antonim

joined 1 year ago
[–] antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 5 minutes ago

The list of sentences is reproduced from an another study, and the Yale page that I've linked does note that others have found examples of such constructions with 'it', so it is true that the asterisk might be unwarranted.

Thank you for the feedback, so basically you don't perceive any difference between the sentences with regards to the person and number of the subject?

 

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?

[–] antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

The video is half an hour long and I really don't feel like watching it all to find out something that could be said in one or two paragraphs of text, so I ignored it at first. As I expected, the video deals with a bunch of more or less relevant topics that you or OP didn't mention at all. It actually is a bit interesting, I've watched a part of it, and I do have to admit that US fire trucks are bigger than those where I live. The problem is that their deadliness is a consequence of several other factors, and only indirectly of their size. What you and OP decided not to do is to communicate that point with any nuance, and all that I could read from your comments is that, by some logic, getting hit by a 10-metre truck is much safer than getting hit by a 15-metre truck. OP complained about the driver "right-hooking" the cyclist, you just said the trucks are too big, do I really have to watch a half an hour video to understand why your comments don't sound nonsensical?

[–] antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 23 hours ago

I recommend using xcancel.com if you want to check something on Twitter.

[–] antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

The meme doesn't really reflect reality, it's just a weirdly remixed right-wing meme. Climate change denialists don't ask for sources as they dislike them in general (Youtube videos and huffing your own farts is quite enough for them), they will just say the MSM has implanted the snow propaganda into your brain.

[–] antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.com -2 points 23 hours ago (4 children)

The rest of the world does without GIANT and dangerous emergency vehicles for one.

Could you show me those small and safe emergency vehicles that are used outside the USA? Because I'm outside the USA, I literally live near a firefighter station, and they're all probably as big as US vehicles.

[–] antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 1 day ago (2 children)

but it’s not a place you go for open and honest discussions between people from both sides of the aisle

Where do you go for such discussions anyway?

[–] antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 points 2 days ago (1 children)

If you're thinking of American right-wingers and fascists who are currently celebrating Trump's victory, I must say their view of the world is so dark, negative and pessimistic, that nobody could really describe it as utopia-like. This is a brief respite for them, nothing more.

If you're thinking more abstractly, or of some very specific incredibly lucky people, then I guess it could be so.

[–] antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 days ago

Wikipedia Signpost is mostly used for news and opinion pieces regarding WP, but every issue has this sort of humorous piece as well.

[–] antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 days ago

Yes.^[1]^

Citations

^[1]^it says so in the URL, after all ;)

 
[–] antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 4 days ago

Yeah, totally makes sense, "they" attacked IA one month in advance before the elections, knowing that IA would spend around a month rewriting and improving their site code until the Save Page option would be enabled again (unless IA themselves are a part of the plot???), so that news articles could be "edited on the fly" (with what result?) until the election day, while other similar web archiving services such as archive.is would keep working just fine.

[–] antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.com 29 points 4 days ago

clbottomt when the chtopt shows up [imagine this as that popular GIF meme]

[–] antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 5 days ago

I find it odd that the pic rejects Balto-Slavic unity and calls Sorbian "Wendish".

 
368
rule (lemmy.dbzer0.com)
 
15
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/linguistics@mander.xyz
 

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

 
 

Serbian edition from 1920.

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

 

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?

 
153
rule (lemmy.dbzer0.com)
 
 
view more: next ›