A quantifier of intensity not a quantifier of quantity. This is really not that hard.
you still haven’t supported your point from the original source
See, this is not how these things work. You’re the one who made a claim about the content of this article. I showed you you’re wrong. That is my point. End of story.
You’re the one who made a claim about the content of this article.
I didn’t ‘make a claim about the content of this article’ … I quoted content directly from this article.
I showed you you’re wrong.
No, you haven’t. You’ve given your opinion, which is different from what is proposed in the article. Which is fine, the proposal in the article is poorly thought out and anyone reasonable should have a different opinion… which is my point.
Sorry, are you talking about a different article? Or different people?
Maybe you could quote something from the article which supports your point… you know, like I did.
Can you point me to the quantifiers in your quotes or the article?
Maybe you should do something about your terrible reading comprehension: https://elt.oup.com/student/solutions/preint/grammar/grammar_03_012e
“completely” is a quantifier.
You still haven’t supported your point from the original source. I have. I am not the one struggling with reading comprehension.
🥱
https://linguapress.com/grammar/quantifiers.htm
https://lemm.ee/comment/6876196
What is your point? Do you think this page contains an exhaustive list of quantifiers? “Completely” is a quantifier.
And… you still haven’t supported your point from the original source.
A quantifier of intensity not a quantifier of quantity. This is really not that hard.
See, this is not how these things work. You’re the one who made a claim about the content of this article. I showed you you’re wrong. That is my point. End of story.
I didn’t ‘make a claim about the content of this article’ … I quoted content directly from this article.
No, you haven’t. You’ve given your opinion, which is different from what is proposed in the article. Which is fine, the proposal in the article is poorly thought out and anyone reasonable should have a different opinion… which is my point.