Quote Originally Posted by Greyblades View Post
I mean that the word multicultural's meaning is so vague and subjective that your statment can be said to be simultaniously right and wrong.
It shouldn't surprise you that many terms in political discourse have many different meanings that are often used to misleading effect. In the post you quoted, then, I'm talking about the specific policies of multiculturalism that were endorsed by Western European governments after WW2 as part of reconstruction of their drained economies and as part of the broader offloading of some authority and responsibility from governments to business and finance. In the last generation, multiculturalism was co-opted by what Frag used to call (though he dropped it in the past year or so) "Cultural Marxists" who saw it not as an idea justifying the import of foreign labor, but as a sound and desirable ethical principle on its own. Those paleo-rightists who both resented globalized economics and the left-spectrum generally then associated "multiculturalism" with certain leftist groups and leftist social academics because by then the leftists were the only ones who bothered to mention the term.

I think your trouble is that you write like a university student attempting to gain extra credit through rarely used words and long-winded writing patterns.
I usually write on a secondary-school level. In fact, this is basically like my day-to-day speech.

Combined with a habit of failing to connect your rebuttle with the post you are responding to and you have freqently become outright incomprehensable.
When I am giving a specific response to a specific sentence, I do it precisely and step-by-step. But this approach is infrequent in life outside of formal debate settings, since usually people in discussions bring in relevant ideas and arguments rather than lines that are explicitly tailored to a single other line or set of lines, and irrelevant or incomprehensible outside that context.

TLDR: Stop being so self-centered and try to follow what people are actually talking about rather than expecting people to limit themselves only to what little substance you yourself have posted about your own understanding, or otherwise to hold your hand.

Quote Originally Posted by Gilrandir
I quoted the same source and you said that I was wrong in identifying apposition. If Chancellor in Chancellor Merkel welcomed the refugees is not an apposition, then do tell me what part of the sentence it is.
Apposition involves two separate units with a coreferent. The appositive unit may or may not be necessary in the structure of the utterance. For a phrase like "I would like to honor my favorite poet, Burns, by reading his...", the semantic content can be described abstractly like "I would like to honor A, A, by reading A's..."

For phrases like "Ms. Smith" or "Chancellor Merkel", there is no apposition since both the title and the name are mutually-necessary in combining to form a single unit, rather than two distinct ones. This is the case for any title that is not an actual position or status, but purely a form of address.

Such honorifics can only be involved in apposition indirectly:

1a. I would like to introduce the (German) Chancellor, (Chancellor) Merkel, as the speaker tonight.
2a. I would like to introduce a very important lady, (Ms./Mrs./Dr./Chancellor) Merkel, as the speaker tonight.

The two underlined parts are both in apposition to "(Chancellor) Merkel", and you can include or exclude the title next to "Merkel" as you like, but you cannot by definition create an appositive relationship between "Merkel" and the bolded title thus. Notably, in Sentence 1a "Chancellor" can be involved in apposition in to "Merkel", but only in the instance where it is part of the distinct unit "the (German) Chancellor", and not when it is forming a unit with "Merkel".

Also, if someone is addressed with multiple titles, like "His Majesty King of Swatesia, Lord of all Elephants, Conqueror of the Aphorites...", then the titles can be described as in apposition to each other.

The point is basically that it is not possible for a title standing alone to be in apposition to a name in a format like "TITLE-ENTITLED", because this format creates a single identifying unit and for apposition you need two distinct identifying units with, as per Wiki, "one element serving to identify the other in a different way".