Debater Slayer Tutors Godobeyer

[Sakeenah]

@Godobeyer and I have agreed to start a thread here for me to help him improve his English by pointing out the grammatical, spelling, and punctuation mistakes in his posts and correcting them. The reason we decided to do this in a public thread instead of privately is that there are some non-native English speakers on the forum who might benefit from this thread; they are welcome to post here if they have any questions about English. Also, the fact that my native language is Arabic like at least a few members here can be useful while I'm trying to help them.

Please note that making fun of any member's English is against the rules and may be treated as a rule violation. Not everyone is a native or fluent English speaker, and this thread is to help non-native speakers improve, not to discourage and mock them.

Thanks DS for this thread its beneficial.I'm a non native speaker and struggle sometimes in regards to english grammar and punctuation.

 

[Valjean]

On your thread "Innocent of childhood"

The noun "innocence" would be a better choice. "Innocent" is an adjective.

 

[Debater Slayer]

On your thread "Innocent of childhood"

The noun "innocence" would be a better choice. "Innocent" is a verb"

Actually, innocent is a noun and an adjective: as a noun, it refers to an innocent person. As an adjective, it refers to an innocent person, action, or animal So we can say, "Hundreds of innocents died in the war" or just as well say, "Hundreds of innocent people died in the war." When there is a dispute and you show that person X hasn't committed a wrongdoing, you absolve them of the wrongdoing.

Innocence refers to the state of being itself. If a person is innocent, we can talk about their innocence, as in the case of the child in the thread in question.

(I know you obviously know the above, Valjean. My post is directed at Godobeyer.)

 

[Valjean]

Actually "innocent of" means something Godobeyer didn't intend, -- but enough of advanced English comp.

Let's keep it simple. We're trying to help a tyro. This isn't upper level composition.

 

[Revoltingest]

Actually, innocent is a noun and an adjective: as a noun, it refers to an innocent person. As an adjective, it refers to an innocent person, action, or animal So we can say, "Hundreds of innocents died in the war" or just as well say, "Hundreds of innocent people died in the war." When there is a dispute and you show that person X hasn't committed a wrongdoing, you absolve them of the wrongdoing.

Innocence refers to the state of being itself. If a person is innocent, we can talk about their innocence, as in the case of the child in the thread in question.

(I know you obviously know the above, Valjean. My post is directed at Godobeyer.)

The title, "Innocent Of Childhood", means to me that someone is innocent of committing the act of
childhood....as though it were a crime to have been a child.
Whereas "Innocence Of Childhood" refers to the quality of innocence being a facet of childhood.

 

[Valjean]

"Innocent of" means devoid of or unaware .

 

[Revoltingest]

"Innocent of" means devoid of, unaware or ingenuous.

Just yesterday, I saw a lawyer who was "innocent of competence".
(Among other sins, he was conducting the discovery phase during the trial.
To non-legal types, this is akin to a surgeon diagnosing his patient during the operation.)

 

[Valjean]

So do they have WiFi in jail, or shall we not be hearing from you for a while?

 

[Revoltingest]

So do they have WiFi in jail, or shall we not be hearing from you for a while?

Civil suit, so if I go to jail, then it'll be for something else.
Offending sensibilities, perhaps?

Note:
I had a great day in court...a slam dunk win
As my lawyer says, when you overwhelming win the battle in court, & justice is completely on your side,
then 8 times out of 10 the judgement will be in your favor.

 

[Godobeyer]

What does mean "here we go" exactly ?

it's mean : let's start now ?
or mean: it's start now ?

is it a slang language of USA or UK ? , or it's official ?

 

[Valjean]

It can mean different things. Can you give a context; use it in a sentence?
It's often used like "voila."

 

[Godobeyer]

It can mean different things. Can you give a context; use it in a sentence?
It's often used like "voila."

So it's had lot of meaning !!!
I always hear it , btw it's slang ?

 

[Valjean]

It's used very broadly, in both a literal and slang sense. It depends on the particular sentence it's used in.

 

[FearGod]

So it's had lot of meaning !!!
I always hear it , btw it's slang ?

In Arabic it means "هيا ننطلق" or " من هنا ننطلق"
Here we go again, عدنا لنفس الموضوع , it's kind of complaining here.

 

[Godobeyer]

Debater Slayer

I want to fix my OP threads and to learn from my errors

My first thread:



What is the waranty that you are not the next ?



I had this question run in my mind , IF we the Muslims whom suppose are peacefull drop in voilence like this.

Why you think that you are save from mass voilence between you each other , in the West (especially USA) where the gun is allowed and easy to have.

I am not talking about WW3, I am talking about mass voilence , for exemple Athiests against religious or inverse ...or all vs all .




My second thread :

Second cold war happened or will happened?

Since Russia is become more open to World , and not anymore socialism regime , why the West and Russia had all this tension!!

 

[Debater Slayer]

Debater Slayer

What is the waranty that you are not the next ?



I had this question run in my mind , IF we the Muslims whom suppose are peacefull drop in voilence like this.

Why you think that you are save from mass voilence between you each other , in the West (especially USA) where the gun is allowed and easy to have.

I am not talking about WW3, I am talking about mass voilence , for exemple Athiests against religious or inverse ...or all vs all .




My second thread :

Second cold war happened or will happened?

Since Russia is become more open to World , and not anymore socialism regime , why the West and Russia had all this tension!!

I'm not sure what you are getting at with this post. Do you want me to correct the mistakes in what you wrote above?

 

[Debater Slayer]

Oh, okay. I saw the edit after I had made my previous post. I will rewrite your OPs in a correct manner, then.

 

[Godobeyer]

I'm not sure what you are getting at with this post. Do you want me to correct the mistakes in what you wrote above?

Yes of course

there is two threads

 

[Debater Slayer]

Debater Slayer

I want to fix my OP threads and to learn from my errors

My first thread:



What is the waranty that you are not the next ?

It is guarantee, not warranty (warranty is written with a double r, by the way). You will find guarantee used in contexts similar to your intended meaning much more often than warranty; the latter word is mostly used in a legal context. I guarantee you that when you buy a new phone, for example, you can find one with a good warranty.

I had this question run in my mind , IF we the Muslims whom suppose are peacefull drop in voilence like this.

A better way to express the first sentence would be, "I had this question pop up in my mind," "This question came to mind," or simply "I have had this question on my mind"/"I have this question on my mind."

The second sentence should be, "If we, the Muslims who are supposed to be peaceful, have become involved in violence like this [...]." Notice the commas in bold and red separating the phrase, "the Muslims who are supposed to be peaceful" from the rest of the sentence. This phrase modifies the pronoun we. When a phrase or noun modifies another noun or pronoun, it is called an appositive. Appositives are separated by commas from the rest of the sentence. If you remove an appositive, the sentence remains meaningful, albeit with less details and clarity.

"Drop in something" is a common Arabic expression, but it is not common at all in English. In the future, it would be a good idea to avoid assuming that an expression makes sense in English because it is used in Arabic. A lot of ESL speakers fall for this mistake of literally translating expressions from their native languages. The more fluent one gets in English, the more they use English idioms rather than ones from their native language when writing in or speaking English.

Why you think that you are save from mass voilence between you each other , in the West (especially USA) where the gun is allowed and easy to have.

1) The word you want here is safe, not save. Save is often used as a verb; when it is used as a noun, it is usually used in a context related to sports. When a goalkeeper prevents the ball from entering the net in soccer, he or she has made a save. When you are not at risk of something, you are safe from it.

2) It is spelled violence, not voilence.

3) Between you each other, besides being syntactically incorrect, is pleonastic or tautological—that is, it is an expression that uses more words than necessary to express its intended meaning. Also, among is better than between in this context; you are talking about a large group of people. So the phrase would be much better written thus: "among yourselves."

4) You are talking about guns in general, so it is not the gun. It is not the guns either; you are not talking about a specific group of guns. Instead, it is simply guns.

I am not talking about WW3, I am talking about mass voilence , for exemple Athiests against religious or inverse ...or all vs all .

1) You have committed a comma splice above, but I'm not going to delve into that again for now because it is a relatively nuanced punctuation mistake that requires its own post to correct.

2) It is example, not exemple. Also, it is atheists, not athiests. It is also not a proper noun, so you shouldn't capitalize it.

3) It shouldn't be against religious; religious is an adjective, and you used it as a noun. If you want to use it as a noun, use the before it. This usage is similar to the poor, the old, and the rich: when an adjective is preceded by the, it can be used as a noun. So it is either "against the religious" or "against religious people."

4) The expression you want to use here is not inverse; it is vice versa. It means "the other way around."

So, here is the OP of your thread written from scratch with the intended meaning in mind:

What is the guarantee that you are not next?

I had this question on my mind: if we, the Muslims who are supposed to be peaceful, have become involved in violence like this, why do you think that you are safe from mass violence among yourselves in the West (especially the U.S.) where guns are allowed and easy to have?

I'm not talking about WW3; I'm talking about mass violence—for example, atheists against religious people or vice versa, or everyone vs. everyone.

My second thread :

Second cold war happened or will happened?

Since Russia is become more open to World , and not anymore socialism regime , why the West and Russia had all this tension!!

I'm going to address this in my next post, as this post would probably be too lengthy otherwise.

 

[Debater Slayer]

My second thread :

Second cold war happened or will happened?

1) Cold War, when referring to the cold war that happened between the U.S. and the USSR, is a proper noun, just like World War and World War II. There may be a third world war; if there is, it will be called World War III, because then we will be talking about a specific war.

2) When a verb directly follows a modal verb, it is always in the infinitive. Here is the list of modal verbs again for reference:

• Can/could

• Will/would

• Shall/should

• May/might

• Must/have to/had to.

So it should be will happen, not will happened.

Since Russia is become more open to World , and not anymore socialism regime , why the West and Russia had all this tension!!

1) Is become is incorrect; verb to be is followed by an adjective, a gerund (verb-ing), or a past participle. It is not followed by an infinitive. Therefore, your phrase should be, "Since Russia has become more open to the world [not world, and certainly not World, as world shouldn't be capitalized in this context, and we use the because there is only one world, just like we say the universe because there is only one of it]."

2) Socialism is a noun. A person or country that endorses socialism is socialist, as is anything that stems from or is inspired by socialism or its principles. Socialist is both an adjective and a noun. When used as a noun, it refers to a person who endorses socialism. A socialist is socialist and endorses socialism.

Also, you used "socialism regime [sic]" as an adjectival phrase to describe Russia, but it doesn't work because you described Russia itself as a regime. That doesn't make sense. A regime governs a country, but the country itself is not a regime. Instead, the phrase should be, "Since Russia has become more open to the world and is not governed by a socialist regime anymore [...]."

3) "Why the West and Russia had all this tension" is incorrect; you need an auxiliary verb—specifically, do. In questions, you need an auxiliary verb, so the sentence should be, "Why do the West and Russia have all this tension?" Notice that when you use the auxiliary verb do in a question, the main verb is used in the infinitive.

Here is the OP rewritten with correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation:

Second Cold War: Already Happened or Will Happen?

Since Russia has become more open to the world and is not governed by a socialist regime anymore, why do the West and Russia have all of this tension?