Re: Bold prediction: Nadal will never win a title outside of clay anymore
- From: Court_1 <Olympia0000@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 16:23:40 -0800 (PST)
On Jan 30, 4:02 pm, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 30-Jan-2012, Court_1 <Olympia0...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Are you an English teacher? Because if you are not I don't care what
Why so harsh? Sure, I'm not an authority on the matter any more than you
are. That's no reason to stick your fingers in your ears and pretend I know
nothing about the subject.
My original statement was as follows:
If he loses his 7th straight big final to Novak that will set the pace
for the rest of his year and he will unlikely win any slams but, I
think no matter what happens tomorrow, he still has a good shot to win
Repeat it as many times as you like, it won't change anything.
It was not a contradictory statement.
Yes, it was. The reason it's contradictory is because the French Open *is*
a slam. In the first clause, you claim that should he lose the match it's
unlikely he will win *any slams*, which by definition includes the French
Open. In the second clause, you claim he has a good shot to win the French
Open (a slam) regardless of the outcome of this match. In this case, I
think your argument hinges on the interpretation of the word "but". You
seem to be treating it as a preposition, as in "he won't win any slams but
the French" (ie. using "but" to mean "except"). In reality you are using is
as a conjunction between clauses, perhaps as a way to contrast or compare
the second with the first. The trouble is as stated you are not contrasting
one thing to another, your second clause is in fact a contradiction of the
first. There is a big difference between contrast and contradiction.
If I had said, if he loses his 7th final he will "definitely" not win
any future slams but I think no matter what happens tomorrow he will
win the FO for sure that would be contradictory.
In my original statement I stated, if he loses his 7th final he will
"unlikely" win any slams BUT no matter what he still has a shot at the
Are you sure that's what you meant? Reread the paragraph you repeated above
(yet again). You said he had a "good shot", not just "a shot". Are you
telling me "unlikely" is remotely comparable to "good shot"? If so, that
would be a first for me and probably most other posters here. Get out your
dictionary and read the definition of "unlikely" for starters.
I can't believe I am even arguing over this issue on a tennis forum.
It wouldn't be an issue if you actually took the time to *think* about what
you wrote with a critical eye. After all, the onus is on you to write with
clarity if you want to be understood. A reader should not have to guess
what you mean.
Oh my God, you are one condescending dude aren't you asking me if I am
sure about what I wrote and what I meant and to look up unlikely in
the dictionary. Why don't you look up the word prick in the dictionary
and see your name listed below it.
For the 10th time what I wrote is fine. It may be ambiguous but that
does not mean it is incorrect. In the first part I am saying he is
"unlikely" to win a slam if he loses the AO but regardless of that
result he still has a good shot to win the FO on clay since he is
close to being the Clay Goat. My use of the word but was used as a
preposition not a conjunction and I clearly know the difference
between the two.
I always admit when I think I am wrong but in this case I don't feel I
am wrong. Now unless you scan a copy of your English professor
credentials and post it on here kindly be quiet or post as much as you
like since this is a free and public forum but it won't change my
mind. What do you do for a living by the way?
- Prev by Date: Re: Bold prediction: Nadal will never win a title outside of clay anymore
- Next by Date: Re: Bold prediction: Nadal will never win a title outside of clay anymore
- Previous by thread: Re: Bold prediction: Nadal will never win a title outside of clay anymore
- Next by thread: Re: Bold prediction: Nadal will never win a title outside of clay anymore