+483 "Did you hear about the Michael Jackson song they're remaking for the people in Pakistan effected by the flood?" "No." "Me either." amirite?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Ah, here we have a suitable homonym replacement. What OP really means is the people Affected by the flood, but what s/he said is still correct. The "song" is effected by the flood, because the flood caused it to be written, but it's about the people affected by the flood. Awesome. (And yes, I do know it's hypothetical. There is never a wrong time for a grammar lesson :D)

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Lovely. Just lovely. Thank you ever so much.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Shouldn't it be "affected"? Unless you mean that the flood made things better. :o

by Anonymous 13 years ago

No, but read my post. I explain it.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I don't see how "song" and "effected" are even connected at all. "Effected" is the verb that goes with "flood." Therefor, it would make more sense to say "affected," because saying that the flood "effected" the people of Pakistan would mean that the flood caused the people of Pakistan to happen, and obviously that does not make sense.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

No the song was 'effected' by the flood. That is, the flood caused it to be written. Trust me; I'm a master at grammar. Op meant 'affected,' but effected works as well, with a different meaning.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I just don't see how it's the song that is effected and not the Pakistanis. I wish I could just trust you, but I don't even know you; this goes against all of my prior knowledge on grammar. What I see is this: "Did you hear about the Michael Jackson song they're remaking" is its own independent clause. "for" is the conjunction. "the people in Pakistan effected by the flood?" is the dependent clause. I see no connection between "song" and "effected"; they're not even in the same clause. The only possible way I can see what you're saying is if the sentence were written with dashes like so: "Did you hear about the Michael Jackson song -- they're remaking for the people in Pakistan -- effected by the flood?" But that doesn't even make sense, unless *maybe* if you put the word "it" after "remaking."

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Dude, you aren't so hot at grammar. "For" is not a conjunction here. It's a preposition. "For the people of Pakistan" is an adverb prepositional phrase describing why they're making it. It goes like this: You did hear - subject verb of first part. Independent clause About MJ song adverb Prep phrase. They're remaking. (Adj) Participle describing song. For the people -Which song. Adjective prepositional phrase. In Pakistan- which people. Adjective prep phrase. "Effected By the flood" Goes back to song the way it's written. Participle phrase. "Affected by the flood" Goes to people. Also participle. Understand? This is true. I'm a master of grammar.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Ha okay, well I'm a master of grammar as well (why the hell not?), and I say that that is nonsense. :P Let's just agree to disagree on this one.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Yeah, but "for" is most definitely NOT a conjunction. That's indisputable.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

It's pretty well documented that "for" is a conjunction. It's debatable as to whether or not it is in this context, but it definitely is. I'm not sure how you can be a "master of grammar" and not know that. :P

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Are you kidding? Any fool knows that for is also a preposition. I know that for can be a conduction; that doesn't mean that it always is a conjunction. Seriously, you are wrong. For the people is a prepositional phrase. For "for" to be a conjunction, the sentence would have to read "Did you hear about the Michael Jackson song they're remaking, for the flood destroyed many people's homes."

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Conjunction. I was on my phone.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

@551691 (scrantoncity): ono

by Anonymous 13 years ago

What? I am correct. This is indisputable, which is why I love grammar.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

So I can see. Didn't think there would be such a dispute though. You guys must take grammar very seriously :P

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Haha. I explained it, and he didn't understand, so then I explained it to him. And he still didn't understand, so we had an argument.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I see. I plan on never confusing my conjunctions again :P

by Anonymous 13 years ago

No no. You mixed up homonyms, but what I was arguing is that it still works, but not the way you intended. :P

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Ok, I think I've got it. Grammar is somewhat of a passion for you, isn't it?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Grammar is all that separates us from the animals. Nah, but I'm amazing at it, and it bugs me when others aren't. d So.. Yeah.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

"Are you kidding? Any fool knows that for is also a [*conjunction]. I know that for can be a conduction; that doesn't mean that it always is a conjunction." I never said that it is always a conjunction. I even said that its function in this sentence is debatable. I was replying to your comment in which you said, and I quote, "'for' is most definitely NOT a conjunction. That's indisputable." So I disputed it. You may be a master of grammar (lol), but your reading comprehension skills don't seem to be up to par.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

No, Yours aren't. When I said "for is most definitely NOT a conjunction. That's indisputable," I meant that in this instance. Obviously I know "for" can be a conjunction. Right here it is a preposition. This is what you said: "it's debatable as to whether or not it is in this context, but it definitely is." It's definitely not. I don't see how anyone can say that, and call themselves proficient, or even adequate, at grammar. It's a preposition. There is no debating. It's a preposition. If it were a conjunction, it would have to read "remaking for the people in Pakistan who were effected by the flood?" Right here "for" is a conjunction. But not in the original sentence.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

>> When I said "for is most definitely NOT a conjunction. That's indisputable," I meant that in this instance. << Maybe you should start saying what you mean, then. :S >> This is what you said: "it's debatable as to whether or not it is in this context, but it definitely is." It's definitely not. << When I said that "it definitely is," that was a continuation of the preceding statement, "It's pretty well documented that "for" is a conjunction." Therefor I was restating that it definitely is a conjunction, despite the fact that "it's debatable". I can see how my wording was confusing there, though. :P >> I don't see how anyone can say that, and call themselves proficient, or even adequate, at grammar. << I never seriously said that I was. I was mocking the fact that you proclaimed yourself a "master of grammar." It just seemed kind of silly, so I called your bluff by saying that I was one, too. For kicks. It was a joke. :P

by Anonymous 13 years ago