• nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          Thats because the tense has to agree with the subject, subject being Israel in present times, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the ‘no one’ means ‘no on in present times’. No where in grammer does verb tense indicate anything other than the subjects time.

          • lugal@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            8 months ago

            This is wrong on so many levels that I hope you are joking.

            Verbs agree in person and number with the subject. “no one” is 3. person singular. Subjects don’t have time. Only verbs have tense.

            If subjects had tense and “no one” was present, then the sentence would still be present. In that case, you would need to use the past form of “no one” to indicate tense.

            Rereading your comment: Israel isn’t the subject.

            • nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              8 months ago

              What is the past form of ‘no one’ oh right, its still ‘no one’ so OPs intent to exclude the past isn’t clear. ‘is killing’ is the conjugation to use if you want to exclude the past, literally what it’s there for.

              • lugal@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                8 months ago

                You convinced me that you’re just stupid. Subjects don’t have tense, it’s the verb that carries that information

                • nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  8 months ago

                  You’re the one who brought up the what if subjects have tense statement, not me. You’ve convinced me you just want to argue semantically. It’s still not clear that OP wants to exclude the past otherwise they would have used ‘is killing’ instead of ‘kills’

                  • lugal@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    8 months ago

                    You said:

                    Thats because the tense has to agree with the subject

                    I said that (1.) this is wrong and (2.) even if it was right, your statement was still wrong.

          • kibiz0r@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            8 months ago

            Thats [sic] presently because the tense presently has to agree with the subject, subject presently being Israel in present times, it doesn’t necessarily presently mean that the ‘no one’ presently means ‘no on in present times’. No where in grammer [sic] does verb tense presently indicate anything other than the subjects [sic] time.

            Clarified so no one would presently confuse your statement to refer presently to Old English.