I've seen so many arguments where both sides claim the other is arguing in bad faith tho
Owls (owl pellets) or even snakes and lizards would probs be more accurate imo
Friendly reminder that Rittenhouse got off because it was 'self-defense'
I don't understand why you felt the need to comment this or why others felt the need to upvote it. What is your purpose?
1/2 the world population has herpes and like 1/10 in the US. It's literally just a painful rash and the outbreaks can be treated.
The fact that it's easily cured with antibiotics should tho!!
All opinions are statements, dumbass.
I like cheese
Both a statement and an opinion. Him saying it is the worst feature, since worst is ranking with 'goodness' and is therefore subjective, makes it an opinion in his comment. If you're gonna be a pedantic ass at least be right about it.
"Since the definition of a sentence in Standard English is a construction consisting of a subject noun phrase and a predicate verb phrase, by definition, the answer is that you can't have a verbless sentence, even short ones: Ice melts, Ducks quack, Winter sucks, etc.— a main verb has to be there."
https://www.evansville.edu/writingcenter/downloads/sentence-parts.pdf
Fragments can still convey a complete thought without being a sentence: eg "Go!", "Scalpel!", "So far, so good.", etc.
https://www.niu.edu/writingtutorial/punctuation/sentence-fragments.shtml
https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/mechanics/sentence_fragments.html
https://www.grammarly.com/blog/mistake-of-the-month-sentence-fragments/
The title in question was especially bad as it didn't make sense due to the omitted verb, but still had the structure of a standard sentence, making it even harder to interpret. I am a native English speaker which is why I remember every grammar lesson from pre-k through college saying that a sentence needs to have both a subject and a verb. Sometimes, the subject is implied, like in an imperative sentence, but that's the exception, not the rule.
And I'm not trying to be a total stickler abt grammar just for the sake of it, but because it is actively poisoning readability and we shouldn't be rewarding it whether malicious as another commenter had suggested or just out of laziness. There's no effect that the writer here is achieving by cutting the words the were cut.
I'll also add that that wikipedia article uses that 'Jones Winner' thing, but it would be much less ambiguous to just say 'Jones Wins' and so you shoud pretty much always use the second. If this headline wanted to eliminate unnecessary words to minimize wordcount or something, they could easily have taken out their superfluous adjectives rather than the verb which severely hindered readability.
They don't often drop the only verb of the sentence, rendering it nonsensical.
And also is this actually a common practice? Like, would it be a normal headline to write:
"The forge workers standing up human rights"
Rather than
"The forge workers standing up for human rights" ??
No, Clearly not, as the former makes no goddamn sense. Similar to the title in question. I don't get why you're defending this poor practice tho. It doesn't even make sense for it to be a non English speaker that wrote it making a translation issue because one of the earliest things you learn in English, French, Spanish, etc is that a sentence needs a verb to function.
I'm bi and I don't know anybody with a condom fetish lmaoooo. Almost everybody is on PREP now specifically so they don't have to use condoms lol. Maybe your understanding is poisoned by the fact that you call us "the gays" and don't actually seem to interact with any lgbt people on the regular.
No. It's a sentence fragment. It makes no sense and leaves out the end of the thought
Taiwanese*