[Potironette]

Thanks for the examples! I don't really understand the more complicated names for parts of sentences so it helps. I didn't really know what a "predicate" was either :x.

Although it's getting a bit better, I write fragments A LOT. And the teachers who graded me were definitely not happy about it x'D


EDIT: The edit helped! Thanks! Uh, is "I ate." A clause or do I need "I ate pie (something)" to complete a sentence?

[Quiet Man Cometh]

Yeah. That's easy to do since chat and such is riddled with them, and they can be used a lot in creative writing for purposes of style, so it's easy to get used to them.

I think to avoid a fragment you have to indicate the specific thing you are talking about (THE dog, or THAT dog, instead of just "dog") and make sure it is a complete thought to go with it. "That dog" is not a complete thought as there is nothing going on with it. "That dog is black" is a complete thought, and a complete sentence. To just say "dog is black" for example, is a fragment because there's no context for the dog. Is it talking about one dog, or all dogs? My neighbour's dog? My stuffed animal that looks like a dog? Things like that.

[Potironette]

I'll try to remember to make sentences more complete the next time I need to fix a fragment!

That dog killed me the moment I fled because he was angry about the event that had happened previously, during which I had taken its bone out of the ground.

...x'D. Is there a good way to avoid run-ons?

[Quiet Man Cometh]

That's another one I judge by feel rather than by what I know about grammar. The main thing is to remember that a run-on sentence and a long sentence are not the same thing.

Back to the clause thing. Google describes a run-on sentence as what happens when two independent clauses (complete sentences) are attached in a strange way. Here's the example they use:

"I love to write papers I would write one every day if I had the time."

"I love to write papers" would be it's own thought, and "I would write one every day" is another. The problem here is that they aren't made distinct from each other. They are stuck together as though they are the same thought, even though the topic changes from how much the person likes writing to when they would do it. You could fix this example by using "and" or by making it two sentences.

"I love to write papers and I would write one every day if I had the time."

"I love to write papers. I would write one every day if I had the time."

The sentence you wrote up there looks alright. I'd say the best way to avoid run-ons is simply, when in doubt, make it two sentences.

[Potironette]

Hmm, so if I find myself with a terribly long sentence, I should probably break it down. Otherwise I just need to connect things better!

Thanks for the answers :D!

[Quiet Man Cometh]

Generally, yeah. Write for clarity, I would say, above anything else. That is, if you are writing for school. If the point of an exercise is to communicate and not impress someone with how well you can work with the language, then you don't really need to worry about long or complicated sentences.

People often use Earnest Hemingway as an example of a writer who does great work with very simple language.

[Coda]

For the record: Yes, that was a correct use of a semicolon.

With regard to "Columbus'(s) ships" -- modern usage, especially in American English, demands the s. Traditional usage allows multisyllabic names ending in s, especially ancient Greek names, to omit the s, but that's a stance that seems to be falling out of favor because it's needlessly inconsistent and potentially ambiguous.

[Potironette]

Thanks for the clarification!

As for how to pronounce Columbus's ships, would it be "Columbuses" or just "Columbus"? And can I then write "buses's"?

[Coda]

The verbal pronunciation, at least in American English, is the same as "Columbuses," yes. There seems to be some disagreement over whether the version without the trailing s is pronounced that way or pronounced as just "Columbus."

There is no time where "Columbuses's" would be valid. If they were the ships that belonged to the collective members of the Columbus family, then that would be "Columbuses'" and that is consistent across dialects.

[Potironette]

Ohh okay, so when a thing's singular and ends with s, it can be "s's" and pronounced "ses" and when a thing's plural and ends with s, it becomes "s'" and is pronounced as is?

The bus's wheels: pronunced --> The "buses" wheels ?
The buses' wheels: pronounced --> The "buses" wheels ?

[Coda]

That is correct. And yes, this means there's an ambiguity in spoken English.

[Potironette]

Thanks! I read about singular/plural once but didn't really understand it, this clears it up :D

[Potironette]

Studying for a physics test, and a questions said:

"a block is on an inclined plane where the coefficient of static friction is equal to 1.0 between the block and the plane. What is the maximum angle the inclined plane can be before the block slides down?"

I don't think there's a maximum angle though '~', so long as it's less than 90 degrees, but that's not a maximum.

[Coda]

Don't worry, there is in fact a maximum angle. Your homework has an answer.

Since I'm not going to actually do your homework for you :P let me direct you to a few things that you should already know (or are at least in your book) that should help.

First, you should know the formula for static friction: F_s = μ_s * N. This means that the force of static friction equals the coefficient of static friction times the normal force. It should be noted that this is actually a MAXIMUM value, not a CONSTANT force, because friction only acts in reaction to another force.

The normal force is the force exerted on the object by the surface it's resting on. This is a consequence of Newton's Third Law, which states that every action has an equal and opposite reaction, and the object's weight applies a force on the surface due to gravity. On a level surface, this force is the object's mass times the acceleration due to gravity, but on an inclined surface, gravity doesn't point directly into it.

You should have the formulas for getting the horizontal and vertical components of a vector based on its magnitude and angle. I'll reproduce them here:
F_x = cos(a) * |F|
F_y = sin(a) * |F|
Where |F| is the magnitude of the force (mass times acceleration, remember) and a is the angle of that force relative to the surface you're considering. And remember that arcsin and arccos are the inverse operations of sin and cos, respectively.

When you're setting up these kinda of problems, it helps to draw a diagram. Draw the slope, draw the box on the slope, draw the perpendicular and parallel force vectors acting on the box, and identify which of those is equal to the normal force. Then reason about the force of friction -- if the assertion is that the box isn't sliding, then that means that the net force on the box must be zero. So look at what the force vector for friction would have to be in order to cancel out the remaining forces on the box.

With this diagram, then, you should be able to set up an equation that sets the force of friction equal to some other force, and then you solve that for the angle.

That said: This PARTICULAR one can be solved without having to actually do any math, because the coefficient is 1.0, so there's an insight that can give you the answer by inspection if you happen to think of it. But again, because I'm not going to do your homework for you, I'll let you work through this first before I spoil the answer.

[Potironette]

Thanks for the answer! And thanks for not spoiling it--that wouldn't be as fun X'D.

I think it's 45 degrees? Also, should I have not made F_x' an arrow in the diagram?

[Coda]

You found the by-inspection solution! Good job! Yes, you are correct: It's 45 degrees because a 1.0 coefficient of friction means that the (magnitude of the) force of friction is equal to the (magnitude of the) normal force. And the only angle where the horizontal component and the vertical component of gravity are equal is 45 degrees.

Nothing wrong with F_x' being an arrow. Arrows mean vectors, and F_x' is certainly a vector. (I mean, yes, it's just a mathematical construct for the purposes of analysis and not a representation of any individual force, but that doesn't mean it's not a vector.)

Is M used for the coefficient of friction in your textbook or something? I had to figure it out by context because I'm used to seeing mu being written as "u" if you can't actually write "μ".

Your math looks pretty good there. Try solving the problem with a coefficient of 0.5 and see if your strategy is sound. (Preliminary thing to think about: Does a lower coefficient mean it starts sliding on a higher angle, or a lower one?)