[-] [email protected] 27 points 3 weeks ago

Sounds like Big Cable Elf propaganda.

[-] [email protected] 28 points 5 months ago

Literally me (to be fair I'm not always clothed).

[-] [email protected] 26 points 5 months ago

It's from the proposed Middle English Wikipedia. Here's the frogge article, here are all articles that have been written. But the no-fun-allowed Wikimedia killed it off.

[-] [email protected] 27 points 5 months ago

The correct 196 is already within you.

[-] [email protected] 27 points 6 months ago

I miss some of the bots.

Remember-Me or Haiku-Bot

have been my favourite ones.

(I'm a shitty haiku bot)

[-] [email protected] 26 points 6 months ago

You don't get it man, this comic is actually a fairly sophisticated reference to C&H's classic character, the Purple-Shirted Eye-Stabber.

[-] [email protected] 25 points 7 months ago

Someone that has their own morals, and thinks killing is bad?

Can we guarantee they'd report him if there was no financial incentive?

The system really doesn't give a fuck about your or anyone else's morals, let's not pretend otherwise. That's why they put a bounty on the killer, after all.

1
submitted 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

Native English speakers, how do you use personal datives? Today I came across an interesting text on the phenomenon here. Here are some examples from the text:

4] a. I got me some candy.

b. You got you some candy.

c. We got us some candy.

5] a. He got him some candy.

b. She got her some candy.

c. *It got it some candy.

d. They got them some candy.

(5c is marked with * to mark its grammatical unacceptability)

As a non-native speaker, I find sentences (4a) and (4c) to be natural, although I'd probably never use them myself. However, other sentences are odd to me, and seem as if they would cause confusion, they could be interpreted as if the subject got the candy for someone else. (4b), with 'you', is even more odd to my ears, even though a cited study says it is much more common than 3rd person constructions.

How do you perceive these sentences, are they all acceptable/natural to you?

11
submitted 8 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
237
i got plenty of rule (lemmy.dbzer0.com)
submitted 8 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
371
submitted 8 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
370
rule (lemmy.dbzer0.com)
submitted 9 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
1
submitted 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

The dispersal of the Indo-European language family from the third millennium BCE is thought to have dramatically altered Europe’s linguistic landscape. Many of the preexisting languages are assumed to have been lost, as Indo-European languages, including Greek, Latin, Celtic, Germanic, Baltic, Slavic and Armenian, dominate in much of Western Eurasia from historical times. To elucidate the linguistic encounters resulting from the Indo-Europeanization process, this volume evaluates the lexical evidence for prehistoric language contact in multiple Indo-European subgroups, at the same time taking a critical stance to approaches that have been applied to this problem in the past.

Part I: Introduction

Guus Kroonen: A methodological introduction to sub-Indo-European Europe

Part II: Northeastern and Eastern Europe

Anthony Jakob: Three pre-Balto-Slavic bird names, or: A more austere take on Oštir

Ranko Matasović: Proto-Slavic forest tree names: Substratum or Proto-Indo-European origin?

Part III: Western and Central Europe

Paulus S. van Sluis: Substrate alternations in Celtic

Anders Richardt Jørgensen: A bird name suffix *-anno- in Celtic and Gallo-Romance

David Stifter: Prehistoric layers of loanwords in Old Irish

Part IV: The Mediterranean

Andrew Wigman: A European substrate velar “suffix”

Cid Swanenvleugel: Prefixes in the Sardinian substrate

Lotte Meester: Substrate stratification: An argument against the unity of Pre-Greek

Guus Kroonen: For the nth time: The Pre-Greek νϑ-suffix revisited

Part V: Anatolia & the Caucasus

Rasmus Thorsø: Alternation of diphthong and monophthong in Armenian words of substrate origin

Zsolt Simon: Indo-European substrates: The problem of the Anatolian evidence

Peter Schrijver: East Caucasian perspectives on the origin of the word ‘camel’ and some notes on European substrate lexemes

308
funny yellow rule (lemmy.dbzer0.com)
submitted 9 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
46
submitted 9 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

Serbian edition from 1920.

Source: http://svevid.locloudhosting.net/items/show/1840

121
submitted 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

Quite frequently I come across scanned books that are viewable for free online. For example, the publisher put them there (such as preview chapters), a library (old books from their collection that are in public domain), etc. Since I like hoarding data, and the online viewers that are used to present the book to me might not be very practical, I frequently try to download the books one way or another. This requires toying with the "inspect element" tool and various other methods of getting the images/PDF. Now, all that I access is what is, well, accessible; I don't hack into the servers or something. But - the stuff is meant to be hidden from the normal user. Does that act of hiding the material, no matter how primitive and easily circumvented, mean that I'm not allowed to access it at all?

I suppose ripping a public domain book is no big deal, but would books under copyright fare differently?

Mainly I'm asking out of curiosity, I don't expect the police to come visit me for ripping a 16th century dictionary.

Note: I live in EU, but I'd be curious to hear how this is treated elsewhere too.

Edit: I also remembered a funny trick I noticed on one site - it allows viewing PDFs on their website, but not downloading, unless you pay for the PDF. But when you load the page, even without paying, the PDF is already downloaded onto your computer and can be found in the browser cache. Is it legal to simply save the file that is already on your computer?

264
Mount and Blade: Rulerold (lemmy.dbzer0.com)
submitted 10 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
154
rule (lemmy.dbzer0.com)
submitted 10 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
242
submitted 10 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
[-] [email protected] 25 points 10 months ago

Does the picture imply that the two desires are contradictory?

Personally, I talk with my best friend like once a month...

[-] [email protected] 27 points 10 months ago

The Kamala promotion online is becoming increasingly disturbing.

[-] [email protected] 28 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Even the most fascist redfash still would have killed the nazis.

They'd kill who they define as nazis. I find that tankies' (especially Hexbear) definition of nazism doesn't entirely correspond to mine or that of most other people. So this is not something to be super optimistic about.

[-] [email protected] 27 points 2 years ago

As a EU citizen - no thanks, unless you get like ten seats in the EU parliament at most.

[-] [email protected] 28 points 2 years ago

That's fucking hilarious, if true.

view more: ‹ prev next ›

antonim

0 post score
0 comment score
joined 2 years ago
MODERATOR OF