The Underground Grammarian
Posted: Sun Oct 12, 2025 6:19 am
If you know TUG, I even audiobook all of Mitchells work, then we start a small TUG of our own here.
So let this thread be about obvious grammatical garbage, not each other's, but that has already been published by teachers, past and present, and are in the public domain and has often been in it for years.
I will start with a quote by DeMorgan, a professional and famous teacher.
"Suppose you are going to count some large number~"
Really? you use numbers to count themselves? Now how is it that a teacher cannot spot self-referential garbage?
Synonyms, when one does not realize that certain words are synonymous with other words, they create self referential gibberish, So, let us look at the whole sentence.
9. Suppose that you are going to count some large number, for example, to measure a number of yards of cloth.
Counting, measuring, numeration, enumeration, etc. means to provide or assign an arithmetic name as a correlative, i.e. noun. i.e., arithmetic does not name the verb, i.e. the relative difference. When we write 5 + 3 = 8, the statement is elliptical, as every thing is defined by the name of its correlative and relative, container and contained. So removing the ellipsis, we have 5x + 3x = 8x. Here others really fuck up, taking the x to mean another number, when it means we have a signed number, i.e. an Algebraic Name. 5 cats, + 3 cats = 8 cats. The fact that we name both relative and correlative to provide a name for a thing has escaped many so called intellectuals, that they write gibberish which the illiterate simply parrot.
I have never seen a correctly written book on arithmetic.
When you define a thing, you write a particular grammar showing how it names the two parts of a thing, None do.
So let this thread be about obvious grammatical garbage, not each other's, but that has already been published by teachers, past and present, and are in the public domain and has often been in it for years.
I will start with a quote by DeMorgan, a professional and famous teacher.
"Suppose you are going to count some large number~"
Really? you use numbers to count themselves? Now how is it that a teacher cannot spot self-referential garbage?
Synonyms, when one does not realize that certain words are synonymous with other words, they create self referential gibberish, So, let us look at the whole sentence.
9. Suppose that you are going to count some large number, for example, to measure a number of yards of cloth.
Counting, measuring, numeration, enumeration, etc. means to provide or assign an arithmetic name as a correlative, i.e. noun. i.e., arithmetic does not name the verb, i.e. the relative difference. When we write 5 + 3 = 8, the statement is elliptical, as every thing is defined by the name of its correlative and relative, container and contained. So removing the ellipsis, we have 5x + 3x = 8x. Here others really fuck up, taking the x to mean another number, when it means we have a signed number, i.e. an Algebraic Name. 5 cats, + 3 cats = 8 cats. The fact that we name both relative and correlative to provide a name for a thing has escaped many so called intellectuals, that they write gibberish which the illiterate simply parrot.
I have never seen a correctly written book on arithmetic.
When you define a thing, you write a particular grammar showing how it names the two parts of a thing, None do.