Got it Peoples in effect groups of groups of people Or as I recall a reporter commenting on a large gathering 'We have peoples from around the world here today' Thanks again
Yes, "people" is a singular noun that can add an S to become a plural noun: "peoples." But it's a little awkward, so I try hard not to use it in my own writing. If I write, "The U.S. government has not treated our native peoples very well," I'm attempting to refer to the tribes: the Navajo, the Apache, the Hopi, the Sioux, the Cherokee and the dozens of others, many of which have a very small number of members. But I fear that when a person reads that sentence, he's going to have to stop and figure out the grammar before he'll understand what I wrote. So I would rather write, "... have not treated our native tribes very well." I could also write "our aboriginal people," which would be acceptable in Australia, but in the USA many people--of both European and Native ancestry--consider it a bit of an insult. Many American writers will only use "people" as a singular noun if the sentence is complimentary. For example, "the Scots are a thrifty people."
Skulduggery means activity that is devious, underhanded, dishonest, fraudulent, deceitful etc. I'm not sure where the word comes from, though, but probably Scottish. It's a noun: one engages in skulduggery. It's not an adjective, and I'm not even sure what the adjective for such a word might be. shenanigans is usually a plural word (I've never seen it in the singular, and not sure it is ever used in the singular) meaning silly, mischievous behaviour, often dishonest. Again, not sure of where it comes from, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was from Gaelic... just because it sounds best when said with an Irish accent. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! What's the context? There's a phrase "elephant in the room" that refers to a big issue that everyone is aware of but no one wants to mention. So a "dancing elephant" probably refers to such an elephant that is somewhat ridiculous. It is also a reference, possibly, to Walt Disney's "Fantasia" which, if memory serves, has a sequence with dancing elephants. This possibly came after the origin of the phrase, though.
It's an American word. The origin is unclear, although there is a Scottish word "skullduddery" that refers to fornication. No. That's just a coincidence. No. It's a noun. It refers to mischief and silly activities. It's usually used in the plural. "What kind of shenanigans are those children up to today?" It's an American word, but no one seems to know where it came from. I've never heard of that one, sorry. I can't find a reference to it anywhere. In circuses, people train elephants to dance. Perhaps this is simply a reference to an actual event. The largest circus company in the USA, Barnum & Bailey, is closing down. There will be no more dancing elephants in our country. Elephants are extremely social and like to take long walks. It's rather cruel to keep them cooped up in small enclosures, doing silly tricks for an audience.
Elephant dance A man can perform the Elephant Dance while naked. It's done by simply twisting your hips back and forth encouraging your penis to "slap" his hips. My lady always asks me to do the Elephant Dance when I get out of the shower. Urban dictionary https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Elephant dance&=true&defid=4501500
I should have guessed that it would be about sex. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
My guess would have been alcohol as an extension from Pink Efalumps Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
It is an Italian phrase. In opera, the leading lady was referred to as the prima donna (literally: first lady). They often had a reputation for being demanding, requiring things in a certain way that put their needs above others, and usually got what they wanted because they were who everyone would come to see. These days it is a phrase to describe someone/anyone who is similarly vain, difficult to work with because of their demands of others, not good working in teams, and generally obnoxious, while having at least some modicum of talent that means they are tolerated.
how to differentiate between deduction and induction? can you give me examples so that I can remember easily?
This isn't strictly a question about language. Deduction example: here's the classic: "All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal." The third sentence (the conclusion) is a deduction from the first two sentences (the premisses). Deduction is where no other conclusion is possible given the premisses. Induction example: "Every swan I have ever seen is white. Therefore, all swans are white." This is different from deduction because, given the premiss, it is still possible that the conclusion is wrong. The inductive argument is an argument from experience or regularity. It's valid reasoning, but not definitely correct. The logic isn't inescapable as it is with deduction.
Just a point of precision, or lack thereof... to conclude "therefore all swans are white" is actually invalid. The valid form would be along the lines of "therefore probably all swans are white", or "therefore we expect all swans to be white". The valid form of an inductive argument can not be absolute the way a deductive argument can be, and should leave open the possibility of being wrong. A syllogism is a logical argument that applies deductive reasoning to two (or more) premises. E.g. P1 - All men are mortal. P2 - Socrates is a man. C1 - Therefore Socrates is mortal. C1, the conclusion, is reached through deductive reasoning from the premises P1 and P2. This structure falls under the label of a syllogism. Syllogistic is the adjective derived from syllogism.
I remember writing that, but I don't remember when or why, and I can't find the original post. In any case, there are certainly degrees of wrongness! Perhaps measured by how much work it would take to make it right? Electing Backward Baby Bush was wrong. Electing Donald Trump was very wrong!
My expectation was, that as a member of staff, you would be aware by hitting the little up arrow in the quote box you would be returned to relevant post. It is not a long one and your sentence can be found be low point 3 from Saint. So, your argument is that wrong is not an absolute. If true, the qualification is valid. (If true, but it would have to be very true.)
