yourself they are the same, the only reason one has a capital letter is because one is at the start of a sentence.
Being the same =/= spelled the same
Vittles and Victuals are the same but not spelled the same, for example.
Post by
Deepthought
They are spelled the same, you said yourself they are the same, the only reason one has a capital letter is because one is at the start of a sentence.
Being the same =/= spelled the same
Vittles and Victuals are the same but not spelled the same, for example.
A capital letter introduced due to the following of standard English convention does not change the spelling of a word.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
A capital letter introduced due to the following of standard English convention does not change the spelling of a word.
And, as already stated, that's only one reason a capital letter might be introduced.
Post by
Deepthought
A capital letter introduced due to the following of standard English convention does not change the spelling of a word.
And, as already stated, that's only one reason a capital letter might be introduced.
No, you have conceded that in this case, both instances of "bush" are in the same context (i.e. in reference to the type foliage);
Of course there is no context given for them being different things...it's explicitly stated that they are the same thing.
so the only possible reason for the introduction of a capital letter is the fact that the word is at the start of a sentence.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
No, you have conceded that in this case, both instances of "bush" are in the same context (i.e. in reference to the type foliage);
Of course there is no context given for them being different things...it's explicitly stated that they are the same thing.
so the only possible reason for the introduction of a capital letter is the fact that the word is at the start of a sentence.
I haven't "conceded" anything. All I've done is dismiss your assumptions, as I continue to do. Where have I even written the word foliage?
Post by
Deepthought
I haven't "conceded" anything.
Yes you have, unless you would like to elaborate on what else Of course there is no context given for them being different things...it's explicitly stated that they are the same thingcould possibly mean?
Where have I even written the word foliage?
You didn't explicitly agree that you were refering to foliage, but since you agreed that both instances of "bush" refered to the same thing, and in your sentance the second "bush" is not capitalized and thus neither is refering to the surname "Bush", it seems to be the next logical step
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
It's me reiterating the
OP
.
A. (Hidden premise) Things that are pronounced the same are the same thing.
B. Bush and bush are pronounced the same.
C. Therefore, they are the same thing.
Post by
Toldry
This made me so sad..
D:
Post by
Deepthought
It's me reiterating the
OP
.
So were you being ironic or not? I've already pointed out that in this case it's hard to tell.
Also, that last page has to be the worst page of the Recycle Bin ever.
B. Bush and bush are pronounced the same.
C. Therefore, they are the same thing.
In the sentence there is no context for "Bush" to refer to the surname but there is context for it to be the same as "bush" (it is at the start of the sentence and thus capitalized).
However, in the overall thread there appears to context that indicates you are being ironic, but as I said earlier, it's not easy to tell.
Post by
cheezedood21
Hey guys. Remember me mentioning my friend? The one who has the blue drake on his paladin? The one has the turtle mount on his shaman? Yeah.
He has the blue drake on his shaman now.
...
I'm happy for him of course. It's just...
His luck is insane!1!1
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.