Incomprehensible, Depressing Mindforget

[Wizzeh]

>Singular article
>Plural noun

You should kill yourself for being so stupid.

The arguments are "airplane in a junkyard" arguments. My grammar is completely correct. Maybe you should be doing the Self Delete.

[Ad Bot]

[Stocking]

The arguments are "airplane in a junkyard" arguments. My grammar is completely correct. Maybe you should be doing the Self Delete.

No, "airplane in a junkyard" and "arguments" are appositive, and since the latter is plural, the entire apposition is plural.

You should kill yourself for not only being wrong, but for thinking you're not wrong and trying to correct the person who was right.

[Wizzeh]

No, you are completely and absolutely wrong. I don't remember if you're really japanese or were lying about that too but that isn't how pluralization works in English.

[DracoSoul]

No, "airplane in a junkyard" and "arguments" are appositive, and since the latter is plural, the entire apposition is plural.

You should kill yourself for not only being wrong, but for thinking you're not wrong and trying to correct the person who was right.

"airplane in a junkyard" was a title, his grammar was correct

[Stocking]

"airplane in a junkyard" was a title, his grammar was correct

The title was an appositive to "arguments", which was plural and indicated with a definite singular article.

Fail more.

[Nymethus]

Something interesting to think about: There are more galaxies in the universe than human beings.

and all this time I thought seven billion was more than infinity

[Wizzeh]

The title was an appositive to "arguments", which was plural and indicated with a definite singular article.

Fail more.

You are completely wrong. Go back and learn english again.

[Soviet]

and all this time I thought seven billion was more than infinity

There isn't an infinite amount of galaxies, considering the universe isn't literally endless. Wherever how amazingly loving far away it may be, there is an edge. After that - Nothing.

[DracoSoul]

There isn't an infinite amount of galaxies, considering the universe isn't literally endless. Wherever how amazingly loving far away it may be, there is an edge. After that - Nothing.

you just said it was limitless, lol

if there's nothing after the 'edge' of the universe, how far does that nothingness go? until you hit a wall? and whats after the wall?

[Wizzeh]

There isn't an infinite amount of galaxies, considering the universe isn't literally endless. Wherever how amazingly loving far away it may be, there is an edge. After that - Nothing.

The universe might well be literally endless. When we talk about the amount of x in the universe we're talking the amount in the visible universe, which expands every day. And if there is a finite amount of space it's possible that there isn't an edge and that space kind of loops.

you just said it was limitless, lol

if there's nothing after the 'edge' of the universe, how far does that nothingness go? until you hit a wall? and whats after the wall?

Distance is a property of space. It doesn't 'go' any distance.

[Nymethus]

There isn't an infinite amount of galaxies, considering the universe isn't literally endless. Wherever how amazingly loving far away it may be, there is an edge. After that - Nothing.

Since I got the previous info from wikipedia; "The universe is immensely large and possibly infinite in volume."

[Stocking]

You are completely wrong. Go back and learn english again.

I already proved you were wrong, but let me make this simpler for you.

I'm cutting off the airplane in a junkyard-type arguments before they begin.

"junkyard-type arguments" is a restrictive apposition, as in both noun phrases are conjoined with the former noun specifying the latter. Using a definite, singular article while the second noun in the restrictive apposition is plural is a grammatical blunder as the apposition and article fail to agree. I don't think I need to point out that in English the plurality of nouns and articles need to agree, but maybe if you fail to understand your mistake I'll have to explain the basest components of the language.

[DracoSoul]

I already proved you were wrong, but let me make this simpler for you.

"junkyard-type arguments" is a restrictive apposition, as in both noun phrases are conjoined with the former noun specifying the latter. Using a definite, singular article while the second noun in the restrictive apposition is plural is a grammatical blunder as the apposition and article fail to agree. I don't think I need to point out that in English the plurality of nouns and articles need to agree, but maybe if you fail to understand your mistake I'll have to explain the basest components of the language.

the "airplane in a junkyard"-type arguments

this is what he was saying

you enormous idiot

[Stocking]

the "airplane in a junkyard"-type arguments

this is what he was saying

you enormous idiot

Then that's an erroneously positioned participle, which is a whole new error in and of itself LOL

[Soviet]

The universe might well be literally endless. When we talk about the amount of x in the universe we're talking the amount in the visible universe, which expands every day. And if there is a finite amount of space it's possible that there isn't an edge and that space kind of loops.

We know that the observable universe is about 93 billion light-years across. What you're speculating is that after that 93 billion light-years, we go back to where we started (If we were traveling)? This is an interesting concept and I honestly can almost see that being a possibility but to me it's much easier to understand that there is nothing afterwards. Then again we would get no where upon reaching this point because we would have reached the edge of time. Can't make any progress if there's no time to do so.


Also, keep me out of the on-going argument. It looks extremely pointless.