"Unity could not be whatever is not as part, whole, equivalence, uniqueness, limit, link, influence, sensation, origin, derivative, rule, condition, intent and fulfillment."
2007-01-19 22:49:33 · 13 answers · asked by The Knowledge Server 1 in Society & Culture ➔ Languages
I thought I am good at grammer.
But I really can't understand this. What is this sentence trying to say?
2007-01-19 23:04:33 · answer #1 · answered by TJ 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
In an effort to make it sound really important and informative, you've messed up the definition. Why not just say, "Whatever is not part, whole, equivalence, uniqueness, limit, link, influence, sensation, origin, derivative, rule, condition, intent or fulfillment is not unity."?
2007-01-20 16:35:48 · answer #2 · answered by Parry 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Whatever unity is not as part of whole, equivalence, uniqueness, to all links that is limited to influence the sensation of all origin that deviate the condition of all the rules that indented to fulfillment the moments.
2007-01-20 06:55:47 · answer #3 · answered by ? 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The idea of unity means that the whole group has one intent. This intent is the fulfillment of a goal. The success of this group is a derivative of everyone's uniqueness and contribution toward the goal.
2007-01-20 08:53:00 · answer #4 · answered by Larry 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
"Unity cannot be described as a part, whole, equivalence, uniqueness, limit, link, influence, sensation, origin, derivative, rule, condition, intent and fulfillment"
but wat do u want to explain????by giving so many words? for givin me more info on the topic please mail me shrutesh1@yahoo.co.in
2007-01-20 07:45:37 · answer #5 · answered by shrutesh 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It is difficult to know what going in someone's mind with the help of many different words put together to form a sentence out of it. Atleast it should be clear as to what is the gist of the sentence.
2007-01-20 07:03:10 · answer #6 · answered by Tarun 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Unity is greater than the sum of it parts, them being:...
2007-01-21 16:45:37 · answer #7 · answered by ikeman32 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The statement is grammatically correct.
2007-01-21 16:02:18 · answer #8 · answered by the Tramp 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, sorry. There is something really wrong with this sentence...What are you trying to say?
2007-01-20 06:56:14 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
how can we check the syntax if semantic(meaning) is not right or clear in the first place.....
2007-01-20 07:07:28 · answer #10 · answered by DeAd MaN 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋