sparkle @ sparkle @lemm.ee

computational linguist more like bomputational bimgis

---

Read more

Posts

0

Comments

345

Joined

1 yr. ago

Respectfully, you're delusional. Idk how your mind immediately went from feminist gender abolitionism jest to violence and extremism, and what seems to be a rant about how social progress for disprivileged peoples akstchually make our enemies hate us more so we should stop advocating for them, but it's a bit concerning

Of course, as a cisgender white guy you're not gonna be able to relate to targets of constant discrimination and you're going to be prone to be blind to gender-based (and race-based among other forms of) discrimination in our society. It shouldn't be too surprising that you see any advocacy for shift to equality in the social hierarchy as "extremist" and discrimination against your own group. But your comment is bordering on nega-empathy...

If you really care about inequality and you're not a conservative or ""libertarian"" then it would do you a lot of good to watch The Alt-Right Playbook to get a perspective on the regressive talking points you're repeating.

Relevant Alt-Right Playbook

More Alt-Right Playbook

Even More Alt-Right Playbook

Lol what? You are delusional. I'm not sure Orthodox Slavs would agree that WW1 and the subsequent Russian Civil War were "secular" wars considering most propoganda from that time was highly religious and they were seen as "holy wars" by both Slavs and Germans. The Ottomans literally were a Sharia state and the Sultan framed the war as a Jihad against the enemies of Islam. There was deep religious subtext in WW1 from nearly all the major European powers.

Both world wars were caused mostly by nationalism/ethnic conflict and recent history/economic problems. Secularism had literally not a single thing to do with it. Where exactly do you get this "WW1 and WW2 were caused by secularism" delusion from?

There are pencils like the Uni Kuru Toga line which have a motor to create auto-rotating lead, and the Pentel Orenz Nero 0.2mm which constantly pushes out lead so you don't have to keep clicking. So... close enough?

French: single-handedly turn the US into an independent country

Washington and Webster: "fuck you you pricks"

French: :( obliterates half of Europe

This is why Napoleon was so anggey bros. Trust me on this it has to be true. Why else would he have created an Italian national identity than to cast upon us pain and suffering as revenge?

Sorry, I mean fake as in not where the justices live. I'm pretty sure someone just took random addresses from vaguely around where the justices live and put them on there, I think the residents are just random fellows

Edit: Google searching has proven inconclusive in my quest for the truth, but there are articles claiming those are their addresses so I could be wrong. But people online keep saying the information is outdated by 1-2 decades and wrong (like this Redditor) so idk.

We could all collectively decide to chop the heads off of the elite. We don't need to argue about which capitalist is better every 4 years. There's nothing physically stopping 90% of the country from just overthrowing the other 10% if we really tried together

I'm pretty sure those are fake addresses

Brains transmit/change state (a.k.a. think) using electricity. It's basically a flesh computer. You can't read thoughts without being able to measure the brain's electrical/chemical activity. If you had any theoretically possible mind-reading (and by extension mind-controlling) technology, it would still need to physically connect to your neurons or something...

That being said, I don't imagine it'd be too hard for sci-fi future folk to stick a chip in every newborn's brain from the get-go. But that's a future too far from now, we'll all be dead by then probably.

I think lemmy.ml mods/admins often wipe entire comment histories in the community/instance when they remove specific comments. Say something about Taiwan and boom, your comments talking about toilet paper patents are gone

Don't quote me on that though

For real. I wish it were these people killing themselves with their stupidity, not others...

The dominance of the far-right in France's elections and in European elections in general this cycle is really frightening. That being said, I think a lot of their success comes from tactics inspired by Trump's... Trump became an internet icon, he was turned into a piece of popular culture. The European far-right are doing the same, they're REALLY good at social media propoganda and utilising social media to get young people to vote for them. Looking at 2019 vs 2024, the difference in young voters' attitudes would be unbelievable then.

Feminism means gender goes into the shredder. No gender. FUCK gender, punk ass bitch ass social construct. Burn it at the stake!

Note: many feminists may or may not disagree

can i get two cocks

Why would you wish that

Haha yeah. Soon after becoming a linguist your first realization is how little everyone else knows about or cares to know about linguistics. Btw I edited to add a little more information if you're interested.

Þorn was in use since Fuþark (Germanic runes) but wasn't used to write Anglo-Saxon until around the 8th century. It died out after the printing press came into use, usually imported from France (or Germany or something occasionally) and not using some characters found in English at the time. Because of the lack of a Þ/þ key, typers started to use "Y" as a substitute (which is why you see e.g. "ye olde" instead of "the olde"). Eventually þorn just disappeared and people used the spellings using "th". A similar thing happened to Yogh (Ȝ/ȝ), where it was substituted for by "Z" (With e.g. "MacKenȝie" yielding "MacKenzie" instead of "MacKenyie") until it disappeared and spellings using "y"/"gh" (or "j"/"ch" when appropriate) replaced spellings using "ȝ".

Ðæt (Ð/ð/đ) was mostly replaced by þorn by Middle English so it didn't get to be slain by the printing press. Wynn (Ƿ/ƿ) was replaced by "uu"/"w"/"u" by Middle English too. Ash (Æ/æ) didn't die off, in large part because it was available on many printing presses of the time due to its usage in French and Latin, but it became obsolete for English words and was mostly used to replace "ae" in loanwords (especially from Latin and Greek).

There were some other funny things in Old English & Middle English orthography; like omitting n/m and writing a macron over the preceding vowel to indicate the sound (like "cā" instead of "can"), in the same way that it occured in Latin/Latinate languages which lead to "ñ" and "ã"/"õ" in Spanish/Portuguese/Galician.

Most Sino-Tibetan languages (including most modern Chinese, Tibetan, and Burmese varieties), all Kra-Dai languages (including Thai and Lao), all Hmong-Mien languages, and a few other languages near the region (specifically, Vietnamese and Tsat) have tones. Japonic and Koreanic languages both have tones, but historically they've been very simplistic with only 2 tones (pitch accent) although Middle Korean developed 3 tones which then went back to 2. Pitch accent is entirely eliminated in Seoul Korean though. Hmong-Mien languages are the most tonal languages in the world, with up to 12 tones in some languages.

Tones generally seem to be a highly contagious areal feature, interestingly enough. At least in southeast Asian languages, an important shared feature between them was the reduction or loss of final consonants which usually ended up in a tonal system.

You would HATE being a person who could read in the Middle English era. There was no standardized spelling, people used many different conventions/regional spellings, and it was mostly either phonetic spelling or random French bullshit. Also some earlier writers used really conservative spelling to emulate Old English. It was the wild west out there.

For example, here's a (not comprensive) list of the variant spellings you may see for each second person pronoun:

Singular Nominative 2P:

thou, thoue, thow, thowe, thu, thue, þeu, þeou, thouȝ, thugh, thogh, ðhu; þou, þoue, þow, þowe, þu, þue, þouȝ, þugh, þogh, þo

(after alveolars and in contractions): tou, towe, touȝ, tu, to, te

Singular Objective 2P:

the, thee, thei, thi, thie, thy, ðe, de, þeo, þhe, yhe, ye, þe, þee, þi, þy

(after alveolars and in contractions): te

Singular Genitive, Dative, and Possessive 2P:

(usually before consonants): thi, thy, thei, they, yhi, yi, þhi; þei, þey, þy

(usually before vowels and "h"): thin, thyn, thine, thyne, thien, thyen, thein, theyn, thinne, yin; þin, þyn, þine, þyne, þinne; þines

(female referent): þinre, þire, þinen

(after "t" or "d"): ti, ty, tin, tyn, tine, tines

Plural Nominative 2P:

ye, yee, yeȝ, yhe, yie, iye, iȝe, hye, hie; ȝe, ȝee, ȝhe, ȝie, ȝeo; ge, gie, geo

Plural Objective 2P:

you, yow, youe, yowe, yo, yoe, yogh, yau, yaw, yeu, yew, yhu, yu, yw, yhow, yhou; ȝou, ȝow, ȝouȝ, ȝowȝ, ȝowe, ȝo, ȝu, ȝw, ȝuw, ȝue, ȝiou, ȝeu, ȝew, ȝewe, ȝau, ȝaw, ȝhou, ȝiu, ȝeou, ȝehw, ȝhowe; gou, gu, giu, geu, geau; ou, owe, eou, eow, eow, eo, eu, euwȝ, æu, hou, heou, heu

Plural Genitive & Dative 2P:

your, youre, yowr, yowre, ȝour, ȝoure yowyr, yowur, yor, yur, yure, yeur, yhure, yhour, yhoure; ȝowyr, ȝowur, ȝor, ȝore, ȝur, ȝure, ȝiore, ȝhour, ȝhoure, ȝaure, ȝiure, ȝiwer, ȝeur, ȝeure, ȝeuer, ȝeuwer, ȝewer, ȝewere; gur, gure, giur, giure, giuor, giuer, giuwer, giwer; ihore, ihoire, iure, eour, eoure, eouer, eouwer, eouwere, eower, eowwer, eore, eur, eure, euwer, euwere, eowrum, æure, our, oure, or, ore, ouer, ouwer, ouwere, ower, owur, hour

(early ME): þinen (genitive), þinum (dative), þirum (dative fem.)

Plural Possessive 2P:

youres, yourez, yours, youris, yurs, yowres, yowris, yowrys, yourn, youren; ȝours, ȝoures, ȝouris, ȝourys, ȝowers, ȝores, ȝures, ȝuris, ȝhurs, ȝourn, ȝouren; eowræs

You can find a lot more about Middle English spellings in LALME (A Linguistics Atlas of Late Mediæval English) (electronic version here)

Some of the more innovative spellings come from Northern Middle English/Northumbria (northern England and southern Scotland, though the dialects of the latter would largely split off and develop mostly on its own in the early stages of Middle English and become Scots) and to a lesser extent Midlands Middle English/Mercian, in large part due to significant past influence of North Germanic/Scandinavian languages; i.e., Old Norse, which was somewhat mutually intelligible with Old English and caused/progressed both the loss of inflections and the formation & solidification of Modern English syntax (in particular, Old English syntax shifted to become near-identical to Old Norse syntax; Old English also entirely lost inflection of grammatical gender, grammarical case, etc. and adopted many core vocabulary of Old Norse). Those changes happened primarily to facilitate communication with vikings in the Danelaw, since Anglo-Saxons and Scandinavians were very eager to communicate with each other; things like declensions were very different in the two languages (the 12 different declensions of "the" probably weren't fun to deal with for Scandinavians), so Old English speakers started omitting or simplifying them, and they mostly died off in (early) Middle English. English also completely lost dual pronouns (pronouns with exactly 2 referents). Word order was primarily SVO in Old Norse, so Old English's relatively liberal word order (or lack of consistent word order) was simplified/regularized significantly to be more SVO.

Southern Middle English – the dialects of West Saxon and Kent – were significantly more conservative (partly due to having next to no influence from Norse). Those are where many more conservative spellings are from. The West Saxon dialects were the most influential/dominant (especially due to the Kingdom of Wessex' great power) until the Norman Conquest, when East Midlands English (especially around London) took over that role.

Southern American English & Maritime Canadian English varieties were both primarily based on more southern English varieties – specifically, the time's London English and West Country English. Appalachian English was also heavily influenced by Scottish English and the English of northern England. Canadian English in general was based on both Southern and Midlands English. Meanwhile, New England's English was primarily derived from East Midlands dialects. Generally, dialects derived from the time's West Country English are significantly more conservative and more similar to the general speech of ~15th century England, while more Midlands (of the time) influenced American and Canadian varieties are similar to standard ~17-18th century English. Dialects influenced by the time's Scottish English and Northern English also generally contain a lot more conservative Anglic constructions – modern Appalachian/Southern American English varieties and modern Scottish/Northern varieties share a large amount of vocabulary and other features which were lost in other dialects.

Standard varieties of Modern British English are comparatively generally significantly more innovative and don't share many features with Middle & Early Modern English varieties – general British English started diverging greatly from most other English dialects around the mid-to-late 18th century and early 19th century. This is also a reason why Australia and New Zealand English have a lot of features which seem to only partially agree with other English varieties. For example, the trap-bath vowel split, which was partially completed in Australia and is present in certain words, but not all words, and has variation in some words. When Australia was being colonized, Southern English varieties had recently begun undergoing the split, and it was considered a "Cockneyism" until Received Pronunciation was formed in the late 19th century and embraced it; it wasn't fully progressed until around that time, which is why New Zealand English (which came from immigrants in the mid 19th century) mostly agrees with Southern English on those vowels.

Rockford ("rook" (the bird) + "ford") is a common American place name

Rockefeller (from German Rockenfeld <- Rukenvelt "ridge field") is an American surname

Roquefort literally means "fortified rock/cliff"

I think he is making a joke that OP is, in fact, the bot

Or maybe he's just bullying OP for circlejerking so hard and giving himself a pat on the back as a Lemmy user