Electronegativity of Gold
Craig Franck
doesn't react with very many substances.
Group 11 has 10d and 1s electrons, and I see the electronegativity
drops for Group 12 when the s orbital fills up. I'm assuming Gold is
found free in nature because Gold(III) oxide requires more energy to
form than it remaining in a pure state, but I'm just learning this stuff.
--
Craig Franck
craig....@verizon.net
Cortland, NY
Madalch
Craig Franck wrote:
> I was wondering why if Gold has a high electronegativity (2.54), it
> doesn't react with very many substances.
The electronegativity reflects gold's willingness to hang on to its
electrons (i.e., to stay in the metallic state rather than forming
ions). It does not reflect an ability to attract electrons from other
sources (which is what a high electronegativity would relfect in a
non-metal).
Autymn D. C.
> I was wondering why if Gold has a high electronegativity (2.54), it
> doesn't react with very many substances.
It does:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.chem/browse_frm/thread/d9458084a5a7ae5a/a42826f2b078a434?#a42826f2b078a434.
Electrum and amalgam are also common. It does /because/ of its great
elèctronegativity. For truerly nobil elements, they are near 2.3:
platinum, rhodium, iridium, hudrojèn@nickel.
> Group 11 has 10d and 1s electrons, and I see the electronegativity
> drops for Group 12 when the s orbital fills up. I'm assuming Gold is
> found free in nature because Gold(III) oxide requires more energy to
> form than it remaining in a pure state, but I'm just learning this stuff.
This is a guess: Gold burns like carbon, but incompletely because of
its many bonds. So only Au2O bears and as a thin surfactal layer that
glints lime--this is the glint I see on the gold foil of my
supermarkettey èncuclopaidia.
-Aut
Uncle Al
[snip]
> This is a guess: Gold burns like carbon, but incompletely because of
> its many bonds. So only Au2O bears and as a thin surfactal layer that
> glints lime--this is the glint I see on the gold foil of my
> supermarkettey čncuclopaidia.
Boring idiot.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Autymn D. C.
> Boring idiot.
That is your signature.
Uncle Al
I am intolerant of stupidity and those who are proud of it. I will
not defer to vermin defining truth and morality by convenience of the
moment. Stupidity is not a form of knowing things.
Autymn D. C.
> "Autymn D. C." wrote:
> > Uncle Al wrote:
> > > Boring idiot.
> >
> > That is your signature.
>
> I am intolerant of stupidity and those who are proud of it. I will
> not defer to vermin defining truth and morality by convenience of the
> moment. Stupidity is not a form of knowing things.
stupidity = stunnidom
idiot = lonester
imbecile = stafflesso
I'm intolerant of common illiteracy and misuse and miswitth of words,
such as yours. (One cannot "knowing" or "defining" anything, either.)
Unless you can explain the lime film on gold, you should not represent
the stunted many in your inability to learn rare and hidden knowledh.
-Aut
The_Man
You have confused electronegativity with electron affinity. Electron
affinity is the enthalphy of the reaction X(g)- -> X(g) + e- [it is
often defined as the reverse of this].
The electronegativity (depending on the scale: Pauling, Mulliken,
Pearson, etc.) is a measure of the tendency for an atom to attract a
BONDING PAIR of electrons to itself. This is the concept. When
electronegativities are CALCULATED, the important thermodynamic
quantities are the atoms ionization potential and electron affinity.
For example, the Mulliken electronegativity is (IP + EA)/2, and the
Pearson electronegtivity is (IP-EA)/2.
The_Man
> Craig Franck wrote:
> > I was wondering why if Gold has a high electronegativity (2.54), it
> > doesn't react with very many substances.
>
> It does:
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.chem/browse_frm/thread/d9458084a5a7ae5a/a42826f2b078a434?#a42826f2b078a434.
> Electrum and amalgam are also common. It does /because/ of its great
> elèctronegativity. For truerly nobil elements, they are near 2.3:
> platinum, rhodium, iridium, hudrojèn@nickel.
>
> > Group 11 has 10d and 1s electrons, and I see the electronegativity
> > drops for Group 12 when the s orbital fills up. I'm assuming Gold is
> > found free in nature because Gold(III) oxide requires more energy to
> > form than it remaining in a pure state, but I'm just learning this stuff.
>
> This is a guess:
and a bad one at that.
> Gold burns like carbon, but incompletely because of
"like carbon" ???????
> its many bonds. So only Au2O bears and as a thin surfactal layer that
> glints lime--this is the glint I see on the gold foil of my
> supermarkettey èncuclopaidia.
Au2O is unstable with respect to gold metal, so whatever "glint" you
are seeing on the supermarket encyclopedia is NOT Au2O.
BTW, the purpose of encyclopedias was to give travelling salesmen a
reason to solicit stay-at-home housewives for sex. Encyclopedias were
also intended for grade school children, to make it easier for them to
plagiarize. Now there is the internet, where it is even easier to cut
and paste.
The moral: encyclopedias are largely worthless, particularly for
advanced subjects like chemistry and physics. "Simple" chemical
concepts that take up two paragraphs in an encyclopedia require several
500 page texts to explain in complete detail.
Any explanation of gold's properties that does not mention, oh, I don't
know, the ELECTRON CONFIGURATION, or ionization potential, or
relativistic contraction, or effective nuclear charge is the blather
("guiess") of a fool.
>
> -Aut
The_Man
Autymn D. C. wrote:
> Uncle Al wrote:
> > "Autymn D. C." wrote:
> > > Uncle Al wrote:
> > > > Boring idiot.
> > >
> > > That is your signature.
> >
> > I am intolerant of stupidity and those who are proud of it. I will
> > not defer to vermin defining truth and morality by convenience of the
> > moment. Stupidity is not a form of knowing things.
>
> stupidity = stunnidom
> idiot = lonester
> imbecile = stafflesso
>
> I'm intolerant of common illiteracy and misuse and miswitth of words,
> such as yours. (One cannot "knowing" or "defining" anything, either.)
"Knowing things" is a completely legitimate and grammatical expression.
These are called "gerunds", parts of speech (nouns) that have features
of verbs. A similar construction is possible with the infinitive: "To
err is human, to forgie - divine." (Pope)
In English there are also "participles", words that are adjectives that
can also act like verbs and take objects, for example.
It is obvious that English is not your first language, and one would
have to wonder if ANY language is your first language. Gerunds,
infinitives, and participles are very common in many languages -
Spanish, German, Russian, and Polish come immediately to mind
>
> Unless you can explain the lime film on gold, you should not represent
> the stunted many in your inability to learn rare and hidden knowledh.
You can't explain it either, dolt.
>
> -Aut
Autymn D. C.
> "Knowing things" is a completely legitimate and grammatical expression.
> These are called "gerunds", parts of speech (nouns) that have features
> of verbs. A similar construction is possible with the infinitive: "To
> err is human, to forgie - divine." (Pope)
> In English there are also "participles", words that are adjectives that
> can also act like verbs and take objects, for example.
No it's not; a gerund is a noun. You cannot compound nouns into a
verbid. "to err" is the prospectiv, not the infinitiv. You don't even
know what the infinitiv in English is.
> It is obvious that English is not your first language, and one would
> have to wonder if ANY language is your first language. Gerunds,
> infinitives, and participles are very common in many languages -
> Spanish, German, Russian, and Polish come immediately to mind
The world's muttish was my first tonguship; English is my last. Read
my About.com profile and shut up.
> > Unless you can explain the lime film on gold, you should not represent
> > the stunted many in your inability to learn rare and hidden knowledh.
>
> You can't explain it either, dolt.
I already did, doof.
-Aut
Autymn D. C.
> Autymn D. C. wrote:
>
> "like carbon" ???????
Yes, "like" as in affinity, as in they'v nearby elèctronegativity.
Carbony fires are hard to start, but not as hard as gold because of its
fewwer bonds.
> > its many bonds. So only Au2O bears and as a thin surfactal layer that
> > glints lime--this is the glint I see on the gold foil of my
> > supermarkettey èncuclopaidia.
>
> Au2O is unstable with respect to gold metal, so whatever "glint" you
> are seeing on the supermarket encyclopedia is NOT Au2O.
That is not a fair argument. It is èntròpicly favorabil for some
substances to disproportionare into two compounds of greatter and weeer
potential, specially those in the open. Those gold atoms on the
surface could store such potential whilst those beneath bond tihterly.
> BTW, the purpose of encyclopedias was to give travelling salesmen a
> reason to solicit stay-at-home housewives for sex. Encyclopedias were
> also intended for grade school children, to make it easier for them to
> plagiarize. Now there is the internet, where it is even easier to cut
> and paste.
Citations?
> The moral: encyclopedias are largely worthless, particularly for
> advanced subjects like chemistry and physics. "Simple" chemical
> concepts that take up two paragraphs in an encyclopedia require several
> 500 page texts to explain in complete detail.
That is way overkill. Someone doesn't know how to explain.
> Any explanation of gold's properties that does not mention, oh, I don't
> know, the ELECTRON CONFIGURATION, or ionization potential, or
> relativistic contraction, or effective nuclear charge is the blather
> ("guiess") of a fool.
Wrong, explanations presum them; they don't need /mention/.
-Aut
Madalch
> affinity is the enthalphy of the reaction X(g)- -> X(g) + e- [it is
> often defined as the reverse of this].
>
> The electronegativity (depending on the scale: Pauling, Mulliken,
> Pearson, etc.) is a measure of the tendency for an atom to attract a
> BONDING PAIR of electrons to itself. This is the concept. When
> electronegativities are CALCULATED, the important thermodynamic
> quantities are the atoms ionization potential and electron affinity.
As you say, the electronegativity is calculated from the ionization
energy and the electron affinity. For gold, the high electronegativity
reflects a high ionization energy (i.e., a willingness to hang on to
its electrons, and therefore a tendency to not react much) rather than
a high electron affinity (i.e., a large negative value for the enthalpy
for Au + e --> Au-, which would indicate a tendency for readily form
anions). I have not confused anything, you simply didn't read what I
had written.
hanson
"Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:459B1A41...@hate.spam.net...
>>
[Uncle Al to Autymn]
>> > Boring idiot.
>>
"Autymn D. C." wrote to Al:
>> That is your signature.
>
[Al to Autymn]
> I am intolerant of stupidity and those who are proud of it.
> I will not defer to vermin defining truth and morality by
> convenience of the moment.
> Stupidity is not a form of knowing things.
>
... but Al, Autymn is simply singing his Autistic Hymn...
He can't help himself... nor does he want to... MOS!
Anyway, have a happier 2007 and for crying out loud
Al, do NOT sell your "chiral-calorics" the same way
you sold your "chiral etovoes". Be cool and patient
about it. Don't throw your pearls before the swine!
I give you unabridged credit for your imaginative angles
of connecting projected theoretical conjectures
to unlikely experimental verification methods. Your
unorthodox methodology reminds me of the ingenuity
of that 1st grand old guy who connected MP/FP
depression with/to molweight size.
I trust you are aware that a number of groups are
looking at EP violations or inequality manipulations
(implying that F =/= m*a). So, if you have experimental
success in your endeavors, don't blare it out on/over
the Usenet. The big boys will fuck you over, take it away
from you, and you'll be left twitching and dangling in/on
the Net as a laughing stock.
The reason for the interest in this issue is clearly visible.
Applications will be enormous, not the least of which is
that it will be able to disable nukes and render'em useless
and it will provide the basis for the next generation of power
production, implying climate control, etc.
Take care, laugh more and have fun!
ahahaha... ahahanson
Autymn D. C.
> ... but Al, Autymn is simply singing his Autistic Hymn...
> He can't help himself... nor does he want to... MOS!
humn (not hùmn)
There is no he, Mm-bop clown.
> looking at EP violations or inequality manipulations
> (implying that F =/= m*a). So, if you have experimental
This is true. Read my About.com profile for the full equation.
-Aut
Robert S
Autymn D. C. wrote:
> hanson wrote:
> > ... but Al, Autymn is simply singing his Autistic Hymn...
> > He can't help himself... nor does he want to... MOS!
>
> humn (not hùmn)
> There is no he, Mm-bop clown.
IOW, it's female.
> > looking at EP violations or inequality manipulations
> > (implying that F =/= m*a). So, if you have experimental
>
> This is true. Read my About.com profile for the full equation.
The Ashley Treatment was invented too late, I think.
Autymn D. C.
> The Ashley Treatment was invented too late, I think.
How is that?
The_Man
I apologize; I had meant to write that you had confused
electronegativity with ionization potential, rather than that you had
confused electronegativity with electron affinity. My bad :-(
Nevertheless, when you write that
"For gold, the high electronegativity reflects a high ionization
energy (i.e., a willingness to hang on to its electrons, and therefore
a tendency to not react much) rather than a high electron affinity"
you are quite mistaken. The ionization potential of Au is 9.225
eV/atom, which is less than that of zinc (9.394 eV/atom). Do you think
for a second that zinc holds onto its electron tightly?
The real answer is that gold has a very large electron affinity -
2.8036 eV/atom.
"In fact, only the halogens have higher EAs than do Pt and Au." -
Concepts and Models in Inorganic Chemistry" Douglas, Mcdaniel, and
Alexander, 3rd edition, page 47.
Angelo
Please forgive me: 1) I'm an occasional lurker here,
so I come late; 2) also for some OT questions.
Autymn D. C. ha scritto:
> The_Man wrote:
> > "Knowing things" is a completely legitimate and grammatical expression.
> > These are called "gerunds", parts of speech (nouns) that have features
> > of verbs. A similar construction is possible with the infinitive: "To
> > err is human, to forgie - divine." (Pope)
> > In English there are also "participles", words that are adjectives that
> > can also act like verbs and take objects, for example.
>
> No it's not; a gerund is a noun. You cannot compound nouns into a
> verbid. "to err" is the prospectiv, not the infinitiv. You don't even
> know what the infinitiv in English is.
Nor I. Would you mind help me to understand that distinction
about 'prospectiv' and 'infinitiv', perhaps with simple examples
using well known verbs (e.g. love, eat, send, etc.) in those
two forms?
>
> > It is obvious that English is not your first language, and one would
> > have to wonder if ANY language is your first language. Gerunds,
> > infinitives, and participles are very common in many languages -
> > Spanish, German, Russian, and Polish come immediately to mind
Also in Italian, my native language.
> The world's muttish was my first tonguship; English is my last. Read
I searched ''muttish'' in wikipedia, in it's dictionary, but in vain.
Would you be so kind to explain the meaning of that word?
> my About.com profile and shut up.
Sorry, where could I find that ''About.com profile''?
[snip]
> -Aut
Thanks,
Angelo
Angelo
[snip]
> The electronegativity (depending on the scale: Pauling, Mulliken,
> Pearson, etc.) is a measure of the tendency for an atom to attract a
> BONDING PAIR of electrons to itself. This is the concept. When
> electronegativities are CALCULATED, the important thermodynamic
> quantities are the atoms ionization potential and electron affinity.
Agreed (supposing we are using in that calculation the 'valence state'
values of IP and EA).
> For example, the Mulliken electronegativity is (IP + EA)/2, and the
> Pearson electronegtivity is (IP-EA)/2.
I don't think that (IP-EA)/2 could be labelled as 'electronegativity'.
Rather, it should represent sort of (electron) charge capacity or
capacitance. It's a meassure of how much charge an atom in a
molecule can take up without changing significantly its (IP+EA)/2,
or IOW its electronegativity according to the Mulliken formuation.
Best regards,
Angelo
The_Man
Autymn D. C. wrote:
> The_Man wrote:
> > "Knowing things" is a completely legitimate and grammatical expression.
> > These are called "gerunds", parts of speech (nouns) that have features
> > of verbs. A similar construction is possible with the infinitive: "To
> > err is human, to forgie - divine." (Pope)
> > In English there are also "participles", words that are adjectives that
> > can also act like verbs and take objects, for example.
>
> No it's not; a gerund is a noun.
Is that a echo I hear? I SAID that gerunds are nouns.
> You cannot compound nouns into a
> verbid.
I certainly can. Here, watch me, nothing up my sleeve...
"Autymn thinks that JERKING himself OFF is great fun." JERKING is the
subject of the dependent clause, and ALSO takes "himself" as an
object.Or:
"Running for President is expensive." This is a perfectly correct
English sentence.
>"to err" is the prospectiv, not the infinitiv.
There is no PROSPECTIV in English, shit head
> You don't even
> know what the infinitiv in English is.
I certainly do, and I would know better than you, being a native
speaker with a doctorate in chemistry. Linguistics is one of my
hobbies.
>
> > It is obvious that English is not your first language, and one would
> > have to wonder if ANY language is your first language. Gerunds,
> > infinitives, and participles are very common in many languages -
> > Spanish, German, Russian, and Polish come immediately to mind
>
> The world's muttish was my first tonguship;
You were tonguing a mutt? That explains a lot.
> English is my last. Read
> my About.com profile and shut up.
I looked there - there is none, shitlicker.
The_Man
It COULD be labelled as electronegativity, because it WAS so labelled,
at least by Pearson. :-) But I see your point. This Pearson
"electronegativity" is closely related to the polarizability of the
atom, what Pearson called the "hardness"
>
> Best regards,
> Angelo
Autymn D. C.
> Autymn D. C. wrote:
> > The_Man wrote:
> > > "Knowing things" is a completely legitimate and grammatical expression.
> > > These are called "gerunds", parts of speech (nouns) that have features
> > > of verbs. A similar construction is possible with the infinitive: "To
> > > err is human, to forgie - divine." (Pope)
> > > In English there are also "participles", words that are adjectives that
> > > can also act like verbs and take objects, for example.
> > No it's not; a gerund is a noun.
> Is that a echo I hear? I SAID that gerunds are nouns.
But you didn't ken the eko.
> > You cannot compound nouns into a
> > verbid.
> I certainly can. Here, watch me, nothing up my sleeve...
>
> "Autymn thinks that JERKING himself OFF is great fun." JERKING is the
> subject of the dependent clause, and ALSO takes "himself" as an
> object.Or:
Illiterate shitheaded toad, "himself" doesn't even agree with "Autymn"
or "jerking". You the gibberer can't even tell the difference between
-y and -ee.
> "Running for President is expensive." This is a perfectly correct
> English sentence.
It's awkward, as the gerund is generic, so it's not perfectly correct.
It should be Runnun, or Runnung at the least.
> >"to err" is the prospectiv, not the infinitiv.
>
> There is no PROSPECTIV in English, shit head
You used IT, shittspeakkr.
> > You don't even
> > know what the infinitiv in English is.
> I certainly do, and I would know better than you, being a native
> speaker with a doctorate in chemistry. Linguistics is one of my
> hobbies.
What kind of doctorate, and what has that to do with this thread?
Linguists are as doll and deluded as you; I expectd as much. They
wouldn't know the first thing about English.
> > > It is obvious that English is not your first language, and one would
> > > have to wonder if ANY language is your first language. Gerunds,
> > > infinitives, and participles are very common in many languages -
> > > Spanish, German, Russian, and Polish come immediately to mind
> > The world's muttish was my first tonguship;
>
> You were tonguing a mutt? That explains a lot.
muttish != mutt
Get lost, trolltoad.
> > English is my last. Read
> > my About.com profile and shut up.
>
> I looked there - there is none, shitlicker.
Use Google Groups, you worthles chunk of fat shit.
-Aut
Angelo
The_Man ha scritto:
I'd like to define (IIRC, 'cause now I'm at home, no textbook
handy) (IP-EA)/2 as an index of ''softness'', not ''hardness'',
which should correspond to (IP+EA)/2. After all, ''hardness''
seems to me the reverse of polarizability.
Best regards,
Angelo
Autymn D. C.
> Autymn D. C. ha scritto:
> > verbid. "to err" is the prospectiv, not the infinitiv. You don't even
> > know what the infinitiv in English is.
>
> Nor I. Would you mind help me to understand that distinction
> about 'prospectiv' and 'infinitiv', perhaps with simple examples
> using well known verbs (e.g. love, eat, send, etc.) in those
> two forms?
prospectiv: ad verbare|to worcken
infinitiv: verbare|worcken
amare|lovene
mangere|eatan
mittere|sendan
These are clitic translations, not litteratimal; the latter would bear
lovene, eaton, and sendon. English inflections were slauhtered by the
Norman cretinsan scum about 900 years ago which is why clueles shitwits
like "The_Man" and his linguist friends get free reign misrepresentire
the breadth of English. He cannot even tell you what vowel the "ea" in
"breadth" represents.
> > > It is obvious that English is not your first language, and one would
> > > have to wonder if ANY language is your first language. Gerunds,
> > > infinitives, and participles are very common in many languages -
> > > Spanish, German, Russian, and Polish come immediately to mind
>
> Also in Italian, my native language.
How well do Italians know Latin?
> > The world's muttish was my first tonguship; English is my last. Read
>
> I searched ''muttish'' in wikipedia, in it's dictionary, but in vain.
> Would you be so kind to explain the meaning of that word?
its
Cleave the word: http://dictionary.com/browse/mutt.
muttish = malecrocese
> > my About.com profile and shut up.
>
> Sorry, where could I find that ''About.com profile''?
sci.materials
-Aut
The_Man
Autymn D. C. wrote:
> The_Man wrote:
> > Autymn D. C. wrote:
> > > The_Man wrote:
> > > > "Knowing things" is a completely legitimate and grammatical expression.
> > > > These are called "gerunds", parts of speech (nouns) that have features
> > > > of verbs. A similar construction is possible with the infinitive: "To
> > > > err is human, to forgie - divine." (Pope)
> > > > In English there are also "participles", words that are adjectives that
> > > > can also act like verbs and take objects, for example.
> > > No it's not; a gerund is a noun.
> > Is that a echo I hear? I SAID that gerunds are nouns.
>
> But you didn't ken the eko.
>
> > > You cannot compound nouns into a
> > > verbid.
> > I certainly can. Here, watch me, nothing up my sleeve...
> >
> > "Autymn thinks that JERKING himself OFF is great fun." JERKING is the
> > subject of the dependent clause, and ALSO takes "himself" as an
> > object.Or:
>
> Illiterate shitheaded toad, "himself" doesn't even agree with "Autymn"
> or "jerking". You the gibberer can't even tell the difference between
> -y and -ee.
Sorry, I didn't know you were a woman; oops, sorry, "womyn".
"So Autymn thinks that EATING pussy is fun."
>
> > "Running for President is expensive." This is a perfectly correct
> > English sentence.
>
> It's awkward, as the gerund is generic, so it's not perfectly correct.
> It should be Runnun, or Runnung at the least.
Fuck you, moron.
>
> > >"to err" is the prospectiv, not the infinitiv.
> >
> > There is no PROSPECTIV in English, shit head
>
> You used IT, shittspeakkr.
>
> > > You don't even
> > > know what the infinitiv in English is.
> > I certainly do, and I would know better than you, being a native
> > speaker with a doctorate in chemistry. Linguistics is one of my
> > hobbies.
>
> What kind of doctorate, and what has that to do with this thread?
If it has nothing to do with the thread, then why ask? Hint: this is
sci.chem, not sci.fuckingilliterate.moron
> Linguists are as doll and deluded as you; I expectd as much. They
> wouldn't know the first thing about English.
>
> > > > It is obvious that English is not your first language, and one would
> > > > have to wonder if ANY language is your first language. Gerunds,
> > > > infinitives, and participles are very common in many languages -
> > > > Spanish, German, Russian, and Polish come immediately to mind
> > > The world's muttish was my first tonguship;
> >
> > You were tonguing a mutt? That explains a lot.
>
> muttish != mutt
= muff
> Get lost, trolltoad.
>
> > > English is my last. Read
> > > my About.com profile and shut up.
> >
> > I looked there - there is none, shitlicker.
>
> Use Google Groups, you worthles chunk of fat shit.
I did. Very illuminating:
"She is back. Also known as Autymn DC, serial killer of the english
language"
>
> -Aut
Autymn D. C.
> Sorry, I didn't know you were a woman; oops, sorry, "womyn".
> "So Autymn thinks that EATING pussy is fun."
Like you would know.
> Fuck you, moron.
You wish, mòròn.
> > What kind of doctorate, and what has that to do with this thread?
>
> If it has nothing to do with the thread, then why ask? Hint: this is
> sci.chem, not sci.fuckingilliterate.moron
You beg for attention here.
> > Use Google Groups, you worthles chunk of fat shit.
>
> I did. Very illuminating:
>
> "She is back. Also known as Autymn DC, serial killer of the english
> language"
That's Google, illiterate retard. You can't follow directions, huh.
-Aut
The_Man
Autymn D. C. wrote:
> Angelo wrote:
> > Autymn D. C. ha scritto:
> > > No it's not; a gerund is a noun. You cannot compound nouns into a
> > > verbid. "to err" is the prospectiv, not the infinitiv. You don't even
> > > know what the infinitiv in English is.
There IS no prospective in English. REPEAT after me - "English isn't
fucking Greek!" Greek HAS prospective, English doesn't, most other
modern languages don't have it either. Just as English doesn't have
aspect like Russian and Polish do.
> >
> > Nor I. Would you mind help me to understand that distinction
> > about 'prospectiv' and 'infinitiv', perhaps with simple examples
> > using well known verbs (e.g. love, eat, send, etc.) in those
> > two forms?
>
> prospectiv: ad verbare|to worcken
> infinitiv: verbare|worcken
>
> amare|lovene
> mangere|eatan
> mittere|sendan
>
> These are clitic translations, not litteratimal; the latter would bear
> lovene, eaton, and sendon. English inflections were slauhtered by the
> Norman cretinsan scum about 900 years ago which is why clueles shitwits
Cool, you think that English is still Old Anglo-Saxon. English has
moved on without you; get over it.
> like "The_Man" and his linguist friends get free reign misrepresentire
> the breadth of English. He cannot even tell you what vowel the "ea" in
> "breadth" represents.
>
> > > > It is obvious that English is not your first language, and one would
> > > > have to wonder if ANY language is your first language. Gerunds,
> > > > infinitives, and participles are very common in many languages -
> > > > Spanish, German, Russian, and Polish come immediately to mind
> >
> > Also in Italian, my native language.
>
> How well do Italians know Latin?
Evidently, much better than you know English
Autymn D. C.
> Autymn D. C. wrote:
> > Angelo wrote:
> > > Autymn D. C. ha scritto:
> > > > No it's not; a gerund is a noun. You cannot compound nouns into a
> > > > verbid. "to err" is the prospectiv, not the infinitiv. You don't even
> > > > know what the infinitiv in English is.
>
> There IS no prospective in English. REPEAT after me - "English isn't
> fucking Greek!" Greek HAS prospective, English doesn't, most other
> modern languages don't have it either. Just as English doesn't have
> aspect like Russian and Polish do.
Why don't you prove it?--all of it? (BTW, I did froprove such exempls
on Wikipedia. Hèllenic often reuses endings for different
functions--those shouldn't count separately.) You may as well shout
that kèmic reactions cannot happen under one atom.
> Cool, you think that English is still Old Anglo-Saxon. English has
> moved on without you; get over it.
English is English. Again, read my profile. AngloSaxon was yester
English, much-much earlier.
> > How well do Italians know Latin?
>
> Evidently, much better than you know English
prove it
-Aut