Patrick Henry Speech

In Patrick Henry’s speech to the Virginia convention he presents his beliefs very well. He uses a lot of analogy which really helps illustrate and make his argument much stronger. In this speech the reader can tell that he has conviction in what he believes in. He says at the very end of the speech “give me liberty or give me death!”. Making the end of his speech strong and summarizes his whole argument in one simple sentence.

1. I believe Patrick Henry says this at the beginning to gain the favor of his audience. It kind of gets the audiences attention. And it makes them much more likely to listen to what he has to say if he demonstrates some respect for those he intends to reach. Because if he would’ve came out and said you guys are wrong I’m right no one would’ve listened. It’s just easier to listen to someone when they start off being positive and respectful.

2. Light in this context would mean ways. Or basically everyone has different opinions and views. He probably used this wording so that it is easier to see what he means. Or he used it so as not to offend someone but just saying something like only this way is right the rest of you are wrong. But then again it could’ve just been he used the word light because that was the way he talked.

3. When he says “it” he is referring to the war with England for the nations independence. By comparing freedom and slavery he makes an analogy. This statement creates an emotional appeal probably for some. It explains his argument in plain and easy to understand terms. Either the audience chooses to fight England for their freedom or they become enslaved to England.

4. He is creating an emotional appeal or a sense of duty and patriotism. Truth to Henry in this sentence I believe means an understanding or a realization. Henry is trying to impress the urgency and importance of the issue. He uses very heavy words and strong feelings to address the situation. He also refers to God often to invoke a spiritual feeling as well.

5. Once again an emotional appeal. He is trying to separate King George and God. Illustrating that God is above King George. And that God would want them to be free and independent from King George. He also alludes to God helping them if they stand and fight because it is a just and noble cause.

Find your answer Ask a new question or post a poll.

News: Fixes for 'Load more answers,' forum...

• Connect
• Login / Register

Question

Help answer this question below.

I JST GOT MARRIED & MY HUSBAND JST GOT PUT ON CHILDSUPPORT I ALSO JST ADDED HIM TO MY BANK ACCOUNT CAN THE GOV. TAKE MONEY FROM DAT ACCOUNT?

Alright this is an example that I found on http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/1907142. I will start by correcting all the shorthand errors and making it a little easier to read. “I just got married and my husband just got put on child support I also just added him to my bank account can the government take money from that account?” Well in my opinion the short cut words that this person uses aren’t really making it any harder to understand. To me what makes it a little hard to understand is how alliterate it is. I also don’t see why it is so hard to put the letter “u” in just. In this question the writer leaves out the “u” when they type the word just every single time. The writer of this question didn’t really use all that many emoticons or anything like that. They just cut off a lot of words for some reason. I guess because it is easier to leave out a few letters here and there when typing something. But like I said earlier the grammar in this question makes it a little tough to understand what the writer is trying to get across. But overall the use of shorthand or emoticons doesn’t really make it harder to read for me.

Thumbspeak by: Louis Menand

The current trends in new media communication are often debated as to whether or not they will have a negative effect on the future of academic writing. Many people argue that the use of shorthand terms such as “lol” and “g2g” is somehow going to make people start to think that that is the way we spell those words. They also think that use of these terms will somehow make humans as a whole regress into alliteration. To me such an idea is just plain ridiculous. The people that believe these things are the same as the people that were afraid of the use of the automobile when it first came out. New technology and ways of communication means change. And most people are afraid of change so they label it as something bad. After reading the article “Thumbspeak” by: Louis Menand my opinion on what new media trends will do to the future of academic writing remains unchanged. My opinion is that the new media trends won’t really have much of an effect at all on the future of academic writing. As David Crystal says in the article “a trillion text messages appear as no more than a few ripples on the surface of the sea of language.” Texting and instant messaging won’t really have a negative or positive impact on future writing because slang and the use of shorthand has been around for centuries. Some facts that Louis Menand brings up in this article to back up my standpoint are “ “Luv” for “love” dates from 1898; “thanx” was first used in 1936.” (Menand Thumbspeak)