http://www.englishforums.com/search/pro.htm?q=tag%3aApostrophes+tag%3aAdjunctsSearch results for 'tag:Apostrophes tag:Adjuncts' matching tags 'Apostrophes' and 'Adjuncts'en-USCSMOD (Build: 3273.32735)http://www.englishforums.com/English/Important/hzrzr/post.htmTue, 09 Dec 2008 22:17:13 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:609297tom12345678910PLEASE IF ANYONE CAN HELP ME PLEASE DO THIS IS DUE TOMOROW IT ISONLY A SMALL PART BUT THIS PART IS ALL I NEED IF YOU CAN HELP WITH ANYTHING WORDING ECT PLEASE DO THANK YOU The next argument I am going to touch on is one of the most well known commonly used and effective arguments arguing that God does not exist This is the argument of suffering people use this in the terms of If God exists then why is there suffering in the world If God is all powerful and all loving then why does he allow suffering and If good is real then why does he allow conflict over religion and beliefs these are all just statements that I have come up with but they have been used to try to argue God not existing maybe one of the reasons for people using this argument is because it is one that is easy to use its seems that there is evidence for it God is meant to be all loving and all powerful but if he is then why would he not stop all the horrific violence and conflict going on around the world surly if someone is all loving they would not be able to sit back and watch people killing each other in fact if he was all loving he shouldn t really be able to watch people hurting each other or being horrible to one another but all this would add up if God was just all loving because what can he do about it it is out of his power he can do nothing but that s not the case God is supposedly all powerful so he should be able to stop it all with a click of his fingers now it could be that he just chooses not to but of course he is all loving so that cannot be true and that is why atheists are saying this must be a reason that God does not exist because it seems like it should all adds up But this theory does not simply rule out the idea of God yes it might be a quite convincing argument but maybe suffering is there for a reason of course God does not want people to die but if everybody just died of old age the world would just over populate and if the human race could not suffer then we probably would not be where we are today maybe we suffer for our own good in a way suffering teaches us it makes us appreciate life so maybe God is there he just allows suffering for a reason but this is another argument that will go on being argued out by both theists and atheists The next argument is another argument against the existents of god this is if and when people go to pray to God how come a lot of the time there prays are not answered and when they are could it not just be coincident God is this not referring to all gods and goddesses supposedly everywhere all around as so surly when we talk to him he can hear us God is also meant to be all loving in that case surly if he can hear us he should answer us help us out however nice this would be a lot of the time it is not true a lot of the time God does not answer us maybe this mean that he cannot hear us and maybe this could mean that God does not exist But countering that is the fact that there are those people who believe that there prays have been answered and what they asked for or prayed for came true so that must mean the statement before proves nothing Countering that you could say well why would God answer some and not others maybe those people who believe that there prays have been answered have just got lucky or what they prayed for just come about by chance this is stating God doesn t exist or at least he cannot be everywhere and cannot be all loving if he answers some people and not others Answering that statement you could say that God cannot simply answer everyone at once because of course there are millions of people all praying at one time To counter that you might say well God is suppose to be all powerful and if he s all powerful answering a million prays at once should be easy The argument does not end there but unfortunately I m going to have to finish that argument now http://www.englishforums.com/English/NationsEffortsNationsEfforts/2/gjchv/Post.htm#546044Thu, 24 Jul 2008 22:52:42 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:546044wholegrainNO THERE IS Muhahahahahahaha Proof Noun adjuncts were traditionally mostly singular e g trouser press except when there were lexical restrictions e g arms race but there is a recent trend towards more use of plural ones especially in UK English Many of these can also be and or were originally interpreted and spelled as plural possessives for example chemicals agency writers conference Rangers hockey game 2 but they are now often written without the apostrophe although this is criticised by some authorities http://www.englishforums.com/English/ToWhomWhom/4/xcbc/Post.htm#69379Sun, 23 Jan 2005 05:04:22 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:69379paco2004Hello Casi Thank you for the detailed explanation I think I got finally what you are saying Please let me try to rephrase with my words what you are saying and please check if it is right She gave John the book Format S give X Y X Y is the object of the verb gave and the phrase gave X Y means to realize X s ownership of Y Here the sign signifies something like a possessive apostrophe that is X Y X s Y As we can say his book him the book is a possible phrase for X Y But like we cannot say John s it or his it it is impossible to make such a phrase John it for X Y Therefore we cannot say She gave John it or She gave him it Further more it is assumed that X and Y in X Y are so tightly connected and so X Y behave almost as an inseparable single constituent It means that X and Y in X Y can t move independently in a sentence We can imagine a sentence She gave whom the book but this whom cannot singly move to the head of the sentence Therefore it s impossible to construct an wh question sentence like Whom did she give the book She gave the book to John Format S give Y to X S move Y to X In this sentence the phrase to X works as the adjunct of the action of move Y Here X and Y are perfectly independent constituents and X Y can be replaced by pronouns without constraints though X is usually an animate thing She gave it to him is one of the sentences of this construct Also whom can work as X and from She gave the book to whom one can easily make either To whom did she give the book or Whom did she give the book to by adopting the principles of wh word raising My understanding is right paco PS By the way is it true we can never say his it