- 505
- 275
Respectfully, this makes no sense.who said that was whole chair...you can't see the problem.
object a of the object b, in result object a is appart of the object b, for the case example.
then you come up with object a of the object b, in result object b is appart of object a, for the scans.
you completely turn around the object here.
My premise is that Key world is apart of the Universe, because it's a planet. I give reason and evidence to support that reason. You simply not giving reason as to why this would be backwards, such as universe apart of key world, isn't even truthful to the situation.
So give me reason why key world holds a universe, then maybe you can seem more credible, but that's also having to simultaneously debunk my evidence and reason for it being a planet. Until then, it's describing the Universe of the cardinal world.
Utilizing the same analogy as the chair, I can equally put; The Owner of that dog, The Dimension of that star, The region of that lake, or The continent of that jungle.
All I'm doing is this large thing, is related to this smaller thing, like ownership.
Let me put some of these in sentences to help;
"I am the owner of that dog right there."
"What's the dimension of that star called again?"
"How do you pronounce the region of that lake?"
"Where's the continent of that jungle?"
If the name of the jungle, star or lake is already known, you can just refer to it as "that __" because the subject is already known.
Do we really have to get the translator back here to address this, or will we stop making arguments about the sentence structure.