Capital Punishment

[MNW67]

Therefore the second noun has been modified by an adjective (or nouns functioning as adjectives) so the rule of adjectives applying to several nouns does not apply. Otherwise the punishment would apply to all types of theft. But HWM only applied his punishment to aggravated burglary and one specific type of theft - "theft of cars".

WRONG

AI Overview

An adjective appearing before a list of coordinate nouns, including an adjunct noun, is generally interpreted as modifying all of the items in that list.

This means that, using standard grammatical interpretation, the adjective 'aggravated' applies to both the single noun 'burglary' and the adjunct noun 'car theft'.

 

[pete01]

No, I am correct.

I don't doubt that for a second

 

[King Billy]

WRONG



This means that, using standard grammatical interpretation, the adjective 'aggravated' applies to both the single noun 'burglary' and the adjunct noun 'car theft'.

You're wrong. When the second noun is modified by an adjective (or a noun acting as an adjective) the rule does not apply.
I've already posted that rule.

If you don’t want to imply that two nouns are modified by the same adjective, you can either change the word order, pairing the noun with the adjective last in the list, or you can give the second noun a different modifier, even if it’s just a determiner. A different modifier for the second noun or pronoun breaks the pattern—readers understand that the first adjective belongs only to the first noun and that the nouns that follow will have their own modifiers.

The the use of an adjective (or noun acting s an adjective) "of cars" suitably modified the second noun, negating the rule of an adjective applying to all the nouns in list.

In addition the Court of Appeal said there is no rule to suggest what you claim is correct:

It said that while there is no specific rule that an adjective or other determiner at the start of the list qualifies all of it, the nature of that list may well indicate that it does. Unless something suggests to the contrary in the drafting, the reader would naturally assume the adjective applies to all of the list.

https://www.vwv.co.uk/insights/arti...-the-first-item-court-of-appeal-gives-ruling/

In HWM's case his use of the word "theft" which excludes the use of violence suggests that it is not an aggravated offence. Therefore the adjective "aggravated" would automatically only apply to the first noun.

 

[pete01]

You're wrong. When the second noun is modified by an adjective (or a noun acting as an adjective) the rule does not apply.
I've already posted that rule.

The the use of an adjective (or noun acting s an adjective) "of cars" suitably modified the second noun, negating the rule of an adjective applying to all the nouns in list.

In addition the Court of Appeal said there is no rule to suggest what you claim is correct:

https://www.vwv.co.uk/insights/arti...-the-first-item-court-of-appeal-gives-ruling/

In HWM's case his use of the word "theft" which excludes the use of violence suggests that it is not an aggravated offence. Therefore the adjective "aggravated" would automatically only apply to the first noun.

Give up whilst you're behind Bill.

 

[King Billy]

Give up whilst you're behind Bill.

Any sensible argument to put forward for consideration?

No, I thought not.

 

[Highway Man]

We know HWM was referring to car theft. That was not the problem. He was obviously not referring to any other form of theft.
Theft of cars is differentiating between theft of cars and theft of other objects.
As you AI states, the word (adjective or noun) modifies the noun "theft".
And "cars" or "of cars" acts as an adjective.

Therefore the second noun has been modified by an adjective (or nouns functioning as adjectives) so the rule of adjectives applying to several nouns does not apply. Otherwise the punishment would apply to all types of theft. But HWM only applied his punishment to aggravated burglary and one specific type of theft - "theft of cars". Which in itself is not an aggravated offence, unless it becomes one by other offences.

Quiet now, you are getting yourself all worked up over you being wrong.

 

[noseall]

My point was, off duty soldiers not involved in any conflict were not targeted

Wrong.

Just when were these good old days of yours, Mottie?

 

[MNW67]

In HWM's case his use of the word "theft" which excludes the use of violence suggests that it is not an aggravated offence. Therefore the adjective "aggravated" would automatically only apply to the first noun.

I think you've got that the wrong way round. HWM was explicitly talking about offences which involve violence, so he gave the examples of 'aggravated burglary and car theft'. That makes it clear to me that he meant 'aggravated car theft'

If he had meant what you say, he would have written 'car theft and aggravated burglary'

 

[King Billy]

Quiet now, you are getting yourself all worked up over you being wrong.

One obvious fault with your observation, as usual. I am correct.
It's only matter of time before MNW accepts it, if he's up to that.
If he's in the same category as you and the other clown, he'll metaphorically scatter the chess pieces all over the floor, crap on the board, and strut around as though he's won.

 

[MNW67]

One obvious fault with your observation, as usual. I am correct.
It's only matter of time before MNW accepts it, if he's up to that.
If he's in the same category as you and the other clown, he'll metaphorically scatter the chess pieces all over the floor, crap on the board, and strut around as though he's won.

I am not going to do anything of the sort. I have explained clearly and precisely the rules of grammar which first showed that 'car theft' is an adjunct noun and secondly showed that an adjective modifies all nouns in a list, including adjunct nouns. All you have done is waffle and make up your own rules.

 

[Highway Man]

One obvious fault with your observation, as usual. I am correct.
It's only matter of time before MNW accepts it, if he's up to that.
If he's in the same category as you and the other clown, he'll metaphorically scatter the chess pieces all over the floor, crap on the board, and strut around as though he's won.

Reported

 

[King Billy]

I think you've got that the wrong way round. HWM was explicitly talking about offences which involve violence, so he gave the examples of 'aggravated burglary and car theft'. That makes it clear to me that he meant 'aggravated car theft'

If he had meant what you say, he would have written 'car theft and aggravated burglary'

"Theft" excludes the use of violence, so it's automatically not an aggravated offence.
I've already posted that proof.

Here is another version:

There are, however, very clear differences between these offences. Put very simply, someone is guilty of robbery if he steals from a person using force or makes them think force will be used. Theft means taking someone's property but does not involve the use of force.

So the use of "aggravated " and "theft" in the same sentence, is an oxymoron.
Therefore, as the Court of Appeal said there is no rule, then the use of an oxymoron negates the rule of one adjective applying to both nouns.

In addition, as I've already shown, the use of a noun (acting as an adjective) modifies the second noun, which negates the rule (which doesn't exist) of an adjective applying to all the nouns in a list.

So there are two explanations why the use of "theft of cars" in HWM's example does not describe an aggravated offence.

 

[King Billy]

I am not going to do anything of the sort. I have explained clearly and precisely the rules of grammar which first showed that 'car theft' is an adjunct noun and secondly showed that an adjective modifies all nouns in a list, including adjunct nouns. All you have done is waffle and make up your own rules.

An adjunct noun is a noun acting as an adjective, or modifier,

In grammar, a noun adjunct, attributive noun, qualifying noun, noun (pre)modifier, or apposite noun is an optional noun that modifies another noun

That, together with the use of an oxymoron in the same sentence means I am correct.

Don't admit your mistake, if you insist. It just puts you in the same bracket as MBK, HWM and his pet monkey.

 

[Highway Man]

So there are two explanations why the use of "theft of cars" in HWM's example does not describe an aggravated offence.

You will find that it does, I wouldn't concern yourself with the technicality of it all. It is beyond your capability as you have demonstrated, now for the last time, pipe yourself down.

 

[King Billy]

You will find that it does, I wouldn't concern yourself with the technicality of it all. It is beyond your capability as you have demonstrated, now for the last time, pipe yourself down.

You might like telling the organ grinder's monkey to be quite, , but it doesn't work with others. It just makes you look pompous.