# LMD Async Tutoring
**URL:** https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/lmd-async-tutoring/1933
**Category:** Tutoring
**Created:** [April 23, 2024, 12:05am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/lmd-async-tutoring/1933 "2024-04-23T00:05:39Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 24
### Author:  [@Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Elliot)
#### Post date: [July 28, 2024, 1:05am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/lmd-async-tutoring/1933/462 "2024-07-28T01:05:03Z")
> [@LMD](#):
>
> Having ‘not’ modifying the adverb ‘primarily’, as a kind of parenthetical, does mean the correct thing?
yes.
you figured out the main idea.
“not” should apply to “primarily” in some manner, and should _not_ apply to just “anti-socialist”.
so applying both “not” and “primarily” as independent modifiers of “anti-socialist” is problematic.
you found a potential solution: having “not” modify" primarily" directly.
another option is having the group “was not” apply to the group “primarily anti-socialist”. this makes “not” indirectly get applied to “primarily”. if “not” applies to “was”, and “was” applies to the noun-phrase consisting of “anti-socialist” with the modifier “primarily” then the “not” is relevant to the primarily.
what you don’t want is like “big red car” where basically the two adjectives both separately apply to “car” instead of either one affecting the other.
make sense?
---
### Author:  [@LMD](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/LMD)
#### Post date: [July 28, 2024, 1:39am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/lmd-async-tutoring/1933/463 "2024-07-28T01:39:30Z")
> [@Elliot](#):
>
> “not” should apply to “primarily” in some manner, and should _not_ apply to just “anti-socialist”.
>
> so applying both “not” and “primarily” as independent modifiers of “anti-socialist” is problematic.
>
> you found a potential solution: having “not” modify" primarily" directly.
This makes sense yes.
> [@Elliot](#):
>
> another option is having the group “was not” apply to the group “primarily anti-socialist”.
This doesn’t make sense to me. I’m interpreting you as saying that an alternative tree is:
```
anti-socialist
Von Mises(?)
primarily
was
not
```
Where the group “was not” applies (modifies?) the group “primarily anti-socialist”?
This seems to break with what I understand about the function of verbs?
---
### Author:  [@Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Elliot)
#### Post date: [July 28, 2024, 3:23am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/lmd-async-tutoring/1933/464 "2024-07-28T03:23:24Z")
The word “apply” doesn’t mean exclusively “be a child modifier”. Verbs apply to their subjects and objects.
---
### Author:  [@LMD](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/LMD)
#### Post date: [July 28, 2024, 3:56am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/lmd-async-tutoring/1933/465 "2024-07-28T03:56:53Z")
Oh! Yeah okay cool. I get that. So these two options I couldn’t decide between were both right.
> [@LMD](#):
>
> Ok. I can think of two other plausible options that I can’t decide between.
>
> One is that perhaps ‘not’ is modifying primarily, and not ‘was’?
>
> The other is that perhaps ‘primarily’ modifies ‘anti-socialist’
The tree I had in mind for the first:
- was
- Von Mises
- primarily
- not
- anti-socialist
And the second:
- was
- Von Mises
- not
- anti-socialist
- primarily
I’ll try to keep in mind that sometimes this happens. Because in this case it made me question both right answers and come up with a third and wrong answer.
---
### Author:  [@Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Elliot)
#### Post date: [July 28, 2024, 3:50pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/lmd-async-tutoring/1933/466 "2024-07-28T15:50:43Z")
Do you have some questions about grammar?
Try some other sentences to see if you can find problems.
Review some trees you got wrong in the past to see if you understand the issues now.
I doubt we should be moving on to paragraph trees immediately but I’m not sure what specifically you need right now.
Read my commas article.
Are you interested in making a video with a tree animation similar to mine where a sentence changes into a tree? Could have voiceover or just be a silent clip of the animation.
---
### Author:  [@LMD](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/LMD)
#### Post date: [July 30, 2024, 12:29am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/lmd-async-tutoring/1933/467 "2024-07-30T00:29:46Z")
> [@Elliot](#):
>
> Are you interested in making a video with a tree animation similar to mine where a sentence changes into a tree? Could have voiceover or just be a silent clip of the animation.
Sure. I have no experience with making videos/doing animation. But it seems that I can just use Keynote on my mac. It looks fairly simple too.
---
### Author:  [@LMD](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/LMD)
#### Post date: [July 30, 2024, 1:27am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/lmd-async-tutoring/1933/468 "2024-07-30T01:27:27Z")
Okay I watched some videos and figured out how to do this in about 60 mins. I experimented with drawing the lines in at times that mirror how the sentence is read/spoken and I liked that effect.
I would spread out the words a little more on my next one, so it’s a little less cramped. I could try colour each word like you do in your videos too.
I could do voice over fairly easily I think.
---
### Author:  [@Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Elliot)
#### Post date: [July 30, 2024, 2:03am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/lmd-async-tutoring/1933/469 "2024-07-30T02:03:25Z")
Share your keynote file.
---
### Author:  [@LMD](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/LMD)
#### Post date: [July 30, 2024, 2:07am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/lmd-async-tutoring/1933/470 "2024-07-30T02:07:15Z")
[I am learning to animate text today.key](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/uploads/short-url/umX7v9pBi1jo3cMrOtpjdIiZQ8j.key) (1.2 MB)
---
### Author:  [@LMD](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/LMD)
#### Post date: [July 30, 2024, 2:22am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/lmd-async-tutoring/1933/471 "2024-07-30T02:22:09Z")
> [@Elliot](#):
>
> Review some trees you got wrong in the past to see if you understand the issues now.
There is an error I made in a tree in one of my first forum posts that I haven’t returned to:
> [@LMD Sentence Analysis Practise](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/lmd-sentence-analysis-practise/1881/2):
>
> My second sentence is:
>
> > You don’t have to copy me to be rational.
>
> Tree:
>
> 
>
> I am unsure about whether ‘to be’ is a child of ‘to copy’ or the main verb phrase ‘do not have’. I decided that the arrangement pictured made more sense to me intuitively, but I couldn’t explain my choice. Any thoughts would be much appreciated.
You replied:
> [@LMD Sentence Analysis Practise](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/lmd-sentence-analysis-practise/1881/9):
>
> I think “to be” is a child of “do have” in sentence 2.
My thoughts now are that the fragment ‘to be’ means something like ‘in order to be’. From some reading ‘in order to’ is a subordinating conjunction, that relates a subordinate clause.
> **[In order to](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/in-order-to#google_vignette)**
>
> In order to - English Grammar Today - a reference to written and spoken English grammar and usage - Cambridge Dictionary
I think I see why you think “to be” is a child of “do have” when I think about it like this:
> In order to be rational, you don’t have to copy me.
or
> To be rational, you don’t have to copy me.
---
### Author:  [@LMD](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/LMD)
#### Post date: [July 30, 2024, 2:24am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/lmd-async-tutoring/1933/472 "2024-07-30T02:24:06Z")
Also, I just noticed that my characterisation of ‘rational’ in that sentence as a noun was wrong. It’s an adjective.
---
### Author:  [@Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Elliot)
#### Post date: [July 30, 2024, 3:28am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/lmd-async-tutoring/1933/473 "2024-07-30T03:28:35Z")
There are better ways to animate this. Mainly, look up “magic move”. Also look at straight connection lines:
Also add hotkeys for commonly used stuff like text boxes and connections. I have caps lock set as a second control key so hotkeys with it are more convenient.
If you do colors, hotkey them too:
---
### Author:  [@LMD](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/LMD)
#### Post date: [July 30, 2024, 4:03am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/lmd-async-tutoring/1933/474 "2024-07-30T04:03:57Z")
> [@Elliot](#):
>
> There are better ways to animate this. Mainly, look up “magic move”.
Oh cool yeah. Magic move looks great.
---
### Author:  [@LMD](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/LMD)
#### Post date: [July 30, 2024, 1:16pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/lmd-async-tutoring/1933/475 "2024-07-30T13:16:50Z")
Okay that was all very helpful. I made this:
Looks familiar!
---
### Author:  [@LMD](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/LMD)
#### Post date: [July 31, 2024, 1:37am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/lmd-async-tutoring/1933/476 "2024-07-31T01:37:17Z")
> [@Elliot](#):
>
> Try some other sentences to see if you can find problems.
Ayn Rand in _Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal_:
> Since men are neither omniscient nor infallible, they must be free to agree or disagree, to cooperate or to pursue their own independent course, each according to his own rational judgment.
Okay here are some things that I am not 100% confident on:
- This uses the correlative conjunction ‘neither/nor’. I’ve combined them into one parent node.
- I think the two ‘or’ groups are part of a larger implied _and_ group.
- My guess is that ‘according’ is a participle and it modifies the implied _and_ group that contains both the ‘or’ groups.
---
### Author:  [@LMD](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/LMD)
#### Post date: [July 31, 2024, 1:45am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/lmd-async-tutoring/1933/477 "2024-07-31T01:45:57Z")
Actually, I changed my mind about the implied _and_ group. I think the group is there like this:
---
### Author:  [@Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Elliot)
#### Post date: [July 31, 2024, 1:48am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/lmd-async-tutoring/1933/478 "2024-07-31T01:48:41Z")
> [@LMD](#):
>
> This uses the correlative conjunction ‘neither/nor’. I’ve combined them into one parent node.
The conjunction is “nor”. Check “neither” in the dictionary and you’ll only see other parts of speech. It’s an adverb here.
What parts of speech and role do you think the “must”, “be” and “each” are?
> [@LMD](#):
>
> - I think the two ‘or’ groups are part of a larger implied _and_ group.
I read the second group as a restatement of the first.
---
### Author:  [@LMD](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/LMD)
#### Post date: [July 31, 2024, 2:01am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/lmd-async-tutoring/1933/479 "2024-07-31T02:01:11Z")
> [@Elliot](#):
>
> The conjunction is “nor”. Check “neither” in the dictionary and you’ll only see other parts of speech. It’s an adverb here.
Okay, that makes sense re ‘nor’. And so ‘neither’ is an adverb modifying ‘are’?
> [@Elliot](#):
>
> What parts of speech and role do you think the “must”, “be” and “each” are?
I thought ‘be’ was the main verb, and ‘must’ was an auxiliary verb. But I’m thinking now that ‘must’ is a modal verb and ‘be’ is an infinitive, and ‘free’ is the object of the infinitive ‘be’.
I think ‘each’ is a pronoun.
---
### Author:  [@LMD](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/LMD)
#### Post date: [July 31, 2024, 2:10am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/lmd-async-tutoring/1933/480 "2024-07-31T02:10:13Z")
> [@Elliot](#):
>
> I read the second group as a restatement of the first.
Oh okay. So kind of like a parenthetical to the first group? I’m not sure how I might diagram that. Perhaps the second group is a child of the first group, since it is a restatement i.e extra detail?
---
### Author:  [@Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Elliot)
#### Post date: [July 31, 2024, 2:17am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/lmd-async-tutoring/1933/481 "2024-07-31T02:17:38Z")
> [@LMD](#):
>
> I think ‘each’ is a pronoun.
What is its relationship to its parent?
> [@LMD](#):
>
> Okay, that makes sense re ‘nor’. And so ‘neither’ is an adverb modifying ‘are’?
What do you think it should modify for the meaning to make the most sense?
> [@LMD](#):
>
> I thought ‘be’ was the main verb, and ‘must’ was an auxiliary verb. But I’m thinking now that ‘must’ is a modal verb and ‘be’ is an infinitive, and ‘free’ is the object of the infinitive ‘be’.
Lets not use the auxiliary verb concept at all.
[Previous page](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/lmd-async-tutoring/1933.md?page=23)
[Next page](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/lmd-async-tutoring/1933.md?page=25)