(Added September 3-?, 2025)
I revise my argument below to again depend on that entity references target only thought existence and therefore they need a finite verb to extend that target to beyond that. So in the sentence She got this idea watching Tv the only way to have beyond mere thought existence for "watching Tv" is to consider that part as connected to the extended verb ("got this idea") at object role. So this is what all the below follow from, and I no longer stand on that object pronoun cannot serve as subject. For example, because we have additional original verb ("play") in the sentence I watched them play soccer, it, unlike I watched them playing soccer, does convey that the watched was playing soccer.
(Added August 27-September 2, 2025)
With regard to "during" being a present participle I want here to answer the objection of the common grammar that this would make sentences in the writ grammatically incorrect for that word being misplaced as a modifier. While I answered the dangling modifier issue in my book depending on structuring the sentence from existence at the mere thought level, this one does not even need any of that. The common grammar takes a sentence like for example She got this idea watching Tv as grammatically incorrect thinking that it technically implies that the idea was watching Tv. That is incorrect, and what is being missed here is to take the verb and object together as constructing another verb. So, here, "got" is a verb and "this idea" is its object and "got this idea" is another verb for which "She" is also the subject. That is good enough to answer the misplaced modifier objection. But I also want to support the notion of liking two actions directly and therefore continue this with the new verb again constructing another verb with "watching Tv" and for this "She" again is the subject. Like I pointed out in my book, while they may get categorized differently for more details, every thing on the object side is an object.
Also, ever wondered how could it be allowed for an object pronoun to serve as subject? Well, with this way, beside being the more logical, there is no such thing. However, this comes at the cost of having many common sentences being grammatically incorrect for the intended meaning. For example, I watched him playing soccer implies the watcher not the watched was playing soccer (Although if it were "her" it would have, if taken as possessive, referred to the playing of the watched), and I did the repair with him watching implies I not him was watching, and I want them to call implies that I want them so that I call them rather than so that they call me. On the other hand, It is me is the correct one grammatically not It is I/i.
After writing the above I noticed how taking the sentence through gradually extending the original verb as done above makes it appear as one coherent whole with no loose components. Look at this benefit in for example the sentence I am going to buy the thing in that store. By extending the verb we can be sure that it means I am going to buy the thing [in that store] rather than I am going to buy [the thing in that store]. And with this same technique being applicable to participles I finally found the technical answer to why in "A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who.." Treason, Felony, or other Crime are not descriptions of the State.
(Added August 25-27, 2025)
The discussion below being about removing judges from office should not distract from the other issue which is about whether a judge gets removed from office or not what is done through no good Behaviour would not count as valid under the constitution. With regard to the question I brought about having good and no good Behaviour at same time it sounded big at the time because I mistakenly took the continuity of the effect of a behaviour as equivalent to that of the latter itself, and did not take sufficiently into account how time can continue to be divided cancelling the simultaniuty that appears at the bigger scale. However, it seems that taking "during" as present participle does provide the solution I was seeking for such a probably non existent problem. My mistake earlier was that I tried to do that by arguing for separate time for the participle while what I should have done was to skip time as connection and instead link, as I did in the posting below, one action directly to the other.
I also did not need to seek support from the writ allowing the use of a lower official-office connection than holding office.
(Added August 21-25, 2025)
Seems like in explaining why below I have gone back again to depending on "during" being a present participle. As present participle, it is only about interacting, actively or passively, with the target, not the time involved in doing that. This was again brought to my attention through something I read today in the writ. In the paragraph above the first target below (writ coincidence?) we read it saying that Senators and Representatives are privileged from being arrested "during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses" rather than just for example during the Session of.. and this supports the position here in that arresting is not part of congress Session. But then we see it continue to also say using "in" rather than "during" that they are privileged from arrest "in going to and returning" from their sessions. The additional benefit provided by "in" here is that it makes the protection applicable while the going and returning actions get paused or briefly interrupted.
In order to focus better on "during" as present participle, I keep coming back to imagining "doing" in its place in the good behaviour clause. And if one cannot with the help of the common grammar decide if doing good behaviour should continue in holding the office or that holding the office should continue in doing good behaviour, then taking things as discussed in my book clearly decides this issue for the former since the verb is what extends entity references in a sentence to targeting beyond mere thought existence.
Just found that while Samuel Johnson DEFINES "during" as preposition but also writes "This word is rather a participle", Noah Webster of 1828 HERE does not categorize it but as present participle.
(Added August 19-20, 2025)
This clause does not require keeping a judge in office as long as that judge is on good Behaviuor. The time of good behaviour belongs to just good behaviour. The word "Term" is itself about time. Still, they did not use it in A1S6P2 for "during the Time for which he was elected" to make it during his Term or at least during the Time of his Term even though they were targeting "Senator or Representative" not person/Person. On the other hand, holding office, a thing that is one of those a Term of an executive official is about, was used in "He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years". Therefore, just like had, for example, "nicely" been used instead of "during good Behaviour", holding office relates to judges only while they are allowed to be in office.
Actually, one could say that the second quoted part above by using "the Term" rather a Term draws attention on its own to this logical restriction.
I needed this in order to answer the technical issue to which I referred at the beginning of the first posting below. The issue was that under the other understanding a judge can always return to being protected from removal.
The protection against abusing removal of judges does not follow directly from their continuity in doing good but from that such removal would, like any other change to the judiciary, not be valid if it is not good Behaviour from congress which itself when managing the judiciary is required to satisfy the good Behaviour requirement as directly as judges are required to do that in everything they do.
(First Posting)
I still need to think more about how things work if the judge's behaviour as whole was determined as not satisfying this requirement, but with regard to the issue of having good and no-good Behaviours occurring and count separately at the same time where the measure is being good or no-good (which I couldn't solve) there is no such possibility to begin with. That is because such tasks are the negative of each other and therefore unless the choice for one was considered as already taken into account before doing the other, and therefore they would account sequentially, that choice would be cancelling to either of them.
No comments:
Post a Comment