 | 16. Indirect Objects and Objective Complements. Grammar Yossarian the Grammarian lays bare the nature of the indirect object and the much less well known objective complement. English language and grammar. |
 | Is it for me or I? The nominative vs. the objective pronoun This is my video for my Edu 305 class. |
 | Interrogative,Objective Personal,& Personal Pronouns With example sentences |
 | ToastMasters Speech Number 4 Speech 4 in Competent Communicator Manual "How to say it". Objective to "Select right words and sentence structure to communicate ideas clearly, accurately, vividly. Use rhetorical devices to enhance and emphasise ideas. Eliminate jargon and unnecessary words. Use correct grammar" Time allowed 5-7 minutes - I took 8mins 11secs - Tut Tut ! |
 | Step by step Puppet show rudiments of language ~expose' 1 I am trying to define some ideas of our inheritance of language and the rules of language in grammar as well as the rules of our customs and culture, which the language yeilds and we progenerate. Verification of items, nouns and objects. This is to develop a base of perspective from which I can speak about the functions and attributes of objective & subjective, ontological & epistimological, thesist & atheist, bachlor vs bachelor (i'm a goof) considerations. |
 | Learn Brazilian Portuguese Language - Conversation 3 Portuguese Lessons about Reading and Prununciation through useful examples of phrases that people in Brazil use everyday. The objective is learn how to pronounce and write those sentences. All of them are important and will help you avoid lots of misunderstandings in a simple conversation or dangerous situation or to the people see some things very clear specially in reference to sexuality, misundersstandings about sexual options or risk situations or events involving the police and thieves. In Language we must avoid any kind of prejudice. Besides if you want to learn a second language you have to know everything you can about it even bad words, cursing words and slangs that will make you surprised. |
 | Rumsfeld busted using newspeak: His Immediate Threat blunder from dictionary.com: Newspeak is an official or semiofficial style of writing or saying one thing in the guise of its opposite, esp. in order to serve a political or ideological cause while pretending to be objective, as in referring to "increased taxation" as "revenue enhancement." from wikipedia: Newspeak is a fictional language in George Orwell's novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. In the novel, it is described as being "the only language in the world whose vocabulary gets smaller every year." Orwell included an essay about it in the form of an appendix[1] in which the basic principles of the language are explained. Newspeak is closely based on English but has a greatly reduced and simplified vocabulary and grammar. This suits the totalitarian regime of the Party, whose aim is to make any alternative thinking ("thoughtcrime") or speech impossible by removing any words or possible constructs which describe the ideas of freedom, rebellion and so on. One character says admiringly of the shrinking volume of the new dictionary: "It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words." |
 | Re: In Defense of Naturalism about the hard problem... Dennett says there is no problem because consciousness doesn't exist, or at least it is an especially persistant and probably necessary illusion created by a sophisticated system of language. I tend to agree with Dennett on this because the kind of consciousness he is talking about is ego consciousness, the "I think." As far as "I" am concerned, "I" do not think, thoughts just happen. There really is no individual "who" inside my head anywhere, so I'm right with Dennett on tossing that notion out the window. Where I disagree with him is that there could then still be a "what" out there. If we are going to toss the 1st person perspective, or at least recognize it as a persistant illusion, we should also recognize the fact that the 3rd person perspective is just as much a grammatical construct and not an objective quality of reality itself. 1st, 2nd, and 3rd person points of view are each necessary for a complete understanding of reality, and no single perspective should ever take ontological priority over others. That said, though, when we come up againsts a "problem" like how brain can become mind, we are forced to realize that our language simply cannot contain reality. Reality is always more complex than our map can ever be. I think the hard problem goes away as soon as we are no longer bewitched and spellbound by the tricks of language. When we experience life without asking the question and creating the problem, where is the separation between what I do and what happens to me, between my mind and the world? |
 | The Beast of Revelation (17 of 25) 1st Century Viewpoint? http://forerunner.com/beast/beast.html Question:- Your view of Revelation -- that it was to be a warning and an encouragement to the early Church that was about to face the wrath of Nero and the Roman armies -- would make little or no sense unless the church at that time understood it as such. Is there any evidence that they did? (1) Ironically this question exposes the error of the futurist viewpoint. It recognizes the need of Revelation's relevance to its first century audience, which preterism fits perfectly. (2) This type of question could answered in the negative with no harm done to the preterist view. For we learn from the Gospels that the disciples constantly misunderstood Jesus' own teaching and were even surprised that he died and even more so that he was resurrected. Even within Revelation Jesus chastises the churches for not having "ears to hear what the Spirit says to the churches." He chastens them for their dullness of hearing and for their falling away from their first love. Spiritual dullness does not negate the validity of divine revelation. The Jews as a whole missed the entire coming of the Messiah, even though the Old Testament clearly prophesied it. Subjective apprehension does not determine objective reality. (3) Revelation's warning about Rome and the coming Jewish War are not just matters found only in this book. We find these issues in the Olivet Discourse (Mt 24), the parables of Jesus (Mt 20-23), and various warnings of impending judgment elsewhere in the NT (2 Thessalonians; Hebrews; James; 1 Peter). The question could be legitimately be asked whether Christians understood those references too. Grammatical exegesis leads us to the proper interpretation, not historical understanding by the early Christians. (4) Unfortunately, due to the chaos produced by the events of the destruction of Jerusalem we have very few records of Christianity in the era of the Jewish War and just after. So we really have no documents from that time period which inform us as to what they believed. We do know, however, from later sources that the early Christians understood the coming judgment upon Israel and Jerusalem. Eusebius particularly mentions their escaping as the Jewish War broke out. And we have some later, though ancient, comments on Revelation indicating knowledge that its events refer to the Jewish War (the Syriac versions of Revelation mention it was written under Nero; Andreas and Arethas of Capadocia, etc.) (5) The purpose of Revelation includes more than immediate warning to escape Jerusalem, but also presents other important matters: (a) It explains the collapse of Jerusalem, which was the headquarters of the Church (Acts 8; 15). (b) It demonstrates God's concern for his people: he will both vindicate them and protect them through trials and tribulations. Thus, his enemies are warned and his people encouraged. |
 | Re: atheism i am probably one of the most open minded people that you will ever meet. my problem with the "youtube atheists" is this. the close minded worship of anything that is said to be scientific. i strongly believe in evolution. and i do not believe in an anthropromorphized god. god is the inter connection between all living things. people can communicate nonverbally, we all have a strong connection to nature, and we are all one. we are a collective group. we form around each other like bacteria. and these objective differences between us, these dualities, have completely separated us from the true nature of our existence. the science i study is not that of evolution. i think once observing evolution and studying its authenticity, i knew it was fact. and just because we evolve doesn't mean that the thing we call "god" is not real. the bible says "god is love". scientifically this is fact. love creates life. without love, the human society that we live in would not be here. life would exist, but we would only have fear. the only two emotions we have is fear and love. all other emotions branch out from these two concepts. what i refer to as god, is love. as for the science, greg braden's books gave me the knowledge i have on this subject. he discussed the scientific fact that light molecule are attracted to dna. our dna is one of the most complicated aspects of our existence, and once you break away from evolution, you find that this "not so supernatural" thing we call god is far from impossible; it is observable. Life and love is one. and in all religious text when it says "god is within us all", that is not far fetched. within us all the concept of love is prevalent, even in infant years. the right brain is where you can break through to this knowledge. but in today's society, we have been taught only to think with the left brain. the left brain deals with logic, practicality, details, facts, science, patterns, and math. where as the right brain deals with feeling, intuition, symbols, images, risk taking, philosophy, and religion. when you start to combine the two, the true spirituality becomes more prevalent. individual knowledge comes about when people draw their own conclusions from these observations in your own light. but when someone else comes out with what they have learned in their own light people usually follow. instead of listen and evaluate to add or contrast their own light. this is how, i think, all of this new aged atheism is expanded from this notion. instead of adding to their preconceived knowledge, they put their past knowledge in the dust; and follow what someone else has found in their research. i for one am neither atheist nor religious. no "isms or ists". if any, i would think after knowing me people would refer me to a rationalist. i rationalize through my own ideals and that of others, into my own conclusions in my own light. well i have ranted enough for now. let me know what you think, and im sorry if there are typos or errors in grammar. im not stupid i just typed fast through without proof reading. i have actually won awards for my narratives and i am getting a degree in writing. later though i am just 17 |
 | How Could AG Bell be UNBIASED? Hi viewers/readers, A variety of blogs/vlogs concerning the upcoming demonstration at AG Bell conference have been popping up from time to frequent time leading us to think thoroughly and to look back what AG Bell has done in the past decade. We already know who AG Bell was and the kind of philosophy it carries in the organization. But how much do we know about its function since the turn of the 21st century? Found on the AB Bell website, here is the statement in "5 Best Practice Criteria" claiming that AG Bell is providing UNBIASED information about all available communication options when a child is diagnosed with a hearing loss. Now isn't that what really happened? So come and join the memory lane as we go back to September 2002. It mentioned that: "In September 2002, the Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing (AG Bell) initiated a legislative outreach program to establish educational policies that incorporate auditory learning and spoken language options for children with hearing loss and their families through an early intervention Best Practice Model. The following spring, AG Bell developed five "best practice" criteria based on data collected." Goal: To increase awareness of auditory learning and spoken language options and education by ensuring that parents receive UNBIASED information about all available communication options when a child is diagnosed with a hearing loss. Five Best Practice Criteria: Parent(s) who have children identified with hearing loss must receive a printed, standardized resource manual that includes clear, objective, explanatory information on each communication option: a. Auditory-Verbal (Unisensory), b. Oral or Auditory/Oral, c. Bilingual/Bicultural (ASL/ESL), d. Cued Speech, and e. Total Communication 2. Parent(s) must receive a standardized, printed resource manual from a state-designated representative trained to present the information on communication options in an UNBIASED and impartial manner. 3. Designated representatives who provide information to parent(s) must participate in annual trainings and workshops to develop knowledge of all communication options and topics relating to hearing loss. 4. Interagency agreements, state guidelines and task force committees will provide the mechanism by which parent(s) and children receive cooperative visits and information sharing between early intervention providers, early hearing and detection programs and non-profit agencies providing services to children with hearing loss. 5. Criteria are mandated to be provided in each state as a Best Practice Model. Now my next question is how many workshops were provided about bilingualism? ASL? They claimed that they are unbiased but we obviously know that the information provided is not well-balanced. I have looked for the past seminars of this year and here are the topics: March 29, 2007 - Advocating for a Cochlear Implant Child Throughout the Education Process July 19, 2007 - Back to School with Cochlear Implants: The Top 10 Things Parents Need to Know August 30, 2007 - Partnering with Your CI Audiologist: How to Get the Best Possible MAP for Your Child September 13, 2007 - School Bells: Supporting Children with Cochlear Implants in the Classroom September 27, 2007 - Maximizing Outcomes with Minimal Resources: Tips for CI Kids Without Access October 11, 2007 - Hearing with Two Ears: Bimodal or Bilateral UNBIASED? Come on, who do you think you are fooling? Now what did AG Bell exactly say about ASL on their website? Here, I found one mere passage about ASL that stated: "American Sign Language is a manual communication method taught as a child's primary language, with English taught as a second language. American Sign Language is recognized as a true language in its own right and does not follow the grammatical structure of English. This method is used extensively within the Deaf community, a group that views itself as having a separate culture and identity from mainstream hearing society. For more information, contact the National Association of the Deaf." Note that NAD lists almost everything that contains pro-AG Bell methods (cochlear implants, listening devices, etc.) in their website showing that NAD is more inclusive than AG Bell. So who is UNBIASED here? When you click on the bookstore site, do you see any ASL materials? Heck, no. So how could they claim that they provide UNBIASED information on communication options? I am getting a bit confused here (**scratching my head**). About scholarships, it only awards to deaf students who are capable of speaking and listening regardless there are non-aural/oral deaf who would be qualified for a scholarship, too. "The AG Bell College Scholarship Program offers scholarships ranging from $500 to $5,000 for students identified with moderate to profound hearing loss since birth or before acquiring language. Scholarships are available to students in any field of study who use speech and residual hearing and/or speechreading (lipreading) as their primary mode of communication." Do you call this UNBIASED? Even here in the same website, it spelled outloud that "through publications, outreach, training, scholarships and financial aid, AG Bell promotes the use of spoken language and hearing technology." UNBIASED? In addition, they did mention something about Children Legal Advocacy Program (CLA) that they complained that there is not enough oral practices (exactly the opposite of what you just presented). They said: "Access to spoken language education is denied as a result of inappropriate placement. These cases involve either public or private school placements where the school district refuses to place the child in a program that will enable the child to acquire a spoken language education. Instead, the placement offers an ASL-based program, a Total Communication program or a mainstreamed classroom without needed support services." This tells us that they are advocating for every deaf child that they deserve aural/oral practice instead of using ASL only. Of course, AG Bell is clever and careful enough not to bash ASL on their website. However, action speaks louder than words and this is what we can hear. It is amazing that they are taking on this platform since there are far off MORE deaf children deprived of ASL than ORALISM especially today. I couldn't even identify that many schools who deny spoken language education to begin with unless I am mistaken. AG Bell slogan is, " Hear from the Start, Talk for a Lifetime". Knowing that hearing babies sign from the start then learn to talk, why should it be other way round for deaf babies? It just doesn't make any sense to me. So if they are advocating for auditory/oral practice, why can't we advocate for ASL instead of using speech only? I have yet seen any stong organization to advocate ASL instead of speech alone and this is why the birth of the Deaf Bilingual Coalition is needed. Why should we be silent about this? No one has organized such demonstration at AG Bell Conference for 127 years so it is time to be heard. Since AG Bell has to do with the influence on educational policies, it becomes our business. It also has the influence to the legislative and us as tax-paying Deaf citizens, it becomes our business. It affects many, many deaf children and it becomes our business. It is an awakening period for the Deaf Bilingual Coalition to be born! Kudos to JohnF. Egbert to initiate DBC! Be silent no more! See www.deafprogressivism.blogspot.com for more information. |
 | Jay's indepth walkthrough of Goldeneye (Part 1) I think this level is bunker. In this specific place you must kill the guys, A sub objective is to not be shot. Stay tuned for more walkthroughs nintendo |
العربية
中国
Français
Deutsch
Ελληνική
हिन्दी
Italiano
日本語
Português
Русский
Español
