I don’t think descriptivist is really operating on a normative level. It is not taking the position people/society ought not try to shape the language. It is simply recognizing the reality that the meaning of a word in language is (*insert specific branch here - but often it is something like “common usage”).
Lurker123
joined 2 years ago
Wow OP, you’re telling me that a rule that, per your Wikipedia article, originated in a 2019 paper, has had a “near” perfect record since 1970? That’s crazy!
The crazy part is, of course, that the record isn’t actually perfect.
I wonder if the people commenting on these Internet forums would be slightly older than the target demo for SpongeBob.
This was not a good comment to read directly after sipping coffee
Idk why the movies cut out the part where the empire sent semen retrieval droids to the wreckage of the Death Star.
I feel like the bigger a company is, the easier it would be to nationalize. A nationalized Ticketmaster/livenation would be pretty cool I think.
Epoch is launching that soon??
Un poco I think also more strongly denotes (or at least connotes) a small amount, whereas the connotation with “some” meaning a small amount is weaker (and it has no such denotation) so the translation isn’t great for that reason either.
It’s so odd to me that anybody is putting much thought into this without knowing what the narrative purpose of the choice is. Take shogun, for example - this has a British protagonist (although arguably Mariko is the protagonist). But this serves a strong narrative purpose - at the very least, it is a convenient (albeit common) device which allows you to spell out the culture, background, etc. for the audience under the auspices of that stuff being told to the character who is also unfamiliar with it. And from a plot perspective, that white character also helps fill out the christianization of Japan subplot.
It could very well be the same with AC. That they picked a black samurai outsider could be a relevant plot point. That it is this one in particular - who had close contact with Nobunaga - may also be central to the plot and story they want to tell.
Sorry, I’m not sure I’m following. Are you saying “if, in exchange for its cash, the government receives real property, it is not a bailout. In contrast, if the government receives securities, then it is.”?
To be sure, I think China’s bailout of the real estate sector is good here - if developers are slow rolling the construction of homes because they need to sell their inventory first, then purchasing the inventory (or having SoE do so, as the case may be) is good. But that doesn’t have anything to do with whether it is a bailout.
Apologies, I’m not sure I’m following your point here. Please correct me if I’m misinterpreting you (which is definitely possible). Are you saying “the government purchasing inventory from a business (for the purpose of helping that business/industry) that is struggling to sell that inventory is only a bailout if that business would have gone bankrupt but for the government’s purchase. If that business would have survived, then it is not a bailout.”?
Why use that image of edgeworth to make your point? That’s edgeworth standing on the right side of the courtroom, where he’s always wrong.
The whole point of the ace attorney games is if you are on the left, you are good and correct. If you are on the right, you are evil and wrong. And if you are in the center, you are either a hopelessly confused idiot, or evil.