Capital Punishment

[MNW67]

In addition you are misquoting the definition of a noun adjunct. A noun adjunct is a noun acting as an adjective. It does not join together with the other noun to make a new noun. What you are describing is a compound noun, as in shoeshine, raindrop, etc. These are not nouns adjunct.
A noun adjunct is as I've said, a noun acting as an adjective and describing the other noun, i.e modifying it or differentiating it from other types of that noun, as in theft of cars, and other types of theft.
So that is the second reason why the word "aggravated "does not apply to the "theft of cars".

Your use of closed compound nouns such as raindrop is very slippery. But I can see why you tried to slip it in to confuse matters.

So, let's stick with a proper example such as 'coffee cup'. You accepted that this a compound noun where 'coffee' is the noun adjunct. And you have already accepted that, in my example sentence, the adjective 'new' applied to this compound noun:

'We bought new plates and coffee cups'.

So, it seems that you agree with me regarding the basic principle.

I take note of what the Court of Appeal said in relation to the construction of contracts.

The rest of your post is confusing waffle.

 

[King Billy]

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'

The use of both "aggravated" and "theft" in the same sentence, referring to the same offence, is an oxymoron. Theft excludes violence or force, so it's not an aggravated offence.

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

It doesn't matter because "aggravated" does not include theft. Theft excludes the use of violence or force.
And if he meant what he claims he meant, he would have used aggravated burglary and car jacking, or whatever form of violence or force he had in mind.

 

[MNW67]

The use of both "aggravated" and "theft" in the same sentence, referring to the same offence, is an oxymoron. Theft excludes violence or force, so it's not an aggravated offence.

It doesn't matter because "aggravated" does not include theft. Theft excludes the use of violence or force.
And if he meant what he claims he meant, he would have used aggravated burglary and car jacking, or whatever form of violence or force he had in mind.

The important point is that everyone else knew what HWM meant. It is true that, in the UK, there is no specific offence of aggravated theft. And that theft with the threat or use of force is technically known as robbery. But I don't have a problem with a lay person referring to theft with the use of violence as 'aggravated theft'. You are being overly pedantic. What really matters is that the sentence made sense grammatically and that everyone understood it.

 

[Highway Man]

• 
  Add bookmark
• #6

I am all for capital and corporal punishment, I think the punishment should fit the crime, obviously for any concerns over guilt is to be avoided and prison but this must be hard labour and not a soft option. Violent offences such as agravated burglary and theft of cars etc,

 

[King Billy]

Your use of closed compound nouns such as raindrop is very slippery. But I can see why you tried to slip it in to confuse matters.

It was used to elucidate not confuse. Your use of such phrases as "slip it in" and "confuse matters" is pure obfuscation

So, let's stick with a proper example such as 'coffee cup'. You accepted that this a compound noun where 'coffee' is the noun adjunct.

No, it's not a compound noun. If it were a compound noun it would be written as coffeecup.
Coffee is the noun adjunct differentiating the cups from any other type of cups.
But in this sentence you are obviously referring to buying crockery, which is pretty straightforward. If you hadn't bought new coffee cups, you would not have included it in that sentence. So the adjective "new" obviously refers to all the nouns.
However if you'd said "new plates and coffee cups and carrots". It would be very obvious that the carrots aren't new. So the rule (which does not exist according to the Court of Appeal) would not apply, because the context makes it clear that it could not apply. So the rule (which does not exist) relies very much on context.

And it's in the context used by HWM that aggravated could not apply to theft of cars because, a) the use of an oxymoron and b) the use of the modifier "of cars" on the second noun "theft".

And you have already accepted that, in my example sentence, the adjective 'new' applied to this compound noun:
'We bought new plates and coffee cups'.

It's not a compound noun, but yes, because it's straightforward, simple and you wouldn't have mentioned the coffee cups if you hadn't just bought them.

So, it seems that you agree with me regarding the basic principle.

On the basic principle, I do agree, but your rule (which does not exist) would only apply, depending on the context.
But on the context of HWM's comment, the rule (which does not exist) does not apply for the reasons given.

I take note of what the Court of Appeal said in relation to the construction of contracts.

The court's judgement rested on whether there was a rule referring to all the nouns in a list being affected by the single adjective. They said there was no rule.

The rest of your post is confusing waffle.

Whatever you think of it does not prove me wrong. I've explained at length why I am correct.
If you persist on not admitting your error, that's up to you.

 

[Highway Man]

You will clearly see that I say Violent offences such as... meaning aggravated theft of cars. It is very simple to understand and no need for 20 pages of complete waffle from silly billy who has had his feelings hurt by being mistaken.

 

[Highway Man]

Violent offences such as agravated burglary and theft of cars etc, can only mean one thing, if you steal a car violently then it is aggravated car theft. You said there was no such thing. Having been proven wrong you have destroyed a thread that was interesting. Well done King Billy in destroying another thread with your pedantic and pompous trait.

 

[King Billy]

The important point is that everyone else knew what HWM meant.

What did you do, conduct a poll?
Everyone knows that most on this forum are tribal, so a poll among users of this forum would be a post disaster recovery exercise.

It is true that, in the UK, there is no specific offence of aggravated theft.

Glad we got that sorted.

And that theft with the threat or use of force is technically known as robbery.

Glad we got that sorted also.

But I don't have a problem with a lay person referring to theft with the use of violence as 'aggravated theft'. You are being overly pedantic.

Recognising oxymorons and that the context of a sentence precludes aggravated theft of cars is not pedantry.
When people write such nonsense it illustrates a low level of education and comprehension.

What really matters is that the sentence made sense grammatically and that everyone understood it.

It doesn't make sense in neither grammatical syntax, nor in plain English, nor in layman's legal knowledge.
You incorrectly applied a rule which does not exist to justify your argument. (Blame AI)
You've misrepresented the definition of a noun adjunct.
You've tried to conflate the noun adjunct with a compound noun.
You've further ignored the obvious oxymoron to argue that it made sense.
You've also ignored the legal definition of theft excluding the obvious aggravating factor.

You appear to have joined the tribal club, and put yourself in the same bracket as those who refuse to admit their mistakes.

 

[King Billy]

Violent offences such as agravated burglary and theft of cars etc, can only mean one thing, if you steal a car violently then it is aggravated car theft. You said there was no such thing. Having been proven wrong you have destroyed a thread that was interesting. Well done King Billy in destroying another thread with your pedantic and pompous trait.

The use of the word "theft" excludes the use of violence or force.
Well done to MNW, the organ grinder and his monkey for destroying another thread with their pedantry, pomposity and arrogance.
It's a shame they were wrong after all that tribal bluff and bluster.

BTW, it's aggravated vehicle taking. Aggravated Vehicle-Taking Act 1992 But you can call it aggravated car theft, even if it is an oxymoron. That'll be one of your lesser mistakes because you're not expected to know the intricacies of the English language.

 

[Highway Man]

The use of the word "theft" excludes the use of violence or force.
Well done to MNW, the organ grinder and his monkey for destroying another thread with their pedantry, pomposity and arrogance.
It's a shame they were wrong after all that tribal bluff and bluster.

BTW, it's aggravated vehicle taking. Aggravated Vehicle-Taking Act 1992 But you can call it aggravated car theft, even if it is an oxymoron. That'll be one of your lesser mistakes because you're not expected to know the intricacies of the English language.

Reported (again)

 

[MNW67]

It doesn't make sense in neither grammatical syntax, nor in plain English, nor in layman's legal knowledge.
You incorrectly applied a rule which does not exist to justify your argument. (Blame AI)
You've misrepresented the definition of a noun adjunct.
You've tried to conflate the noun adjunct with a compound noun.
You've further ignored the obvious oxymoron to argue that it made sense.
You've also ignored the legal definition of theft excluding the obvious aggravating factor.

You appear to have joined the tribal club, and put yourself in the same bracket as those who refuse to admit their mistakes.

That's a very jaundiced way to look at it.

I have said many times before that I very much enjoy discussing language and grammar. It doesn't matter if we don't agree. Apart from your rather aggressive demeanour, this has been a good conversation in my opinion.

 

[Highway Man]

That's a very jaundiced way to look at it.

I thought exactly the same, it's the colour of his avatar that first aroused my suspicion.

 

[King Billy]

Reported (again)

Sorry, did I hurt your feelings?

20 pages of complete waffle from silly billy who has had his feelings hurt by being mistaken.

 

[Highway Man]

Sorry, did I hurt your feelings?

Not in the slightest, I just report all personal insults as it is against the forum rules and I respect the rules.

 

[johnny2007]

Johnny racist bigot in drags still can't find who it was that he claims said that all Italians are fascists

Again, it was Himmy.
How many times are you gonna ask?
The answer doesn't change.