A question of grammar

[aliantha]

WOW! I'm annoyed...I wrote a long response to this and it's nowhere to be found!
I'm not going to recreate it, too hard and now it's uninspired. Suffice to say it started with the opposite of Ali's frame and included ouroboros, and ended with definition is, by definition, only tangentially definitive, the problem is we think it deals with is/is not but in function is the space between and both relies on and doesn't care about isness or notness, is simultaneously reductive and expansive...that "irreducible complexity" is senseless cuz "there can't be a watch without a watchmaker" is fallacious since a watch is, by definition, produced by reduction, and no matter how far you "reduce" things, the complexity never vanishes cuz it is inherent.

New line, not in first version: a complex universe doesn't require God to make it, any Godhead requires a complex universe to, even potentially, create him/her/it.

You got all that from my post?

[Avatar]

I like Fist's take on it.

"The coins are in the room." "I found no coins in the room."

My grammar is largely instinctive really. Never sure of the actual rules.

--A

[sgt.null]

My grammar is largely instinctive really. Never sure of the actual rules.

--A

that is my problem as a writer. I have the ideas but have no idea as to the form sometimes. if I had time/money I would take a class.

[deer of the dawn]

Grammar is not your Grandma, it's your grammar.