deepundergroundpoetry.com
DO YOU KNOW ?
DO YOU KNOW ?
There is danger that the faith in Christ
will disappear soon through mean neglect.
Christians are too careless of their creeds;
secularism is at full speed.
What are we doing for such a Lord
Who endured the pain and died for us?
Are who preach to us aware of that
or are they too busy building fame ?
Why don't we get married and have kids?
Does that impede us to enjoy life ?
Does life exist just for dying flesh ?
Has the soul expired all its love ?
BY JOSEPH ZENIEH
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
____________________________________
There is danger that the faith in Christ
will disappear soon through mean neglect.
Christians are too careless of their creeds;
secularism is at full speed.
What are we doing for such a Lord
Who endured the pain and died for us?
Are who preach to us aware of that
or are they too busy building fame ?
Why don't we get married and have kids?
Does that impede us to enjoy life ?
Does life exist just for dying flesh ?
Has the soul expired all its love ?
BY JOSEPH ZENIEH
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
____________________________________
Published 18th Feb 2020
All writing remains the property of the author. Don't use it for any purpose without their permission.
likes 0
reading list entries 0
comments 28
reads 261
Commenting Preference:
The author encourages honest critique.
18th Feb 2020 2:35pm
Five questions:
1. What is the intended meter of each of the lines of this submission?
2. Do you realize that given the syntax of this line
Are those who preach us aware of that
you are saying that "we" are the subject of certain preachers' sermons?
3. Is "impede us to" good English? If so, how so?
4. When the verb "expire" is used transitively, as you do here, it means "to breath out, emit"
(https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/expire).
So are you asking if a soul has emitted all it's love? If so, why are you asking this question?
5. What does the second half of your submission have to do with the first half?
1. What is the intended meter of each of the lines of this submission?
2. Do you realize that given the syntax of this line
Are those who preach us aware of that
you are saying that "we" are the subject of certain preachers' sermons?
3. Is "impede us to" good English? If so, how so?
4. When the verb "expire" is used transitively, as you do here, it means "to breath out, emit"
(https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/expire).
So are you asking if a soul has emitted all it's love? If so, why are you asking this question?
5. What does the second half of your submission have to do with the first half?
18th Feb 2020 3:00pm
Why don't you become certain of your facts before criticising others. People will soon despise your criticism. Look up the word PREACH in LONGMAN DICTIONARY OF CONTEMPORARY ENGLISH before correcting others. The critic who makes such a mistake is not worthy of reading his lengthy, meaningless criticism.
I know what "preach" means. But the meaning of "preach" is not at issue. The issue is the fact that your syntax indicates that "us" is direct object of the verb and therefore the content of what is preached. Sorry, but as Longman's shows
(https://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/preach)
you needed to write "to us" to have conveyed the idea that the message of the preachers you speak about was/is a bastardized version of what is professed in the creeds.
And without an evidenced based demonstration that shows that your claim that the other (hardly lengthy) criticisms I make of your piece are meaningless **are** what you say they are, there's no reason for anyone here to take what you say seriously.
(https://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/preach)
you needed to write "to us" to have conveyed the idea that the message of the preachers you speak about was/is a bastardized version of what is professed in the creeds.
And without an evidenced based demonstration that shows that your claim that the other (hardly lengthy) criticisms I make of your piece are meaningless **are** what you say they are, there's no reason for anyone here to take what you say seriously.
He preaches them the word of God. Or he preaches the word of God to them. When we have THEM first, we use it without to. I know we can use it with TO, but here what the preachers preach is known. This is poetry, Baldwin.
According to the rhythm, l know that you know only the IAMBIC. I am not ready to teach you the others. If you don't know them, you will have to learn them by yourself.
According to the rhythm, l know that you know only the IAMBIC. I am not ready to teach you the others. If you don't know them, you will have to learn them by yourself.
18th Feb 2020 4:54pm
"He preaches them the word of God. Or he preaches the word of God to them."
But that's not what you said. You said he "preaches us". There's no mention of "the word of God" here or anywhere else in your piece.
And the fact that your submission is (an attempt at) poetry is no excuse for not writing clearly
BTW, I did not ask you to teach me anything about rhythm in poetry. I asked what the rhythm was that you set each of your lines in. I suspect that the reason you have dodged that question is that you don't want to admit that the meter of your lines is not regular let alone consistent from line to line.
And what's with your charge that the only rhythm I know is iambic. Since I have more than once sent you pieces set out in good trochaic meter, your charge is a false one.
But that's not what you said. You said he "preaches us". There's no mention of "the word of God" here or anywhere else in your piece.
And the fact that your submission is (an attempt at) poetry is no excuse for not writing clearly
BTW, I did not ask you to teach me anything about rhythm in poetry. I asked what the rhythm was that you set each of your lines in. I suspect that the reason you have dodged that question is that you don't want to admit that the meter of your lines is not regular let alone consistent from line to line.
And what's with your charge that the only rhythm I know is iambic. Since I have more than once sent you pieces set out in good trochaic meter, your charge is a false one.
18th Feb 2020 5:00pm
18th Feb 2020 5:14pm
"My poems are not an attempt at writing poetry, but your poetry is."
Another dodge of the questions I asked you. As to the rather puzzling and self contradictory claim that my poetry is an attempt at writing poetry, have a look at what people have said in regard to what I have posted on my page. Given that you've claimed that the fact that people have said they liked what you write is good reason to say that what you write is poetry, you'll have to admit, unless you want to brand yourself as a hypocrite who does not allow to others what he allows for himself, that what I write **is** poetry or else say that those who have said I write well have no sense of what poetry, let alone good poetry, is.
Another dodge of the questions I asked you. As to the rather puzzling and self contradictory claim that my poetry is an attempt at writing poetry, have a look at what people have said in regard to what I have posted on my page. Given that you've claimed that the fact that people have said they liked what you write is good reason to say that what you write is poetry, you'll have to admit, unless you want to brand yourself as a hypocrite who does not allow to others what he allows for himself, that what I write **is** poetry or else say that those who have said I write well have no sense of what poetry, let alone good poetry, is.
18th Feb 2020 5:03pm
I see now that you've changed your "Are those who preach us aware of that" to "Are who preach to us aware of that". But this is to exchange one solecism for another. To be grammatically correct, your line should read "Are those who preach to us ..."
And it is unclear what those who preach to us are unaware of, let alone that the content of what those who preach to us actually preach is somehow neglectful of what's professed in the creeds.
And it is unclear what those who preach to us are unaware of, let alone that the content of what those who preach to us actually preach is somehow neglectful of what's professed in the creeds.
18th Feb 2020 7:11pm
You oblige me to say that it is not solecism in both cases, but l changed it just for flexibility. Are those who preach to us. WHO PREACH TO US: is a relative clause. Are WHO PREACH US: is a noun clause. In both cases there is no solecism. If you review your grammar, you will agree with me.
Nope. "Are who preach us" is not a noun clause. Relative pronouns do not function as subjects of a sentence.
https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/relative-clauses/
Cue the misreading and misinterpretation or the ignoring of the data set out on what's at this link.
And even if "are who preach us ..." was a noun clause, it still conveys the idea that the content of the preaching mentioned is "us". Given that this is not what you claim you meant to be seen or understood to be the content of the preaching mentioned, it is "an ungrammatical combination of words in a sentence".
https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/relative-clauses/
Cue the misreading and misinterpretation or the ignoring of the data set out on what's at this link.
And even if "are who preach us ..." was a noun clause, it still conveys the idea that the content of the preaching mentioned is "us". Given that this is not what you claim you meant to be seen or understood to be the content of the preaching mentioned, it is "an ungrammatical combination of words in a sentence".
18th Feb 2020 8:34pm
Baldwin, you have no idea about English grammar.
Who plays football should have strong body.
SOMEBODY should have strong body. What kind of clause is WHO PLAYS FOOTBALL?
Are WHO PREACH TO US aware of that ?
Are THEY aware of that ? What is the clause WHO PREACH TO us?
Can you tell me what the SUBORDINATING CONJUNCTIONS used to introduce the noun clauses are?
Who plays football should have strong body.
SOMEBODY should have strong body. What kind of clause is WHO PLAYS FOOTBALL?
Are WHO PREACH TO US aware of that ?
Are THEY aware of that ? What is the clause WHO PREACH TO us?
Can you tell me what the SUBORDINATING CONJUNCTIONS used to introduce the noun clauses are?
18th Feb 2020 8:56pm
Nope. This would only be correct grammatically if it read "whoever plays foot ball ...." or "the one/anyone who wants to play football ..."
In any case, you are still dodging speaking directly to the more important issues I raised about your submission, let alone showing that the expression "who preach us" is semantically the same in meaning as who preached to us" and does not convey the idea that the content of the preaching you mention is "us".
In any case, you are still dodging speaking directly to the more important issues I raised about your submission, let alone showing that the expression "who preach us" is semantically the same in meaning as who preached to us" and does not convey the idea that the content of the preaching you mention is "us".
18th Feb 2020 9:13pm
You really surprise me. You have no idea about English grammar. Is that possible? I think it's useless to waste my time with you.
18th Feb 2020 9:18pm
Another dodge, especially since most of what I've asked you to speak to is not about grammar.
"I think it's useless to waste my time with you."
Apparently you don't see that the implication of this claim is that it's useful to spend your time.with me.
Hmm. It looks like I'm not the one who doesn't know how to say what he/she means.
Apparently you don't see that the implication of this claim is that it's useful to spend your time.with me.
Hmm. It looks like I'm not the one who doesn't know how to say what he/she means.
18th Feb 2020 9:42pm
18th Feb 2020 10:11pm
"that," "which," "who," "whoever," "whomever," "whose," "what," and "whatsoever." also subordinating conjunctions "how," "when," "where," "whether," and "why."
But the question is whether noun clauses that begin with "who" need an explicit antecedent noun or demonstrative pronoun (those, he, etc.) to be grammatically correct, not to mention sensible.
But the question is whether noun clauses that begin with "who" need an explicit antecedent noun or demonstrative pronoun (those, he, etc.) to be grammatically correct, not to mention sensible.
18th Feb 2020 10:22pm
WHO: IS ONE OF THEM. WHY DID YOU SAY THE RELATIVE PRONOUNS don't function as subjects of a sentence? Is not the subject a noun, and can't it be replaced by a noun clause?
Yes but relative clauses are adjective clauses, not noun clauses
that are the subjects of verbs. For "are who preach to us" to be one it needs to include a word like "those" or the expression " the ones", otherwise it has no noun.
that are the subjects of verbs. For "are who preach to us" to be one it needs to include a word like "those" or the expression " the ones", otherwise it has no noun.
18th Feb 2020 10:52pm
19th Feb 2020 3:33pm
Go here https://app.grammarly.com/ddocs/699990166
and click on what it says about your use of "who" and what your line needs if it is to be grammatically correct.
and click on what it says about your use of "who" and what your line needs if it is to be grammatically correct.
19th Feb 2020 7:20pm
Is it not so that standing as the cause
of the rise of modern man’s
abandonment of what’s professed
to be the true essentialities
of being a disciple of the Christ
has naught to do
with any rampant rise of
secularity
but centers in the fact
that those who claim to act in Jesus’ stead
to know what Scripture says
about what Jesus wants of us
and how we are to manifest
his presence in the world
are seen in what they preach
is true virtue,
to be among those who,
and most profoundly, too,
engage in a refusal to abide
by what is said in Matthew 25
about what any Christos follower must do
to be acceptable to God,
profane and make a shambles of his name?
In other words,
it's more rejection of hypocrisy
impelling a believing “man” to grow “unchurched”,
than any lures that promise one
the worldly gains that might be offered by
un-sainted worlds.
of the rise of modern man’s
abandonment of what’s professed
to be the true essentialities
of being a disciple of the Christ
has naught to do
with any rampant rise of
secularity
but centers in the fact
that those who claim to act in Jesus’ stead
to know what Scripture says
about what Jesus wants of us
and how we are to manifest
his presence in the world
are seen in what they preach
is true virtue,
to be among those who,
and most profoundly, too,
engage in a refusal to abide
by what is said in Matthew 25
about what any Christos follower must do
to be acceptable to God,
profane and make a shambles of his name?
In other words,
it's more rejection of hypocrisy
impelling a believing “man” to grow “unchurched”,
than any lures that promise one
the worldly gains that might be offered by
un-sainted worlds.
Do you call that poetry? The first part is a run on sentence too complicated to be understood.
Only if you have no imagination or ability to read grammatical correct lines.
And if I am not mistaken, you have written run-on sentences and still proclaimed that the submissions they appeared in were poetry.
And if I am not mistaken, you have written run-on sentences and still proclaimed that the submissions they appeared in were poetry.
19th Feb 2020 9:45pm
Always?? Really?
As Grammarly shows, I was/am not mistaken about your need to use "those" in your line about preaching. I've also been correct about how you've shown fundamental ignorance on matters Biblical, how you have screwed up noun/verb agreement, how unsupported your claims about what Macbeth felt before he died were, how you misunderstood what elision is, how I was/able to write lines in trochaic hexameter, and other matters.
The real problem here is that you can never admit openly that you do not always write well.
As Grammarly shows, I was/am not mistaken about your need to use "those" in your line about preaching. I've also been correct about how you've shown fundamental ignorance on matters Biblical, how you have screwed up noun/verb agreement, how unsupported your claims about what Macbeth felt before he died were, how you misunderstood what elision is, how I was/able to write lines in trochaic hexameter, and other matters.
The real problem here is that you can never admit openly that you do not always write well.
