Capital Punishment

That would apply if the second noun did not have a second modifier. But in HWM's case it did.
Aggravated burlglary and theft of cars.
If he'd said "aggravated burglary and theft", the adjective would have applied to both nouns.
But he modified the second noun with its own adjective "of cars". If he'd wanted the adjective of "aggravated" to aplly to both nouns, he should have explicitly applied it.
So while your quote for grammar was correct, it didn't apply in HWM's case.

Take an example of "wear your red hat and the gloves with no fingers. The adjective "with no fingers" applied to the second noun "gloves" disapplies the rule of the adjective applying to both nouns.
Get to bed mate its late for you, only you havent understood this and are now frantically looking for ways to try to hide your obvious mistake. Don't worry over it we are used to seeing this from you. Good night Billy, see you tomorrow for another episode.
 
I've just explained the additional rules of grammar that proves I was correct.
And you're being a clown denying the undeniable.
Car theft is not an aggravated offence.
Funny isn't it, how you're not the only one that missed the obvious.
Anything new to say or are you just going to bore everyone with a hundred pages on how you feel that you are a victim of my superiority?
 
Good job you didn't have any qualifications in English, you'd have failed iserably.
Judging by your continued denial of the obvious, you have no qualifications in integrity neither.
A bit ironic you saying iserably in that same sentence. I would get your head down now as it is late for you.
 
That would apply if the second noun did not have a second modifier. But in HWM's case it did.
Aggravated burlglary and theft of cars.
If he'd said "aggravated burglary and theft", the adjective would have applied to both nouns.
But he modified the second noun with its own adjective "of cars". If he'd wanted the adjective of "aggravated" to aplly to both nouns, he should have explicitly applied it.
So while your quote for grammar was correct, it didn't apply in HWM's case.

Take an example of "wear your red hat and the gloves with no fingers. The adjective "with no fingers" applied to the second noun "gloves" disapplies the rule of the adjective applying to both nouns.

Your example is totally different grammatically to HWM's. There is no adjective (or other determiner) in the noun phrase 'theft of cars'.
 
3 years in total for my degree,
English was simpler as we used word with a spell checker to keep all of my spelling in check.
I can read and write in English fine so my comprehension is of no concern, we had a lot of foreign students whose english comprehension was a struggle but they didn't get marked down for spelling mistakes, it wasn't an English literature degree so everyone was fine.
I do not have an inflated ego, not sure where you get that from.
Because...
Why do you explain yourself to him just tell him to Fùck off :oops:

OMG I shouldn't drink in the mornings
 
Of course there is "theft" is the noun, and "of cars" is the adjective.
Just as in "car theft". "Theft" is the noun and "car" is the adjective because there are many other forms of theft.

No, there isn't.

It is two nouns and a preposition which together form a single grammatical unit which follows the rules for a noun.
 
Back
Top