The Eight Parts of Speech: Verbs

        Verbs, verbs, verbs. They're so crucial to understanding the English language, yet it seems we couldn't make them more difficult to understand. You have helping verbs (forms and modals), main verbs, and verb particles. But don't let the list intimidate you, it's just a façade to a set of simple, English Language concepts.

        What is a verb? In kindergarten you may remember that T.V. Ad which said, “Verbs, it's what you do.” I'm here to tell you... they were almost right. True, verbs express action, however, they also express something else. For example, what are we to make of the sentence, “The plant is red.” Where is the action? Is the plant doing red? Not quite. Verbs don't only express action, but they also express being. Is is a verb, it expresses being.

Now we'll look at special types of verbs.

 

A. Helping Verbs:

There are twenty-three helping verbs in the English Language – 14 Forms and 9 Modals. The helping verb forms are forms of have, do, and be:
    1) Have, Has, Had
    2) Do, Does, Did

    3) Be, Am, Is, Are, Was, Were, Being, Been

And here is the list of modal helping verbs:

     1) Can, Could, May, Might, Must, Shalt, Should, Will, Would

B. Main Verbs)

Main Verbs can be difficult to identify, however, all of them must pass the following test sentences (they come from The Bedford Handbook):

1) Base Form => Usually I walk/ride.
2) Past Tense => Yesterday I walked/rode.
3) Past Participle => I have walked/ridden many times before.
4) Present Participle => I am walking/riding right now.
5) -S Forms => Usually he walks/rides

If the word which you are using doesn't alter forms in any of the above sentences, then it isn't a verb. For example, try using the word revolution in the above sentences. It won't work because revolution, though it describes an action, isn't an action itself.

Here are a few other tips to help identify the different sorts of main verbs. If Two and Three are the same word (ie. Walked and walked) then it is a regular verb. Otherwise, it is an irregular verb (ie. Rode and Ridden). However, the word be is the most irregular, having eight forms:

1) Base Form => Be

2) Present Tense => Am, Is, Are
3) Past Tense => Was, Were
4) Present Participle => Being
5) Past Participle => Been

C. Verb-Particles

Verb-Particles are simply verbs that are formed by closely related word combinations.


Many problems arise from verbs such as active vs. passive, subject-verb agreement, verb tense and mood, and ESL problems with verbs. I'll address these issues in later blogposts. Until then, enjoy your verbs.

The Eight Parts of Speech: Conjunctions

      Conjunctions are words that connect phrases, clauses, or indicated their relationship toward one another. There are four different types of conjunctions will help you understand sentence schema.

A. Coordinating Conjunctions

 

You can think of these as the great equalizers. The words and, but, or, nor, for, so, and yet connect grammatically equal elements. Here's another way to look at it. What's the difference between saying, “Bob went to school and began looking for his arithmetic book,” or saying, “Bob went to school, after looking for his book”? The prior treats both events as equals. The latter treats them unequally because it is introducing a subordinate.

B. Correlating Conjunctions
 

These conjunctions function the same way as coordinating conjunctions, however they must be used in pairs. Here are some examples: either....or, both...and, neither...nor, not only...but also, whether...or

I'll provide some written examples:
1) Either Bob will go outside and be nice or he will be sent to his room for the day.
2) Andy wants both the red lollypop and bob's one-hundred dollar bill.
3) Annie the newborn Centaur wants neither to be touched nor to be given gross baby food.
4) Not only did Mike forget to run to the store, but also when he went to the beach he left the sprinklers on.
5) “Whether you're a world-class grammarian or a run of the mill writer, your mother will always love you.”

C. Subordinate Conjunctions
 

Every sentence may contain a subordinate clause. These clauses act as adverb, preposition, or adjective phrases which further qualify the referred object. However, these conjunctions are not stand alone sentences. Here are some words that introduce subordinate conjunctions

After, Although, As, As if, Because, Before, Even though, How, If, In order that, Once, Rather than, Since, So that, Than, That, Once, Rather than, Since, So that, Though, Unless, Until, When, Where, Whether, While, Why.

D. Conjunctive Adverbs

Referencing our article on Adverbs we can remember that Adverbs “ad to verbs”. So we can assume that a conjunctive adverbs are conjunctions which “ad to verbs”. Consequently, that's the role of conjunctive adverbs – they are transitions between two independent clauses. Listed below are a few examples:
 

Consequently, Finally, Furthermore, However, Moreover, Nevertheless, Similarly, Then, Therefore, Thus

Remember, learning to distinguish between conjunctive adverbs and coordinating conjunctions will help prevent run-on sentences and aid punctuation.

The Eight Parts of Speech: Prepositions

        A preposition is a word before or after a noun or pronoun that form a phrase modifying another word. I found a wonderful example from my favorite grammar book The Bedford Handbook (The other favourite is The Elements of Style by Struck and E.B. White) which illustrates both methods:

“The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”

Notice all the nouns in the sentence: road, hell, intentions

Now notice all the verbs in the sentence: is, paved

And lastly, the adjectives: the, good

We have two remaining words: to and with. We know The is not a preposition because The is being used as an adjective to modify the noun road - It's used as a definite article. Now we are left with to and with. The word to is a preposition that links an adjective phrase back to the noun road. What sort of road is it? One that goes to hell. The second word, with, links an adverb phrase back to the word paved. If you remember, we said that an adverb is simply something that “adds to the verb”. So the word with is linking the additional modifications back to the verb paved. What is being paved to the road? Good intentions.

The Eight Parts of Speech: Interjections

          An interjection isn't all that difficult to remember. The reason is simple: we do it all the time. We walk into a grocery store, see a friend we didn't expect, and shout, “Hey!” Interjections are one word sentences (technically not a sentence because a proper sentence requires a minimum of one noun and one verb) that express sudden surprise or emotion. Here are a few examples:

- Oh! - Hey! - Wow! - What? - Stop!

And that's all for interjections. Bye!

The Eight Parts of Speech: Pronouns

Pronouns are words that take the place of a noun or reflect back towards a noun.

The word that the pronoun replaces (or the noun that it refers to) is called the antecedent. A common mistake is to use a pronoun that doesn't have a clear reference (without a clear antecedent). An example is, “It is cold.” We may follow up with, “What is the thing that's cold?”, “The wind,” So we might as well have begun with, “The wind is cold.”

There are six types of pronouns

1. Personal Pronouns – These are the common pronouns.
2. Possessive Pronouns – These are pronouns that convey ownership
3. Intensive/Reflexive Pronouns – Intensive and Reflexive pronouns are words that end in -self or -selves. The difference is where they are placed within a sentence and what is their job. An Intensive Pronoun is a word that follows the “I” in a sentence and is used to intensify the “I”. [I myself bought the book].A reflexive pronoun is a word that replaces the 'I' in a sentence. [I bought the book myself.] Please note two things. First, never use -self words in any other way. Use me. Second, do not begin a sentence with a reflexive or intensive pronoun.
4. Relative Pronouns – Are used to introduce adjective clauses (See Adjectives for More Information). They are the same words that are used by interrogative pronouns however, they do not ask questions.
5. Interrogative Pronouns – Are used to ask questions. Who, What, Whom, Which, Whose
6. Demonstrative Pronouns – These are pronouns that point to things. This, that, these, those
7. Indefinite Pronouns – Are words that don't elicit particular things. For example someone, somebody, anyone, nobody, ect. The difficulty with these words are knowing which are singular and which are plural so that you may know which verb form to use.
8. Reciprocal Pronouns – These pronouns refer to specific parts of a plural noun.

Here are some examples of the above pronouns.

1. Personal Pronouns – They always function as noun equivalents
   
   Singular: I, me, you, she, her, he him, itPlural: We, us, you, they, them

2. Possessive Pronouns – Indicate Ownership
   
   Singular: My, mine, your, yours, her, hers, his, itsPlural: Our, ours, your, yours, their, theirs

**Some of these can also function as pronoun adjectives

3. Intensive and Reflexive Pronouns – Emphasize another noun or another pronoun
   
   Singular: Myself, yourself, himself, herself, itself
   Plural: Ourselves, yourselves, themselves
4. Relative Pronouns – They indicate subordinate clauses which function as adjective clauses. Sometimes they are used to point back to noun or pronoun it modifies.
   
   Examples: Who, whom, whose, which, that
   * Sometimes the words whichever, whoever, whomever, what, and whatever are considered relative pronouns, however they do not point back to the noun or pronoun.

5. Interrogative Pronoun – Are used to ask questions
   
   Examples: Who, whom, whose, which, that

6. Demonstrative Pronouns – They are used to identify or point to nouns.
   
   Examples: This, that, these, those

7. Indefinite Pronouns – These are words that refer to nonspecific persons or things. Some are singular, some are plural, the trick is to learn the difference.
   
   Examples: All, anything, everyone, nobody, several, another, both, everything, none, some, any, each, few, no one, somebody, anybody, either, many, nothing, someone, anyone, everybody, neither, one, something.

8. Reciprocal Pronouns – These pronouns refer to specific parts of a plural noun.
   Examples: Each other, one another

** Please note, because pronouns can cause so many problems for writers, I'll be going over the three top problems in a different article – Namely the pronoun-antecedent agreement, pronoun reference problems, and then going over the differences between I and me, and who and whom.

 

** You can click on the image below for a larger picture.

 

The Eight Parts of Speech: Adjectives

        Adjectives are words that modify nouns or pronouns. That's all. An easy way that helps me remember which words are adjectives (so when I know I'm using too many) is that adjectives “ad” to the “subject”. This also works for adverbs (words that “ad” to “verbs”, but we'll destroy that wall when we discuss that topic). Here are a few helpful pointers:

        1) The definite article The and the indefinite article A are both adjectives.

         2) Their, Its, and This are pronouns that can be used as adjectives

         3) They answer the questions:
                - Which one?
                - What kind?
                - How many?

         4) Words that end with the following suffixes are typically adjectives:
                -ful, -ous, -y, -ish, -able, -ial, -less, -isble, -ent, -ing, -ly, - -ar, -ive

Don't Bother me with the Weather

“To those who refuse to see: Please get well soon.”

        If there were ever a train wreck, it happened upon her head. No one was quite sure what it was or why it happened. Purple and green and yellow and orange were splattered and spotted across a fusion of puffy and bristled hair. But perhaps the only reasonable excuse could be mustered in defense against her ruddy face, which was truly an accident. As she paced back and forth across the room, her students head's bobbed like buoys lost at sea.

“Good morning,” said Professor Corrah, finally resting at her lectern.

      What's wrong with the above? A few would say nothing, but there is a large following that would cry foul from the rooftops. They would claim the writer is cheating the reader. Instead of experiencing a great story, the author commits to the easy road and simply narrates. Let's call the predicament, “Showing versus Telling.” When writing a story we find it very tempting to narrate everything. A woman's dress was elegant, swiftly gliding across the dance floor. A man, with a pointy noise and bloodshot eyes, kept glancing at the clock, watching as his essay deadline approached. Maybe something a bit more exotic took place, and we found a student with a bright, smiling face, hand-in his essay on time. In every instance we start walking down a knife point. Do we choose to narrate or do we choose to show? I believe I have an answer: Both.

        It's a cheater's way to begin, but it's true – and don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Monopolizing the way an individual writes is perhaps the greatest crime against humanity. No one prefers a statutory book, and no one wants a pamphlet full of fast pace events which end at the last period. Each method tries to tear an amateur writer to their side of the world. But as readers, we all know what we enjoy. What we enjoy is something in-between, a fusion of narrative and experience, a combination of showing and telling. But that's precisely what we need to understand: how can we blend showing and telling?

        There are only a handful of tools every writer must posses. A writer can narrate a scene or be equally creative and use dialogue to probe his surroundings. He may decide to speed up his events or slow them down, holding onto every second of every moment. It's a simple square that writers all over the world pass off for “greater” and “better” things. But lets take a moment and stay principled.
 
        We rain fire on narrations and dialogues alike because we forget what they are for. If we called the narrator the champion of us all then the world would be as lifeless as the whispers of abstract winds as they rustle through trees. If we hailed dialogue as our king, then why do we write books? Stop reading and watch a movie, or, better yet, go see a play. There must be a balance and it is found in our purpose. And that is it. What is the purpose of narration or the purpose of dialogue? It's to convey meaning. We prefer narration when the object of our gaze is our concern. A labyrinthine temple is much more ominous than a character's whimsical thoughts about the arches – unless the purpose is to demonstrate how short-witted your characters are, which proves my second point. Dialogue is always preferable to narration when your characters have a color to splash with. A series of Uh-um's and that's-interesting's may save you from a decent conversation but that won't cut it when you're wasting words on nothing. Yes, that's right. Uh-um's and that's-interesting's even in conversation express only one thing: I've got nothing on that.
       
        But narration and dialogue each posses a special trait that we tend to forget. We narrate because we want to “get on with it,” and nothing more. In a high speed car chase, who cares about the grass? It's about life and death, it's about who has the larger gun or more bullets, it's about me or him. Narration is about mastering the uncanny ability to cut out all excess information, forcing the reader to see the world as one painful point. On the other hand, we can use dialogue to express an intimate moment or to hold an answer in mid-flight. Imagine a mother rushing home because a hooded man tried to grab her in the parking lot. She arrives home to her husband who's waiting at the kitchen table. He looks at her then the door, and asks, “Where's my boy?”

        Timing is another consideration. Stories may be slowed or quickened to heighten effect. But what must be considered is the moment being expressed. A lovely scene becomes more tender the longer it lasts or becomes more bitter, sad, and desperate when it's shortened. Two youngesters holding hands as they take a midnight stroll through the park is a tender moment. The next morning when their town is destroyed by aliens, allowing you to describe their last moment as a battle to stay together as they are separated by storming mobs of people is bitter, sad, and, definitely, desperate. The juxtaposition of both of those scenes flips and magnifies the overall perspective into a tide of criminal allegations from your readers that you're a heartless wretch – they'll thank you later when you reunite them... in heaven. (That's brutal.) What I'll encourage you to do is play with your timing. Stretch it out and see what happens, shorten it and wonder if the effect captures the moment.

        The differences between showing and telling is only paralleled by the predicament of dialogue and narration. Some writers will choke you if you prefer narration and others will burn you at the stake and charge you with treason for favoring the tools of a playwright. The choice is up to you, every tool is free for the taking. Experiment with it, see what happens, and, if fire falls from the heavens, remember what Ray Bradbury said, “If you don't like my books, go write you own.”

Knowledge and Understanding: Plato and King Solomon

Many people have argued that "the Good" of Plato was the God of Christianity. Whether this may be correct or not, I think it is worth considering a parallel that Plato and King Solomon draw between "Knowledge" and "Understanding", though King Solomon has the better advantage ^_^:

"What? Haven't you noticed that beliefs without knowledge are all shameful and ugly things, since the best of them are blind? Do you think that those who have true belief without understanding are any different from blind people who happen to travel the right road?" - Plato's Republic

"My son, if thou wilt receive my words, and hide my commandments with thee; So that thou incline thine ear unto wisdom, and apply thine heart to understanding; Yea, if thou criest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for under...standing; If thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasures; Then shalt thou understand the fear of the Lord, and find the knowledge of God. For the Lord giveth wisdom: out of his mouth cometh knowledge and understanding. He layeth up sound wisdom for the righteous: he is a buckler to them that walk uprightly. He keepeth the paths of judgment, and preserveth the way of his saints. Then shalt thou understand righteousness, and judgment, and equity; yea, every good path. When wisdom entereth into thine heart, and knowledge is pleasant unto thy soul; Discretion shall preserve thee, understanding shall keep thee: To deliver thee from the way of the evil man, from the man that speaketh froward things; Who leave the paths of uprightness, to walk in the ways of darkness; Who rejoice to do evil, and delight in the frowardness of the wicked; Whose ways are crooked, and they froward in their paths: To deliver thee from the strange woman, even from the stranger which flattereth with her words; Which forsaketh the guide of her youth, and forgetteth the covenant of her God...That thou mayest walk in the way of good men, and keep the paths of the righteous. For the upright shall dwell in the land, and the perfect shall remain in it." - King Solomon, Proverbs 2:1-17, 20-21

From State to State

      Finally, I'm home. A few hours ago I flew from Texas, one of the greatest states in our Union, and came out in one of the states I've called home. I was greeted with news that made me jump higher than a little boy on Christmas morning or shout louder than a man watching the super bowl. Three years ago the Republican Party made an ultimatum and today they delivered their promise.

      For those who do not remember, three years ago the Republicans and Libertarians pledged that if the Democrats passed a bill through the budget, they would destroy it through the budget. Under reconciliation the Democratic party passed the Affordable Care Act with a strict party-line 51% vote – ramrodding it passed our traditional, super-majority threshold. In the upcoming elections the Democratic party lost the control of the House and gave up several seats in the senate. But the rally to repeal the most destructive bill under the Obama Administration did not end with our elections nor our Tea Party and Libertarian movements. Large Corporations, Big Unions, and our representative government opted out of Obama's healthcare. They pleaded with our president and lobbied our congress to pass exemptions to free them from their economic demise. The fruition of our labors, three years later, is a bi-partisan attempt to defund Obamacare.

     There are some who will read this as adoration and excitement for a government shutdown. Nothing could be farther from the truth; Nothing could cause more grief than to watch our Senate fight so fervently to destroy our nation. I have prayed that the American government would listen to the American people. I have prayed that Americans will understand that Liberty is non-partisan. I have prayed that America will look beyond satisfying our president and seek what is right for our people. And today Congress has stood toe-to-toe fighting for this cause. Today our government placed us before their reputation. Today Liberty became non-partisan. Today Americans and America came together to tell our president that America is worth more than his reputation. If our government is unwilling to hear our voices then our government is undeserving of our funds.


Whether or not the fight against Obamacare is long-lived, a statement was clearly made. The American people are becoming more aware that there are too many politicians too far away from home.

A Candid Response: What Women Talk

        My previous post was written quiet some time ago but my belief that someone, somewhere would take it the wrong way prevented an earlier publication. Now I'm sharing a record of how that conversation went. I'm not here to wave my hand to self-fulfilled prophecy or to usher in an example of hostilities found in debate - I'm simply recording an exchange and hope that anyone who has found offense under the same contentions will have foreknowledge of my position.

The original post may be found here.

The name of the my friend will be left unknown for the privacy's sake.

Sealhy Nendyek -
"Um. Wow. I really have no words. Has it ever occurred to you that gender is secondary to humanity? And that these neatly packaged ideas of how to relate to this absurd creature called 'woman' is possibly irrelevant because we really aren't so different than men? I suppose gender roles, and stereotypes, and adopting an 'us vs. them' mentality, looking at us like we're some sort of novelty behind a glass is just so much easier than approaching us like we are merely another human being just like yourself. If you are having a hard time understanding someone, or are not sure how to relate to them, I always suggest a little open, honest communication, accompanied by an open mind. Funnily enough, this applies regardless of gender, or age, or position, etc. But don't mind me. I'm female. I'm sure I need you to pander to me, and anything more I just wouldn't understand."



Me -

I think you misunderstood the whole point of me writing this. It wasn't a thesis on "womanhood" and why manhood is different or, God forbid, better, if anything, notice that I only poked fun at males. And that perspective (to make fun of your own gender) is typical of these sorts of articles. For example most of these types of articles are written by women, and they poke fun at women. This one was written by a man (or a boy if you prefer) and was designed to poke fun at men.

True, we can diverge into the realm of stereotypes (which I do believe on a macro scale holds some form of truth), but I believe where we seriously diverge from the same path is the notion that humanity is preferable before gender. It's like saying automobiles are more preferable to corvettes or that insects are more noble than the ant. To me it seems that the negation of particularity is the negation of personality - you can't throw one out and hope to keep the other.

But perhaps, since I have gone this far, I must continue to the root of the gender wars: Feminism. The problem with feminism is that it isn't feminine. The problem with feminism is that it is entirely unconcerned with feminism and entirely concerned with masculinity. In one fell swoop and perhaps with a wave of a much more dully colored flag, they usher in Protagoras as their god and cry out, "Man is the measure of all things: of things which are, that they are, and of things which are not, that they are not." Feminism, with all their secular philosophy, assumes that the fulfillment of womanhood is simply completed by doing what men do, and along the way they drop the divine notion that they were created by God for a much greater, and wholly different, purpose.



Sealhy Nendyek -

Feminists. Evil bra-burners & man haters. Their 'secular philosophy' is what exactly? Social & economic equality? How horrifying. The freedom to define their own femininity that may or may not conform to someone else's 'ideal woman'? How dare they. It's not about who's stronger, or what roles someone needs to be confined to. It's not about defining someone else's femininity or masculinity for them. I was born female. I identify as female. Therefore I am feminine. There is no set standard that I have to conform to in order to claim that. The exact same thing goes everyone else. You think feminists only have a problem when people try to define women? That we could care less about society's rigid gender roles for men? You're right. That's terrible. We should just let well enough alone. Things like rape culture, gender discrimination, male centric standards of beauty don't exist. After all, if we reduce feminism to a ridiculous caricature, then we can convince hordes of people that it means something that it doesn't. Men and women are different. Just like men are different than other men, and women are different from other women. You reduce everyone's individuality to a simple black and white box.



Me -

I apologize Ashley, but if you received the notion that I thought Feminists were man-haters then I misstated. I meant to say that they obsess over men, they think their grass is much too green. Hence my pun to Protagoras about man being the standard for all things. But before I begin I would like to make one thing clear, I'll be responding to feminism's ideals. In otherwords, I'll argue where they erred, I am not providing the solution.

Let's begin with economic equality because that's the most fascinating. If we go back one-hundred years, we'll see a very different America. An America that viewed a traditional set of ideals: men went to work, women stayed at home, children had to learn. When Feminists came to centre stage it revolted against this tradition. But what's fascinating is how they did it.

First, the home was altered from a house to a prison compound. The perception was deftly one-sided - a woman at home is a woman unused. While a man is away exploring the depths of culture and the far-reaches of civilization, the woman was left at home to fiddler with her fingers. The most horrifying blindness of this one-sided approach is that it reduces children to worthlessness. In a conflagration the workplace became important and the home became the burning stake.

Second, the work place was glorified as the chisel against their chains. Again, notice the one-sidedness: give a woman a job and now she's worthwhile. Take away the women from the family, and now the family is complete. How is that? The lie that was eaten was that the world constituted everything outside the home when the opposite is true. It is the home that has made every civilization, and the job to keep it was given to the woman.

And third, the notion of economic equality is false advertising. It's false advertising because no one talks about the role of a job. People get jobs because people need money - we call this wage slavery. And I think rightly so. For feminism's response to this predicament was to give equal slavery to everyone. Again, notice the one-sidedness. They didn't expect the man to come home and be equal parents for their children, they sent the woman to the grinding stone and attack the family.

Next, I'll move to your definition of femininity. It seems as though you're comfortable in saying your feminine because of a certain organ arrangement. I suppose I must have misspoken when I thought that speaking about women was to address a lofty set of ideals, it appears in your case it was some sort of cosmic accident. Either way, your definition prohibits any freedom of the will.

And your last point. It is true, men and women are different from each other, also men are different from other men, but I do believe we have something going for us when we still call all the men in the room men. The ideals of man is to be a protector and provider, the ideals for a woman is to train up and guide. Do we really wish to argue that the protector is worth more than what is being protected? Is the treasure chest really worth more than the treasure?

What Women Talk

There is nothing worse than an unsophisticated male spending a night reading article upon article on how women should understand men. Women need to understand that men need their space; Women need to understand that men could care less about emotional rollercoasters; Women need to understand that men care even if they don't say so; Women need to understand that men only need six objects in their bathroom (toilet paper being three of them... For those who are guessing a toothbrush, tooth paste, and deodorant complete the six necessary objects.) And the list goes on and on and on. What I propose is to write a male's take upon this nasty subject. What I propose is that a male should try to understand a woman. No, on second thought, I propose something less sophisticated than that. I propose to take a moment of silence, and then read a few topical paraphrases on some common sense male perspective. As the old adage goes, “Let us know thine enemy.”

 

Empty Calorie Talk:

Men, you're going to have to roll with me on this one. The empty calorie talk will seem like the longest, most unfruitful talk of your life – but I promise you it will become the largest bomb ever dropped if you don't recognize it when it happens. Imagine yourself having a graceful moment with death and you want to realize how fortunate you really are to be alive. True, deciding to use your dad's rickety ladder on the first story roof to get to your second story roof wasn't a smart idea. But now you're on the ground. You're happy, satisfied, and need nothing more to complete your moment. However, up walks a woman you know and she begins saying, “You wouldn't believe how horrible this is!!! My Bff's brother's girlfriend who's long lost cousin was at a bookstore who somehow got there by mistake because her aunt didn't respond to her text because she was out town because her husbands sister's bff has an amazing summer house and invited the entire family... blah blah blah.” You've already tuned out everything she's saying because you're simply satisfied with embracing the simple beauty of life. After relating this dreadfully awful story, you know an obvious solution to her uncanny predicament. DON'T SAY IT! If it's an obvious answer, then it's a sign that you've been lead into an Empty Calorie Talk. Your response is simple. You look her in the eyes, pause (for effect), and then say, “I understand, and that's really terrible.” Yes. That's right, then entire hour it took for her to convey her story could be answered in one sentence. She doesn't want a solution, she wants understanding. And that's why it's the empty calorie talk – no answers, no opinions, just understanding... You can even bring up some similar situations from your past to justify your position.

The Tea Time Special:

This is the talk between talks, so it's a bit more special and a bit more devastating if you get it wrong. These are those short phone calls or sporadic text messages. No woman wants a fully committed conversation during these moments. She simply wants to know that you're “there”. No, I didn't say, “alive”. I said, “there”. Where? “There”. No one knows where that is, but it exists and you need to be there... No, not here, but there.

The Hot Cocoa with extra whipped cream sit down:

This is the semi-sweet small talk that every man is afraid of. Buckle yourself up and prepare for me to use the f-word: feelings. Guys have them, and women want to know about them. No, not always in a personal way, but in a feely sort of way. Let me explain. You watch a movie and she asks, “How did you like the movie?” You reply, “It was good.” WRONG! Obviously it had to be somewhat good or else she would be telling you how bad it was and it would become an empty calorie talk and she would only want you to understand and agree. What she is actually asking is, “How did this movie impact your normal thought-pattern in a new, improved, and, perhaps, deeper way? How do you 'feel' about the movie?” Make sense? Of course not, but it's true. Try to emphasize a feeling, an event, and then a past correlated event. Process – every man's dream.
 

The Midnight Snack:

The question of all questions, the question every man will ask, but no man will have an answer (spoiler: I don't have the answer either) is, “Why did you wait until I was asleep to talk about this?” Now guys, I know there are only two popular options: we continue to ask this question over and over again expecting a new answer or we do the infinitely worse thing by rolling over and going back to sleep. This goes for anything (text messages and nap-times are included). The midnight snack talk is exactly as it sounds – it can be quick and painless (if the food is available) or it could ruin the rest of the night (when you find out that your brother ate the last of the ice cream that you bought). And that's the decision you'll have to make. Something will be sacrificed. By the end of snack time you will have either lost fifteen minutes or fifteen hours (oh yes, if you manage to go back to sleep she'll be waiting for you in the morning. And it doesn't matter if you don't remember.). Oh, and this goes for any female in your life: friend, sister, or mother.

Things Not to Do:

1) The Monte Cristo – Being a Monte Cristo is effective only if you wish to execute vengeance on an entire social class and hope to escape unnoticed. As part of being a man is also being known. This may be more difficult for those that are shy and unwilling to entertain the idea of going out and starting a conversation. However, there is hope. When a conversation is started, express likes and dislikes. Maybe you give the one-liner and not the story, backstory, sub-plot, inspiring events, and the day you were born. Those may become important, but not now - Simply be known. The man behind the veil is a great stage performer – not a great life experience.

2) Don't lose an argument – Yes, you read this correctly. I said DON'T lose an argument. Every man knows what I mean, and every woman will understand in a moment (Perhaps you didn't know this ^_^). Ask yourself this question, “When you're in a heated discussion, has throwing up your hands and saying, 'Fine! You're right,' ever help the situation?” Doesn't that always produce the intended result? Doesn't she always reply, “Oh. Thank you for acknowledging my position and conceding your right to being correct. Would you like to forget that this argument ever happened?” Of course not. She then debates you on why you dropped the argument and assumes that you simply want to end the discussion. Or, most infamous of them all, she says, “So that's how it's going to be?” Yeah, every man knows that the discussion is about to get real. By the way, that deep sigh and rolling of the eyes won't help you in the long run.

Here's what you have to do: you have to fight like you're fighting a marlin. To win you have to lose, to lose you have to win. You pull in your big guns, and then let them fail. You pull in more of you big guns, and then let them fail. You pull in more of your big guns, and then let them fail. Do you understand the picture? If you hook a marlin, you can't simply reel it straight out of the water. You have reel her in, then let her swim out, then you have to reel her in, and then let her swim out, then you have to reel here in, and then let her swim out. How long must you do this? Well, there isn't a specific standard, but I can tell you it won't take eight hours. Simply repeat the process until saying, “Fine, you're right,” comes out naturally. She'll be happy, you'll be happy, the world will be happy, and, most importantly, the point you wanted to communicate is communicated.

Things to Do:

1) By-Cause – Men, we are all infamous of this. The original English words for because were By Cause. Later, this useful phrase became a contraction and wrote as By-Cause. And now, by-cause of the words popularity, we use the word Because. But let us go back in history and remember our former friend, By Cause. This is the point that makes all conversations worth having. No one is really interested in the fact that Christ rose from the dead, we are more interested, much more interested, in the reason why, or the by-cause, that lead to His crucifixion and eventual resurrection. We are not merely interested in being fired from our job, but desire to understand by-what-cause got us fired. Or perhaps when we decided to have that second ice cream without asking, we can justify our actions by-cause of our hard work. In any case, this old friend of ours is a cherished relic that won't be leaving us any time soon.

So what does this have to do with us men? We need to begin using this word more often – at least in our heads. When a woman walks in and says, “I've been shopping all day.” A simple, “Oh, that's nice.” isn't the most gratuitous act. If a woman we're infatuated with walks in and says, “I've been shopping all day,” simply replying, albeit much more emphatically, “Oh, that's nice!” still isn't the most gratuitous act. The problem isn't how emphatic, but in wondering why she was shopping. Most women trick us into this by walking into the door and asking, “Guess where I've been all day?” See what happened there? She's inviting you into the exhilarating experience of thinking the by-causes of her day. But why wait for the invitation? When a woman walks in and says, “I've been shopping all day,” think, for a moment, “Do I know all the by-causes in her shopping experience?” Of course not! Simply ask, “Why did you go to the store? Why did you buy spaghetti noodles and popcorn? Oh! Is that chocolate bar for me?” Okay, some questions are best left unasked, but do you understand the point? Because is the infinite reservoir of conversation and interest. As long as there is someone doing something and someone interested in why, the word because will exist. Use it.

The End:

And lastly, but definitely not least, is the truth. If you have read to the end it's because you're a female. If you happen to be a male, either you're in a tough situation (by which you are now desperately scourging google to find the answer and happen to fall upon this article) or you're being forced and you're trying to do the right thing. And that's exactly my point. Men already know this, they already know the right thing to do. But what makes a man a man (and not a woman) is that they know exactly what to do, ponder doing it, and then do the exact opposite. Fathers, I know you've looked at your son and have said this countless times. I know because I'm a son, and my father has given up saying it. He simply laughs and joins in – the true art of manship.

A Simple Truth

      There's no easy way to begin. Do we choose a catching story or a surprising fact; do we talk about the weather or say a few jokes? Those late night decisions seem to be more complex than the cosmos or more fragile than a few precious tea cups. But a choice must be made, a choice is always made. And when we find ourselves squirming our way out of a tight situation or looking over our shoulder to ensure our decision was for the best, we must always remember that in those times only a simply truth will take you the extra mile.

       Tonight I had to defend a point I did not agree. In debate I did this most naturally. If I had to defend wind energy, then God was the author and designer of wind energy and we will use it (God willing). If coal plants were the cobble stones that paved our future, then by God we would use them to build bridges between nations and place their sculptures on the highest of mountain peaks. Through these times I never understood my debate friends who couldn't do it themselves; who would rather bow out of a round instead of practicing their skills for when it mattered most: when they defended their love. But tonight I may have had a glimpse of all those moments. A shadowy image of the spy next door. This spiny and prickly friend that told them the secret I've been told now: It's not ingenuity or good intentions that takes you the extra mile but the simple truth.

       It wasn't how he said it or what he said that kept me awake, it was knowing how to do it. Do I choose a catching story or a surprising fact; do we talk about the weather or say a few jokes? It was a late night decision and it wasn't the most prosaic. It was as sharp as any piece of glass, and as organized as a chattered mirror with its thousand faces looking back. What I found in my defense was more than a point I didn't agree with, it was a point that had to be made. It's about the simple truth.

      Will the truth of this essay become obscured by an unknown event or a shadowed by an encoded message – I'm not sure which to believe. The night is passing on without me so I will end with a last message. I was once told that time allows us a small hallway to hang our portraits. They are not always the prettiest and they are not always the hallways we choose, but these portraits are the snapshots of our lives. They capture our moments and help us remember those times. But what makes our portraits fascinating and holds our attention day-in and day-out is that these were the times that made us someone else. So take a moment, lean back in your chair, and remember that the best portraits are always the ones when you spoke the simple truth – that is the beauty in pain and the love in joy.

A Professor's Advice on Revising Essays

        It's that time of year, the nights are becoming colder and the days becoming shorter. School bells are once more ringing down the street, and children are wondering from gas station to gas station collecting candy bars and soda. It's almost a shame that college students spend so much time inside studying instead of outside enjoying the season turn. As a toast to the new college semester, let me begin my series of writing tips with an essay “cheat” that one of my professors taught me.
         The most common problem with revising a recently written paper – if you don't have a firm understanding of grammar and English logic – is the difficulty in finding errors. Your eyes simply fly past them, your brain automatically corrects them (this is an embarrassing problem and spell check is 'Hades that follows.'). This exercise attempts to by-pass all those problems in a time efficient process.
         Before you begin, you'll need a few things. First, and most importantly, you'll need another human being – doesn't even have to be a friend. The only qualifications you'll be looking for is his reading ability. It needs to be at or above college level. In otherwords, your baby brother will be a bad choice. Second, find a pen, or something to write with. Third, two copies of your essay (have a finished first draft). Fourth, five minutes of time. And that's it.
        The exercise is simple. One copy of your essay is for your partner to read aloud, the other copy is for you to silently follow. As he reads follow him and note how he is reading your essay. Every time he makes an unusual pause or breaks his flow of speaking, circle the sentence. That sentence has a logic flaw. The reason we know this is because the brain has an auto-pattern identifier built right into it. Your reader may not understand this but every pause he makes sends his brain back on a quick journey to ensure what he has read is matching what's currently reading. The brain does this because it senses confusion. And confusion is what you're trying to avoid.

         And there you have it. If you need ten revisions, then have ten people read your essay. You can do it quickly, efficiently, and will improve your essay by leaps and bounds. Plus, your professor will love you for it – and we all know that's what matters most.

English Education 101

As I was sitting in my English Education Class, my professor told me her wonderful experiences with head start, a kindergarten/preschool age tutoring service. She told us the games they played, every day objects they talked about, how to properly form lines, and how they taught social etiquette. Then, she concluded, they spent a special time so a councilor could come to each class and have all the children take turns hugging a teddy bear. Woa, woa, woa! Rewind. We are teaching kindergarten and preschool aged children that love and affection can come from an inanimate object by the hands of a psychologist? Wait, it becomes much, much better.

We followed up with reading standards for first through third grade students. My professor thumbed through books such as 'Brown Bear, Brown Bear' and some other book about letters climbing trees. I apologize, but for those parents who are reading this post, have children in first through third grade, and have seen these books as school assignments should not be content with their child's grades. There should not be an echo of happiness. Your children are failing; Your children are being robbed of an education; and your local district councilor who was just hired sees nothing wrong with this.

G.K. Chesterton once said, "Any responsible man will teach his own child." I'm saying this not because I've been homeschooled, but because parents, by and large, will expect greater things from their children, will push their children farther beyond their perceived capacities, and will dedicate more time, money, and love than any teacher with thirty children or any psychologists who has written the lesson plans that are in my hands. I will use college as a case study.

It is widely known that the highest test scores, on average, come from college graduates with physics or philosophy degrees. Why? How is it that a humanities major, philosophy, competes with one of the most prestigious and most rigorous of the natural sciences? How is it that they often share the same seat at a college table? The reason is because of the material philosophy students are expected to understand. When we learn about Aristotle, we read his books (English Translations, of course). When we learn about Plato, we read his books. When we go over Kant, Descartes, Hume, Hegel, Nietzsche, or any other philosopher we are required to go beyond our mental capacity and learn from some of the greatest minds. We do not read someone's summary or another "professor's feelings" upon the matter. I am yet to take an economics class that requires us to understand "Individualism and Economic Order" (A series of essays) by Friedrich Hayek or John Keynes "The General Theory Of Employment Interest And Money". I am yet to take a political science class that requires us to understand Tocqueville, Rousseau, Locke, Marx (We may have read a paragraph about him somewhere in a remote article), or Hobbes. And I'm yet to take a psychology class that requires us to touch a book by Sigmund Freud. If we don't stretch our minds, they'll simply retract into imbecility.

But some will still ask, "What have we lost?" We have lost everything. We've lost the vigor of Marx when he writes, "The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win." We've lost the curiosity and obligation of Rousseau when he says, "As I was born a citizen of a free State, and a member of the Sovereign, I feel that, however feeble the influence my voice can have on public affairs, the right of voting on them makes it my duty to study them: and I am happy, when I reflect upon governments, to find my inquiries always furnish me with new reasons for loving that of my own country." And we have even forget Kant and his conclusion, "Thus pure reason presents us with the idea of a transcendental doctrine of the soul (psychologia rationalis), of a transcendental science of the world (cosmologia rationalis), and finally of a transcendental doctrine of God (theologia transcendentalis)." As Ray Bradbury once said, there's more than one way to burn a book; and our English education is doing a wonderful job.

In looking over our study programs, from childhood to college, from professor to student, from parent to parent, I have come to a single conclusion: We are no longer required to understand, we are simply required to repeat - and that alone should scare us.

The Eight Parts of Speech: Nouns

      Nouns are persons, places, things, ideas, or emotions in English. A helpful way to identify them is to place the words “an”, “a”, or “the” before the word. However, articles don't work before Proper Nouns.

There are five types of nouns:

1. Common Nouns
2. Proper Nouns
3. Concrete Nouns
4. Abstract Nouns
5. Collective Nouns
         ** Counting and Non-Counting Nouns

I. A common noun is a word that express run-of-the-mill people, places, things, emotions, and ideas. Word such as happiness, boy, and desk are such.

 

II. A Proper Noun is a word that express special people, places, things, emotions, and ideas. They are designated by capital letters.

What's the difference? Here is another way to look at the differences between common and proper nouns. Common nouns are a set of limited words that define general people, places, things, emotions, and idea. On the other hand, Proper Nouns are virtually limitless. If you can place copyright protection, then it's a Proper Noun.

III. A Concrete Noun is a word that express anything that can be communicated through the five senses: sight, sound, touch, taste, and scent.

IV. An Abstract Noun is a word that express anything that can't be communicated through the five senses. These nouns covey ideas and emotion.


What's the difference between Concrete and Abstract Nouns? The difference is the nature of the thing being conveyed. For example the word cloud is a concrete noun because it is conveying something that can be seen. However, Abstract nouns have the uncanny ability to convey anything that can't be communicable through the senses. When was the last time you touched happiness or saw Buddism? These are emotions and ideas – they can't be conveyed through sensational avenues.

[Writing Advice – Concrete {vs. Common} vs. Abstract Nouns] – Concrete Nouns lend support to English's ability to be precise in conversation and writing. Where an individual may tell us about the truck he drove to go shopping, we may instead tell the same story about a how a young boy drove his father's ford pick-up to the store so that he may purchase slippers for his mother. We may talk about the sweeping generalities, but it is often better to choose a concrete noun. And perhaps when we read, “Jesus wept.” we find more fascination than any author who wrote about the tears of clouds. Not only are concrete nouns more expressive and more vivid, but are able to capture the ideas moment better than abstract and common nouns.

V. A Collective Noun is a word that represent a collection of people, places, things, ideas, or emotions without being plural. These words include family, herd, flock, audience, orchestra, and so forth. However, unlike other nouns, collective nouns can be subdivided into counting and non-Counting nouns.

[A note on Collective Nouns] – Collective Nouns are special for one reason: they are singular unless you reference the internal members. What this means is unless you use a pronoun that references back to the noun (called a reflexive pronoun because it is reflecting) then a collective noun is always singular. For example, we can say, “Our family[singular] loves your cookies.” because the noun family is referencing a single unit. However, when we say, “Our family[plural] are arguing amongst themselves to determine if the cookies were popular.” we are using a reflexive pronoun (themselves) to draw attention to the members inside the unit. Most writers prefer to make this more obvious by writing, “Our family members are arguing amongst themselves to determine if the cookies were popular.”

[A note on Counting and Non-Counting Nouns] – The English language has special nouns called counting and non-counting nouns. The difference between counting and non-counting is that counting nouns must have “a” or “an” placed before them. This designates that the following noun is either “one among many” or “any one” and emphasizes that the noun is unknown to the reader (contrary to the word the which signifies that the noun is known to the reader).

A helpful reminder is that non-counting nouns – such as steel, knowledge, or jewelry – do not have plural forms. For example, saying, “Did your mother purchase a jewelry,” doesn't make sense. Neither saying, “Can you pass a sugar.” Passing a sugar cube? Perhaps. But passing a sugar? That's the sign you're working with a non-counting noun. If you're talking about one piece of jewelry or cupboards full of sugar, there exist no plural form.

Please note that, as with all eight parts of speech, a single word, depending on placement, can be located in multiple categories. For example, the word happiness is both a common and an abstract noun, or the word family is a concrete, common, collective noun.

Helpful Reminders:

• Nouns can be made plural or possessive.
• Can assume the following endings: player, justice, happiness, division, guidance, reference, pavement, childhood, kingdom, agency, tourist, sincerity, censorship.

Nouns can be used to modify other nouns; they are called noun adjectives.


And that is everything you will ever need to know about nouns.

** You can click on the image below for a larger picture.

The Eight Parts of Speech: A Continued Adventure

    To my fellow class mates and to my friends and to my companions on this dark road, I reach out to you. English writing was never invented for the feint of heart, but the heart that goes on without bursting. English grammar was never invented for the mathematician or the logicians, but for those who wish step away from the rigidity of science and embark on the meaning of sound. I reach out to you to offer simple gestures that will make the road a bit more straight.
   For every stage performance we are given the actor; for every movie we are shown the face; but who may own the credence of well written prose? Where do we look when we find ourselves lost in time with our favorite book? Or, perhaps, when we begin to understand a new concept, who can we thank? I'm most sorry to inform you that there is only one word - one, single, unpolished, unloved, unforgotten word. Grammar.
     What I hope to accomplish in a series of articles on the eight parts of speech is nothing less than what a small flicker of candlelight means to a lone traveler. By breaking the world's lingua franca into eight simple parts, I intend to do what many will miss in a college class room. I hope to give understanding to an otherwise frustrating art. I hope to reduce hours of tedious work to minutes of reading. I hope to reduce the late night diagraming into a perfect luncheon memorization activity. I hope to give the twinkling of a single candlelight along a vast, empty road.

Sincerely,
ShadowTitan9997

P.S. But remember, there are two times in your life that you will be impelled to take a moment of silence. In the first case it is in those times when someone has died. In the second case, it is in those times when one is about to die. And English grammar is one of those exceptional things which has slain the living and quicken the dead.



-------------------------------------------------
Part One: Nouns
Part Two: Adjectives
Part Three: Pronouns
Part Four: Interjections
Part Five: Prepositions
Part Six: Conjunctions

The King's Speech - A Response Essay

        Like an evening star, every sport, every hobby, and every profession has mined wisdom from the phrase, “practice makes perfect.” It doesn't make a difference if you're a football player, a chess fanatic, or a poker player, if you don't practice, you'll be as wanted as a leather chair on a hot summer day. But for some unbeknownst reason we forget to make that connection with public speaking. Public Speaking is a fine art that requires just as much practice to make perfect. After watching the King's Speech and attending my Communication 301 class at Sacramento City College, I've learned three important aspects of public speaking: Rehearsal, Weakness, and Communicating.

        One of the first things that are thrown out with the baby is rehearsal. Often we'll visualize our audience, organize a fluent outline, and, in the best of nights, have a wonderful PowerPoint presentation. All of these things are the bare minimum for a successful presentation. However, I learned that vocalizing your practice speeches, instead of memorizing it in your mind, gives you that cutting edge for a fluent speech. Time and again, in the King's speech, the Duke of York was required to rehearse out loud not only his speeches but also his intonations, enunciation, and other verbal ques. It's not enough to have a well-ordered mind, but also a well-ordered mouth. In my Communication class we were given the opportunity to recited our speeches at least four times before small groups. Of course, this is in addition to the practice sessions that my siblings and parents are dragged into. However, this was a perfect opportunity to practice how my speech would sound, where the blood clots were, potentially fatal pauses, and places were we may want to stress a bit more “umpf”. In other words, when we practice our speech, we need to practice in situations as if we were delivering the real thing.
         The second aspect that I learned is probably the most overlooked aspect of any sport or art: weakness. Many a night, we are drilled with the notion of perfecting our strength, strength, and strength. However, if we fail to identify what stops our clocks, what really makes the audience squirm in their seats, then no matter how well spoken we may be, our weaknesses will glare our audiences into submission. In the King's Speech, the Duke of York understood that despite his earnest sincerity to do well for his country. If he couldn't control his stammer his, country would look right past him. So he took steps to control his stammer. In my Communication 301 class, I learned that failing to delivery important points in the context that you're given isn't only an opportunity to perfect an art, but also a weakness that I desperately needed to address. To become an effective speaker, I need to learn how to cut down the oak and plant the acorn. Simplify, Simplify, Simplify.

        And lastly, Communication. When people think of communication they tend to fly for two stereotypes: a formal speech given at Victorian dinner, accented with Austinian calibre language, or a down to earth “homie-buddy-buddy” style that attacks every notion of good form. What we forget is that the art of communication is communicating. In the final scene of the King's Speech, the Duke of York is required to give a global military address. They've been practicing, practicing, and practicing, but the speech isn't coming out quiet right. It's time to give his speech. They're escorted to the speaking room. The door is close. The light is blinking. And just before the light signals to commence his speech, Lionel, the Duke of York's speech therapist, standing on the other side of the Duke's microphone, says, “Speak, speak like you're talking to me.” I learned in my public speaking class that the art of communication is learning how to speak to your audience as if you were friends, as if you were talking to them.

        I believe that if we take the time to rehearse our speeches exactly as we are to give them – out loud and clear – learn to identify our weaknesses and account for them in our speaking opportunities, and learn how to simply communicate, like friends, to your audience then we are one step closer to achieving our goals. But too often we find ourselves shouting the same words as King George V. “Just do it!” We're frustrate because we're not seeing our actions align with our perception: public speaking appears to be leaps and bounds easier than it we often give credit. I'm thankful for the opportunity to analyze this movie and to participate in a class that explores the fine art of public speaking.

4th of July - A Late Repost from Facebook

"Today we celebrate our 236th year anniversary of America's Declaration of Independence. Fifty-six men bravely pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their honor against a government which claimed the right to "bind us in all cases whatsoever." A government that pulled down our legislative authority; a government that deprived us our right to a fair and speedy trial; and a government that subjected us to foreign laws. Fifty-six men believed that no government, no matter how large their armies nor how powerful their lawyers, has no right to take away that which God has given. Today we remember America's pledge that it is better to commit High Treason than watch a Tyrant strip us our rights.

- To High Treason."

The Night of a Birthday

To conclude this night, and to put a close to this event, I have one thing to add concerning the great debate between quality and quantity. One may concede that quality has taken the day when we see the vast superficiality of our acts and the momentary delights fall to the wayside. However, another may be taken by force when no feint number has lifted a heavy burden and supplied a vast chimera who comes to brilliant end. But to both I must concede they are wrong.

By God's mercies one may have both quantity and quality. To those who came, I thank you for a lively night full of enjoyable games, embarrassing moments, and comedic injuries. The memories will haunt your paths and provide too many antagonistic comments to keep your lives peaceful. To those who could not attend, I thank you for being by my side for another year and for providing moments to stunt my pride, boost my humility, and grant the gift of a good conversation. And yet, to a few I know that time and distance has kept our conversations short and far between, you have continued to be in my thoughts, prayers, and conversations. I hope and pray that another year will bring greater understanding and greater insight that God provides both quality and quantity, and that one must simply look around to see His blessings.

The Problem of Evil: A Facebook Response

Hello Nealroed (name altered for privacy). I'm not sure how this picture responds to the previous points that I brought up, so I'll count them dropped and "crack on."

There are several things wrong with this picture, and I'll point them out one by one.

First, the conclusion of this image is "Then why is there evil?" This conclusion misrepresents the scope and depth of the problem of evil's proposed claims. The Problem of Evil isn't attempting to ask the Christian "Why is there evil?" it is attempting to draw a logical contradiction between the notion of a OOO God and Evil co-existing. If it were trying to ask, "Then why is there evil?" any answer that has enough explanatory power and explanatory scope would suffice the problem. So, my first point is that this image misrepresents the conclusion found in the Problem of Evil (the version we are speaking of. Granted there are different one depending on the scope, depth, and condition. Our argument concerns the category we call evil.) by exchanging the argument from a logical contradiction with a question concerning the fact.

Second, this image ignores the implications of God's Omni-attributes. I'll begin by listing each attribute, detail the improper implication that the image draws, and then argue why the correct view of that concerned attribute holds and disproves the contradiction.

- God is All Powerful or Omnipotent. The image asks a simple question," Can God stop Evil?" However, this simple question has a hidden facet - namely, the exclusion of 'all'. The question isn't about, "Can God stop some evil," or "Can God stop a evil," or "Can God stop evil once it has begun to act," but really asks, "Can God stop 'all' Evil 'from existing'?" This latter form of the question misses two important qualifications for omnipotence: logical implications and qualifications of other attributes. Here, I'll explain the logical implications, afterwards, I'll explain, along with the other attributes, the collective qualification of the attributes.

As I have argued in prior posts, omnipotence means that God is all-powerful but doesn't necessarily mean that God can to anything and everything. This is because there exists linguistic and logical paradoxes that cannot make sense (notice I don't say, "wouldn't" because can implies ability rather than preference.). Thus, it wouldn't follow that if God is Omnipotent then God could create a square-circle (Unless it's the Triangle Square in Southern California ^_^). So the point here is that omnipotence is qualified by logic. In a little bit, I'll come back and argue how it is qualified by other attributes.

- God is All Knowing or Omniscience. The image asks a straightforward question that has a very straightforward answer. Does God know about evil? Yes. However, this image errs in the aspect of how God's knowledge is understood to be applied. Most often people assume that what God knows is what God does and what God does is what he knows. This image seems to advocate this position because of how it connects this idea of a "test" to the question "why is there evil?" There are several responses to this and I'll delineate them below:

First, this is false because if God knows what he does and does what he knows, then Omniscience is simply a reformation of Omnipotence. But this cannot be the case because it is fairly reasonable to assume that the power to execute an action is not a prerequisite to any knowledge concerning that act. For example, it would be perfectly reasonable to say that I have an epistemological justification that if I throw a baseball at you that you will catch it. However, it seems irrational to respond, after you caught the ball, "You don't have any justification for your belief because you didn't make it happen."

Second, we must understand the knowledge of God in reference to space and time. Now this image is odd because it poses an argument that most people wouldn't even think about arguing because it is so abstract (I applaud the image). What the image is stating is that God knows not only the actualities but also the potentialities of all acts. And if God knows the potentiality of all acts then they would count for the actuality of those acts. Now the problem with what the image states is two part, the first part is what will be addressed here - the problem of an actual act by looking at the nature of God's knowledge in connection with an act - and the second - evil being a test - which will be addressed next.

When we speak about what God knows, in reference to space and time, we are saying that what God knows is what we have freely chosen and that God knows this because he is outside time. So, to exemplify what I mean, the question may be asked, "If God knows that I will steal something tomorrow, then do I really have a choice that I will steal something tomorrow?" The answer is yes because God is outside time. We can further ask, "If, hypothetically, I would not have stolen anything tomorrow would God know it?" The answer is yes, because God is outside time. This notion, without getting too complicated, is derived from the notion that if God is outside of time, he is not bound by the limited scope that time offers to us. We could some this point in one sentence, "What God knows will happen has happened."

Third, the argument that evil is a test fails to understand the nature of evil and free-will. Now, this isn't necessarily a problem with omniscience, but since the connection was made in the image I'll respond to it here. Evil is a moral judgment concerning an act. But the question that necessarily follows is, "Which acts are moral and which acts are not?" And this is where we find the logical necessity for free-will and the principle that "ought implies can."

For a moral universe to exist, the individual must not only be responsible for their own actions but also be capable of acting out those acts. We can find this to be true by rationalizing the concepts of a act that one is not responsible for (how could we say that since Bob stole a car, that Jim did an evil act) or rationalizing the concept of an act being driven, necessarily, by a prior cause (If Bob pushed Jim into the street, then Jim is responsible for committing suicide). So I think it is mistaken to say that evil is simply a "test". More properly, evil is a by-product, necessarily, of a moral universe which necessitates free-will.

- God is All Loving or Omnibenevolent. This attribute ought to be more simple to capture because being all-loving is a common human strife. However, taken in a vacuum, this isn't a Christian concept at all. The image argues that an all-loving God will do anything to demonstrate his love. But this isn't the case. God isn't simply all-loving, but also just.

This is where Islam and Christianity drastically diverge, among other things. The islamic god, Allah, is either just or loving; But when he is just he is unloving and when he is loving he is unjust. Contrarily, the Christian God suffices both love and justice in the substitutionary sacrifice of the cross. This is what makes Christianity insanely unique - that while God is all-loving, evil must be severely punished. And that is what we find in the concept of the cross: an act of severe love but also an act of severe punishment. So you cannot take omnibenevolence outside the context of God's justice.

Third, in wrapping all these attributes together, we are left with one final question, "Could God have created a universe without free-will?" I would say it depends on what you mean. If you mean to say, "Could God create a universe without free-will but contain moral properties?" I would say no. But if you meant, "Could God simply have created an amoral universe without free-will?" I don't see why not.

In concluding this response, I would like to say one more thing. The Problem of Evil seems to be a problem derived from either a misrepresentation of the omni-attributes and the concept of good and evil or it is derived from the seemingly unfair idea that human do bad things. However, as the above testifies, I do not believe that either give us a good reason to deny that the OOO God exists, let alone attempt to call it a logical contradiction.