- Joined
- May 4, 2020
I think it's grammatically correct even if it sounds super incorrect
🐮 Lolcow Russell Greer / Mr. Green / Russell Greee / Russle / Brothel Prince / @ just_some_dude_named_russell29 / A Safer Nevada PAC - Swift-Obsessed Sex Pest, Convicted of E-Stalking, "Eggshell Skull Plaintiff" Pro Se Litigant, Homeless, aspiring brothel owner
- Thread starter Cryin RN
- Start date
-
Want to keep track of this thread?
Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
Create account
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2020
Fuck I think you're right. Dug into it, me is interchangeable with I. Using I anywhere outside of a sentence subject fell out of fashion somewhere around the 1500s, but it's still technically correct.
She (subject) sucked (verb) me (pronoun) my (adjective) penis (noun/object).
It checks out, lmfao
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2021
Pass me my coat.
GoFuckMe Page
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- May 11, 2019
Huh, neat. Thanks for looking into this!
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2020
Why does this sound so normal but
"Suck me my penis" sounds so horribly wrong? Literally the same construction.
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2021
I think he meant to say "suck me my penis", it's no typo.
I always took it to mean that he thinks it makes him sound like a movie pimp growling "get me my money".
I always took it to mean that he thinks it makes him sound like a movie pimp growling "get me my money".
It's because nobody would say that except a retard with delusions of grandeur.
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2017
He didn’t mean to say it, correct grammar be damned. Russ is a guy who misspells proper names in legal documents, mangles all common phrases, and can’t even consistently properly spell the name of his own facial condition.
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2019
This is always what I’ve assumed happened.
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2015
The fact he constantly misspells the name of the disability he's based his whole life around is hilarious.
Compositesludge
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2019
My apologies in advance, this turned into quite a long post!
The big example of a double object verb relating to blowjobs would still be suck, yes, specifically, "suck on my penis." "Suck on my penis" emphasizes that your penis is being sucked upon, like saying that Russell's writing is fucking excruciating. Can you just say Russel's writing is excruciating? Yeah, but that doesn't have the emphasis you want. Other than that, you're trying to be specific with your direct and indirect objects so that the listener knows what you're thinking about. For example: "Show me your cat." You are showing me a specific cat, your cat. "Tell her their story." You are telling her a specific story, their story. "Suck me my penis" is... it's unnecessary at best. Grammatically correct or not, it's not needed, because there are no other penises there that could even be sucked. The prostitute doesn't have a penis. Russell isn't in possession of another man's penis. No penises are protruding from betwixt the floorboards for our heroine prostitute to consider sucking instead of Russell Greer's savaged sadness sausage. There's just his penis. She is only sucking his penis for him.
Tl;DR: It's technically grammatically correct, but it's unnecessary and awkward to such a degree that I can only conclude that Russell was grammatically correct on accident.
In conclusion, this exceeding trifling witling, considering ranting criticizing concerning adopting fitting wording being exhibiting transcending learning, was displaying, notwithstanding ridiculing, surpassing boasting swelling reasoning, respecting correcting erring writing, and touching detecting deceiving arguing during debating.
It's been a while since I studied grammar, and I haven't edited anything in a while, but I believe that we're looking at double object verbs. I looked at that link just to make sure I was thinking of the right thing, it's a great overview of the subject! Here are my thoughts on the Russell situation.
This is a great example of one, as would be, say, "show me your cat" and "tell her the truth." The thing is, not every verb can function as a double object verb. "Explain me the Russell" would be an example (ha!) of a verb that's not a double object verb, as would be something like "donate you her money." Is "suck me my penis" an example of a double object verb? I would argue yes... but that doesn't matter for Russell's example.
The big example of a double object verb relating to blowjobs would still be suck, yes, specifically, "suck on my penis." "Suck on my penis" emphasizes that your penis is being sucked upon, like saying that Russell's writing is fucking excruciating. Can you just say Russel's writing is excruciating? Yeah, but that doesn't have the emphasis you want. Other than that, you're trying to be specific with your direct and indirect objects so that the listener knows what you're thinking about. For example: "Show me your cat." You are showing me a specific cat, your cat. "Tell her their story." You are telling her a specific story, their story. "Suck me my penis" is... it's unnecessary at best. Grammatically correct or not, it's not needed, because there are no other penises there that could even be sucked. The prostitute doesn't have a penis. Russell isn't in possession of another man's penis. No penises are protruding from betwixt the floorboards for our heroine prostitute to consider sucking instead of Russell Greer's savaged sadness sausage. There's just his penis. She is only sucking his penis for him.
Tl;DR: It's technically grammatically correct, but it's unnecessary and awkward to such a degree that I can only conclude that Russell was grammatically correct on accident.
I don't think I can agree with this, because he's talking about this as the moment he became emotionally fulfilled and felt loved for the first time. That, and he doesn't like thinking of himself as a tough, frightening movie pimp. He's the friendly, kindred soul who has grappled with (and overcome, natch) his disability to pave the path for sex workers to share their love and shit.
In conclusion, this exceeding trifling witling, considering ranting criticizing concerning adopting fitting wording being exhibiting transcending learning, was displaying, notwithstanding ridiculing, surpassing boasting swelling reasoning, respecting correcting erring writing, and touching detecting deceiving arguing during debating.
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2020
I imagine Russ' moans of ecstacy is Lovecraft levels of horror.
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2016
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2021
Like his talking in general. Imagine him trying to actually say "suck me my penis".
Well, he did once non-ironically call women "hoes", then defend it for days. In public and writing, he often tries to use expressions that he imagines will sound impressively macho - "there will be blood", "trust me: I like sex", etc.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
It's a double object (of sorts), but English doesn't really have that formulation, though it reminds me sort of of German's reflexive formulation where you say something like "Ich wasche mir die Hände." Translated word for word this would mean "I wash myself the hands." (They also have the formulation "I wash my hands" like English.)
- Joined
- May 30, 2014
Sometimes English is just fucking weird, and you just sound like a psychopath because the words don't fit how normal people use them despite not actually violating any rules. Sorta like the whole adjective order thing, where you sound like a fucking mong if you say, for instance "black velvet french little dress" instead of "little black French velvet dress"
Russ, not understanding basic human interaction, falls into this sort of linguistic trap regularly.
Russ, not understanding basic human interaction, falls into this sort of linguistic trap regularly.
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2020
It might have to do with Russ' lack of non-transactional human interaction. He writes as if English is his 2nd or 3rd language.
I imagine it sounds like a walrus with a lot of spit in it's mouth being killed by an orca.
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2015
I wonder if he has a language based learning disability too. He writes too well in my opinion to be dyslexic, but his constant mangling of common phrases indicates to me he's got an issue with language processing.
Thank you for that mental image. I'm gonna go drink now.
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2020
I'm sorry, we're almost half way through the summer and I'm still waiting for the biggest, greatest summer hit of the year 2022. I'm getting antsy.
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2019
It's almost the solstice. A lack of 'greatest hit' by the autumnal equinox demonstrates the broken legal promises and subtle invitations given by Russel, and I'm in my own litigious mood this year.
- Joined
- May 4, 2020
Reminder, Russ' appellate brief is due tomorrow.
To those who have forgotten, he cannot raise any new issues (like the ones of Digital Millennium Copyright Act, or vicarious copyright infringement that the district court recommended). See Greer v. Herbert, No. 18-4075 (10th Cir. Apr. 9, 2019) (“we generally do not consider matters not first presented to the district court.”), McDonald v. Kinder-Morgan, Inc., 287 F.3d 992 (10th Cir. 2002) (“It is clear in this circuit that absent extraordinary circumstances, we will not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal.”).
Generally you also can't produce new evidence on appeal. See Selman v. Califano, 619 F.2d 881 , 884-85 (10th Cir. 1980) ("We must decide the appeal on the record made below. We cannot consider new evidence proffered at this level), United States v. Schmidt, 9 F.3d 118 (10th Cir. 1993) ("They cannot now bring new arguments and present new evidence on appeal in an attempt to overturn the district court's ruling.", Barwick v. City of Aurora, , 39 F.3d 1191 (10th Cir. 1994) ("we will not entertain new arguments or attempts to introduce new evidence on appeal.").
To those who have forgotten, he cannot raise any new issues (like the ones of Digital Millennium Copyright Act, or vicarious copyright infringement that the district court recommended). See Greer v. Herbert, No. 18-4075 (10th Cir. Apr. 9, 2019) (“we generally do not consider matters not first presented to the district court.”), McDonald v. Kinder-Morgan, Inc., 287 F.3d 992 (10th Cir. 2002) (“It is clear in this circuit that absent extraordinary circumstances, we will not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal.”).
Generally you also can't produce new evidence on appeal. See Selman v. Califano, 619 F.2d 881 , 884-85 (10th Cir. 1980) ("We must decide the appeal on the record made below. We cannot consider new evidence proffered at this level), United States v. Schmidt, 9 F.3d 118 (10th Cir. 1993) ("They cannot now bring new arguments and present new evidence on appeal in an attempt to overturn the district court's ruling.", Barwick v. City of Aurora, , 39 F.3d 1191 (10th Cir. 1994) ("we will not entertain new arguments or attempts to introduce new evidence on appeal.").