zompist bboard

_________________
Blog:

But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!

I don't look out of planes once we're off the ground. More interesting things are inside.

_________________

OMG AN ACTUAL CONPOST WTFBBQ

Formerly known as Drydic.

_________________
Blog:

But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!

Just because you deliberately aren't looking at the evidence doesn't mean it isn't firsthand. You're just refusing to look at it.

_________________

OMG AN ACTUAL CONPOST WTFBBQ

Formerly known as Drydic.

Therefore I have not experienced it.

_________________
Blog:

But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!

Is this discussion even necessary? What I experience is subjective. You think I would because you would; I think I wouldn't because I recall I did not.

_________________
Blog:

But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!

I have literally watched boats come and go over the horizon

Don't eat the newcomers. It's in the house rules and everything.

Not to mention the argument is utterly vacant. If I really must do this, then: "observations" become "evidence" when you are weighing them for how well they support a hypothesis; otherwise they are merely observations. You make observations all day, every day - probably millions of them if you count all the little things that only barely register on the mind - and in principle any or all of them could be evidence of something. And you are seriously faulting someone for not drawing all the conclusions it's conceivably possible to draw from what they've witnessed? You'd better be prepared to defend the claim that you have done so yourself, then.

I don't mean to be insulting, but this is really is called argument by pig-headedness, i.e. claiming that a conclusion everyone else has already accepted as true is in fact false, without accepting the burden of proof for that claim. I'm not quite sure why everyone is getting so worked up about it though, since I have to assume this is basically being done in jest.

Several rather specific animal names:

drake (male duck)
flange (a group of baboons)
jill (female of various animal species)
jack (male of various animal species)
sawt (a group of lions; "pride" is more common and, in that sense, is quite technical)
shoat (recently weaned piglet)

Then there's also pip (1/10,000 of a currency unit, used in forex trading; similar to "basis points"), and various less-common non-metric units of measurement like the thou (1/1000 of an inch), chain, link, rod, perch, gill, grain, and - oddly - the quart, which isn't seen that often even in America (most of its uses having been subsumed by liters/pints/gallons).

_________________
MI DRALAS, KHARULE MEVO STANI?!

Cud.

Also, has no one read this thread before posting? It's a bit ridiculous.

_________________
Glossing Abbreviations: COMP = comparative, C = , ACS / ICS = , GDV = , SPEC / NSPC = specific / non-specific
________

Mongolian has 'shaa' which means 'fuck.' Such a simple sound to mean 'fuck.' Any word starting with 'Sha' I imagine sounds to them like shiitake mushrooms sounds to us.

Crosswords are great for these though, like Tret.

_________________
and

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.

_________________
The conlanger formerly known as “the conlanger formerly known as Pole, the”.

If we don't study the mistakes of the future we're doomed to repeat them for the first time.

No, because it's a different sound. We are tittered by words that look like they should be pronounced beginning with "fuck", even though they tend to be place names like Fukuoka or Phuket.

"shit" is such a common series of letters in japanese that i hardly notice it anymore. I was teaching someone how to pronounce the word "receipt" properly last week and it wasn't until I looked back up that I realised I'd written "reshit" on the board as my guide for how it's pronounced in japanese.

_________________
Siöö jandeng raiglin zåbei tandiüłåd;
nää džunnfin kukuch vklaivei sivei tåd.
Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei.

_________________
— o noth sidiritt Tormiott

Japanese 'shi' is [ɕi].

_________________
— o noth sidiritt Tormiott

More often than not, Japanese speakers are quite poor at differentiating [ɕi] and [si]. I guess he was probably spelling it that way explicitly to draw attention to the sound difference.