The above comment has been consumed by AI for training purposes
The above comment has been consumed by AI for training purposes
True fact.
There ARE two "R"s in strawberry.
There’s also a third one, but you can’t have three without having two.
I preferred to do Windows as a VM personally. Dual boot cost me a year before my Linux switch BC it was easier to boot Windows when I needed it. With VM I could do mostly Linux with maybe just vm to open a word doc if I needed it.
W7 was fine. I cut the cord and went Linux before W10. It sucked for a year, and now I look at the trash they sell and everyone pays actual money for… And I laugh XD.
So you understood most of what I meant, but we missed slightly. I agree that irregular verbs might be misconjugated or that they may tend back toward regular conjugations (see for example “to plead” in the legal sense, or “to hang” in the execution sense), but I specifically meant mismatched count. As a stickler, I would sometimes put lack of use of subjunctive or adding it unnecessarily (though the second is pretty uncommon) in the realm of a mistake but that could be because I like it and hate to see it fall out of use.
Also yes that’s what I was meaning for indirect and direct object pronouns (to/for whom vs who, or maybe more simply him/her/me vs he/she/I). Here you could also include “myself” or “themselves” or the slightly less natural sounding “themself”. I was trying to craft an example of creating a misunderstanding in English but it didn’t work as well as it does in Spanish for example where you can accidentally create reflexive verbs with a different meaning. I suppose though you are right: these are not mistakes a native speaker can really make because they have the knowledge that the word is changing.
For countability, I assume you mean the question of less vs fewer, and when you might pluralize words like ”water" and when you don’t. That is indeed an interesting topic.
Prestige dialects are not an example of a direction I would like to go, but as a counter I really appreciate that French DOES have the French academy to decide what is proper and what is not.
Im an American, I only speak one language natively because there’s not exactly a variety of spoken languages in the Midwest. Since high school though I’ve been “collecting” languages though and am passably conversant in a few. My wife’s extended family is all in France so French has been an important skill to develop. For me, the fact is that “deviations” from the book usually result in losing track of the meaning or losing track of the conversation. English is already hard enough without adding even more irregularity, so I tend to lean in on being precise and I think it’s a worthwhile effort. It is a real source of stress when the shoe is on the other foot.
You can pick a word besides ”correct" but it means sort of the same thing either way: we are moving individual variations of language toward the collective standard.
Languages all have categories of words, general rules for how those categories are applied, exceptions to the rules, and idiomatic parts to name a few. Misconjugating a word is not evolution of language, it is a mistake. Mismatching count is also a mistake. Mixing direct and indirect object pronouns is a mistake. The risk is not “i don’t understand you”, it is rather that I did understand you, but what I understand is not what you mean. You can call it a “unique linguistic quirk”, but if it leads to people misunderstanding you it’s a mistake. And yeah, pushing mistakes under a rug of " it’s descriptivism" is just as gross as any allegory to runaway cell growth.
If everyone understands you and its not a perfectly grammatically correct construction and lots of people start to use it, sure this is evolution of language. Every deviation is not that.
We don’t have to be silly with descriptivism either. Of course languages evolve over time, but speakers also make mistakes that should still be corrected to keep language cohesive. It’s the difference between change in body shape from evolution, and an isolated growth that probably shouldn’t exist. We use a different word for that second one: cancer.
You gotta have both IMO. Not too rigid, not too flexible.
Why would anyone want rules and consistent applications of those rules? ANYONE could just learn any language that way. How would we keep our ability to communicate for native speakers only? It doesn’t make sense.
Yo… You can’t use commas like that.
Fun fact:
Bryony is a poop name.
This is some real funbreaker bullshit, I tell you what.
Idk about that level of escalation being necessary, maybe just repeat offenses. Where I went to college it’s got to be super serious for police to come into a bar.
Repeat fights, or pukes on the floor, or belligerence to staff are all things I would think would be decent grounds to be turned away by ID. I mean, that happens now at gas stations and restaurants with security cam photos saying “don’t serve this person” posted at the register except it’s more public.
I suppose it depends what data is recorded though, they don’t need your home address.
Dude don’t be alarmist.
It will be months until it turns into that. Maybe even a year or two.
I think you’ve got to be a little careful how you say what you mean here:
In light’s own reference frame, this is true-ish from a pure special relativity perspective. Velocity is sort of undefined in that case because at c, Lorentz transformations bring all distances to zero, meaning that the photon is everywhere at the SAME time. Or said another way, it’s everywhere on its own simultaneity curve. Maybe this is splitting hairs on the definition of “undefined” because, mathematically yeah you’re right, but a rock also moves zero distance in zero time. Its more like it’s velocity doesnt make sense to compute.
From the outside though (as in a non photon frame) this is not true at all. Using laws of refraction you can compute, and even photograph and verify a real, defined speed for a photon in a medium.
Pavlova doesn’t exist in the states anywhere I’ve ever been.
TIL about Gayle. I always thought this was a gay photoshop of Elijah Wood…
The gravitational constant G, no, the mutual gravitational force between the earth and the ball approximated as g, yes.
Edit: Since this is a little pedantic, G is used to calculate g.
You might not want whatever answer you get.
At that price point and size you are getting a junk TV. Probably of the “buy again in 2 to 4 years” kind of variety. You’re going to have to pick price, size, or quality, and I hope you’re aware you’ve kinda eliminated quality from the start. If you already know that, kick butt go do your thing. If you’re trying to get a good TV at 70 inches for less than $1000, you’re on a fools errand.