<span>The passage of the dialogue is written:
</span>
B. correctly
Punctuation such as quotation marks which highlight the speech; comma is put at the right place which includes the emphasis of two different ideas; and period is also correctly placed every after the end of the sentence. Lastly, page breaks are correctly implemented.
"My Aunt Gold Teeth" by Vidiadhar Surajprasad Naipaul is a short story that was originally published in 1958 in the Paris Review. Naipaul himself was born in Chaguanas, Trinidad, where the story is set, and like his characters in his story came from an Indian background, a family including pundits, religious experts with profound knowledge of the Vedas (Sanskrit texts sacred in the Hindu religion).
The first person narrator of the story is a child, but the narrative voice often veers from the first-person viewpoint of the child to omniscient narration. The narrator appears almost contemptuous of the aunt, characterizing her by extended and unflattering description. The two main outward elements of the characterization are the gold teeth, which we encounter at the opening of the story, and which give her the nickname she bears (she is always called "Gold Teeth" in the story). The second element in the description is her weight; the narrator seems both obsessed with and disgusted by the fact that she is very fat. On a psychological level, she is characterized mainly by her level of superstition. The narrator sees religion as something ignorant people approach as a form of magic,with Roman Catholicism and Hinduism as Gold Teeth practiced them simply a set of rituals used to gain practical benefits. Her constantly praying for children and the negative attitude of the narrator and other members of the community towards her barrenness is simply taken for granted and used as the occasion for discussion of her superstitiousness.
We are told that Ramprasad, Gold Teeth's husband, is a pundit, knowing all five of the Vedas, something highly respected in Hindu society, and also are informed that he is relatively well off (providing the money allowing her to replace her teeth with gold ones). Physically, he is characterized as having a huge appetite for food, and becoming ill over the course of the story, but he is an essentially flat character, mainly serving as a pretext for development of Gold Teeth's character and critique of the way religion and medicine together are simply seen as instrumental, as means to an end, an uncritical grasping of everything that might be potentially useful.
The characterization of Ganash is also one-dimensional, with his being open to many religious traditions and his reassurance of a worried wife about a sick husband treated mainly as an occasion to critique what most people would consider a capacious and humane approach to religion as cynical self-advancement:
In his professional capacity Ganesh was consulted by people of many faiths, and with the licence of the mystic he had exploited the commodiousness of Hinduism, and made room for all beliefs. In this way he had many clients, as he called them, many satisfied clients.
The reason why Prince said he had no freedom to fight for is the fact that he was a slave, as stated in option 1 and further explained below.
<h3>Why can't Prince fight?</h3>
According to the passage we are analyzing here, Prince was a slave who belonged to William. His owner expect Prince to join him in battle, that is, to fight alongside him. However, Prince explains that he cannot do so.
The reason why Prince has "no freedom to fight for" is the fact that he was a slave. Prince could very well join William in battle, but what for? Why should he fight for freedom when he is denied it? How can a slave be asked to die for the freedom of white people when his own people are treated as possessions?
By saying so, Prince got William to free him. Apparently, that sentence was an eye-opener to his master, who only now realized the incoherence there is in asking a slave to fight for freedom.
With the information above in mind, we can select option 1 as the correct answer.
This is part of the missing passage which we need to answer this question:
"At the time he began his military service, William owned a slave like most of his peers. The slave, named Prince, would have been expected to join William and serve with him in battle. As they were preparing to leave, Prince told William, "I have no freedom to fight for, sir." Seeing the truth in this, William is reported to have freed Prince immediately. Today, we look back on history through a great fog of time, and with lenses clouded by our own modern values. Our Founding Fathers displayed admirable courage in crafting and signing such a brilliant claim to human liberty."
These are the missing answer choices:
- He did not believe in fighting.
- He was a British citizen.
Learn more about slaves here:
brainly.com/question/782305
#SPJ1
Answer:
I believe that it was Macbeths servant
Explanation:
Because when the murder happened (scene 3 line 2) the first murderer ask who sent the third murderer in the murder of banquo and the third murderer said macbeth. Hope that this will help anybody that needs that question answered :)
