“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.
Oh! Yeah okay cool. I get that. So these two options I couldn’t decide between were both right.
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.
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.
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.
There is an error I made in a tree in one of my first forum posts that I haven’t returned to:
You replied:
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.
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.
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.
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.
Okay, that makes sense re ‘nor’. And so ‘neither’ is an adverb modifying ‘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’.
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?
