• nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      17
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      Thats because the tense has to agree with the subject, subject being Israel in present times, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the ‘no one’ means ‘no on in present times’. No where in grammer does verb tense indicate anything other than the subjects time.

      • lugal@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        This is wrong on so many levels that I hope you are joking.

        Verbs agree in person and number with the subject. “no one” is 3. person singular. Subjects don’t have time. Only verbs have tense.

        If subjects had tense and “no one” was present, then the sentence would still be present. In that case, you would need to use the past form of “no one” to indicate tense.

        Rereading your comment: Israel isn’t the subject.

        • nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          What is the past form of ‘no one’ oh right, its still ‘no one’ so OPs intent to exclude the past isn’t clear. ‘is killing’ is the conjugation to use if you want to exclude the past, literally what it’s there for.

          • lugal@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            You convinced me that you’re just stupid. Subjects don’t have tense, it’s the verb that carries that information

            • nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              You’re the one who brought up the what if subjects have tense statement, not me. You’ve convinced me you just want to argue semantically. It’s still not clear that OP wants to exclude the past otherwise they would have used ‘is killing’ instead of ‘kills’

              • lugal@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                7 months ago

                You said:

                Thats because the tense has to agree with the subject

                I said that (1.) this is wrong and (2.) even if it was right, your statement was still wrong.

                • nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  7 months ago

                  Its funny you wont respond to my argument where I say if OP wanted to exclude the past without saying so they should have used ‘is killing’ instead of ‘kills’ because ‘is killing’ necessary excluds the past, but ‘kills’ does not. Third time the cham though so I made the whole comment about it this time.

                  • kibiz0r@midwest.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    7 months ago

                    If I understand you correctly, you’re saying that:

                    “No one kills more efficiently” includes all past events.

                    “No one is killing more efficiently” would be the proper way to exclude past events.

                    But I have a few questions about that:

                    1. Does that mean that the phrase “No one has killed more efficiently” is the same as “No one kills more efficiently”?
                    2. Would it be proper to say “No one is killing more efficiently” even if they are not currently killing at this exact moment, but just in recent history?
                    3. If I say “No one speaks Ancient Greek”, am I incorrect? Is it fair to correct me with “Actually, the Greeks of 1000 BC speak Ancient Greek”?
      • kibiz0r@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        Thats [sic] presently because the tense presently has to agree with the subject, subject presently being Israel in present times, it doesn’t necessarily presently mean that the ‘no one’ presently means ‘no on in present times’. No where in grammer [sic] does verb tense presently indicate anything other than the subjects [sic] time.

        Clarified so no one would presently confuse your statement to refer presently to Old English.