JESUS ON PALM SUNDAY

"You are Who rule the sky and land."

should be " You are [the one] Who ruleS the sky and land".

In any case,  please send this one off to the Poetry Free for All.

Dear Baldwin,
Please try to distinguish between the NOUN CLAUSE and the ADJECTIVE Clause. You want to use the adjective clause, l mean to say,
You are the One Who rules ..., You are the one WHO RULES One:is anoun WHO RULES is an ADJ CLAUSE.
whereas l want to use the NOUN CLAUSE
You are WHO RULE THE SKY AND LAND. You are GOD. Thank you.

Given the "are" here, what follows it is a predication.  The question is whether an unmarked relative clause can be a predicate nominative.

Dear Baldwin,
1- You are someone. SOMEONE here is predicate nominative after verb TO BE. Here we use: You are + subordinator/ subject + verb= noun clause.
2- ln the same way:That was employed by who felt slight.
By who felt slight. By: prep. + who felt slight. WHO FELT SLIGHT: is a noun clause / prepositional. Please look at this sentence in its context.
What is important, Baldwin, is let us be friends and love each other. I am considered one of the best teacher here even at grammar. Please don't refuse.

No.  "Who felt slight" is NOT a noun clause.  It is a relative clause that needs a noun or a pronoun to be a noun clause, let alone the object of the preposition "by".    
    
And "I am considered one of the best teacher here even at grammar" is grammatically unsound since (as Grammarly notes)  it should read "I am considered one of the best teacherS here even at grammar".   
  
And how it is that what others **consider** you to be makes your claim about what "who rule (s) ..." correct is beyond me.    
   
And why not say "You rule the sky..."?  
   
And what follows  "are" in your "You are someone" is NOT a predicate nominative, but a **pronoun** that, given its being linked to "you" with a copulative verb, functions as a predicate nominative.  
 
In any case,  are you going to post this to Poetry Free for All?  
 
  

1- Believe me it's a goof. Why do you look  for these blunders which are obvious to anyone that they are a sort of carelessness. Looking for them is a little bit silly, and you are above that standard. It is impossible for anyone to make such a mistake. You don't believe people. How can people believe you?
2-You said: lt is a relative clause that needs a noun or a pronoun to be a noun clause. This is nonsense. The noun clause is something and the relative clause is something else. Please pay attention to grammar more than looking for blunders.
3- l don't say: You rule the sky... because l want to fit the meaning and the number of meters in the sentence.

"1- Believe me it's a goof. Why do you look  for these blunders which are obvious to anyone that they are a sort of carelessness.  [sic question mark needed]"

Because you claim to be a master of English grammar.  And because of this,  it is not obvious that they are due to carelessness.  Master of English care about not being careless  when they speak or write.  Do you not notice and correct your students when they make such blunders?

 "3- l don't [didn't say?] : You rule the sky... because l want to fit the meaning"

But the meaning in  [sic of] the sentence is "You are the one who ruleS the sky ...".  

"and the number of meters in the sentence."

The number of meters in the sentence??  How many "meters" are there in that sentence.  

Are you going to post this to Poetry Free for All or not?  If not, why not?

Ho Hum.  Another response that is an ad hominem attack against my person and a misrepresentation of the character of what I said rather than something that deals directly with the remarks I made.  And isn't it "such A stupid way"?

But at least,  Joseph, you are true to form.

Yes or no,  will you be posting this on the Poetry Free for All forum?

I don't know this site, how to communicate with it, and what it means to publish there.

I gave you the links to it in a message above.  More proof that you don't read my messages carefully?

But here is the main one again:

http://www.everypoet.org/

It is not a vanity site.  It will be curious to see if you refrain from posting there, what your reasons for not doing so will be.

"is indicated to"??  What sort of English is that?

But how is the fact that I recommend the site a good reason for your not exploring the site yourself?

It is more likely that you won't post to the site is that you fear that it might provide concrete and informed evidence that your claim to be someone who writes astonishingly well is not as solid as you think it is.

Please do me the kindness of telling me how and why you think this is bad poetry if you think it is,  being as specific as possible.

You think my riding on an ass
was something that I used to make
symbolically a  public
proclamation of my sense of self as unlike those
who revelled in displaying their superiority
to other men, their power and their royalty?
.
Little do you ken you scripture then.
I chose it as my Zechariah-ed way of saying
as I rode into Jerusalem
upon the celebration day of Maccabean
war won liberty
“Look at me!
I am my nation’s Lord and King!”
.
Note how my countrymen acknowledged
who I was with shouts of adulation
and of praise and capes aswirl,
beneath the skies,
and how this served
to underscore the charges of sedition
that then led me to be crucified
as one who challenged Caesar’s rulership,
his status as a Pontiff deified
and called the Son of God
whose birth was recognized
as Gospel for the world.

BTW, who rode a chariot into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday?  And what King preceded Jesus in the Palm Sunday parade?

"3- l don't say: You rule the sky... because l want to fit the meaning and the number of meters in the sentence."

Assuming you meant to say that the phrase does not fit the iambic meter in which you wanted your  line to be cast in,  I note that both

you RULE the SKY and LAND

and

you ARE the ONE who RULES the SKY and LAND

are consistently iambic.  So there is no prosodic based reason to reject them as not "fitting" the "meters of the sentence".