It could go either way, but if it curls right up like this⏤𐐘⏤that's a big gay sign, though if it's more like 𐑀 then you're only a liitle gay.
aebletrae
joined 2 years ago
The woke left want to indoctrinate you with Alt(2014) em dashes—like these—but real patriots use the STRAIGHTNESS symbol⏤like that.
Thought processes
There's no distinction between comparatives and superlatives.
From
nǒnska (mysterious),
nǒnskeyde (most mysterious),
vurede (best), but also
vuśkede (more beautiful),
I couldn't see how to disambiguate more/most, and briefly considered they might be the same, but felt that was quite presumptive given so few examples. Instead, I started wondering if the local suffix was the same and the nuance was more remote somehow.
še — this does indeed mean "she" but we've got grammatical gender here so sometimes it means "it" instead.
The assumption here was that the -o, -e, -a gender inflections for proper nouns would be paralleled from šo (that/where). The ya-/ye- prefixes looked they might be doing that for grammatical gender, so the assumption didn't feel unreasonable. Although "she" is more of a physical gender word, it gets the point across more snappily than "some kind of pronoun, possibly demonstrative, feminine". There was also šenǒnsulet́e (she debates) pointing in that direction.
yapoĺa (the book) and
yapoĺav (the book CONS)
Taking off ya- as a common prefix and correlating CONS (QUERY 1: what do you mean by this???) with -av, -e(y)v, -iv (though -v alone might be the marker), -poĺ- was all that was left as a root for something book-y. (I got the impression that roots were broad).
nat́ isn't necessarily the verb "make", it's a different verb which is being used as an auxiliary verb in this phrase.
Here, I used "make" as a colloquial translation given the proximity to an assumed first move, but I had noticed na (on) before correlating -t́e and -t́a with verbs (at least in present tense), so I did wonder if place or put might also work in other contexts.
roktárev (a psychic link) and
Yerokdǒvfe (this psychological war), combined with
Xaydǒ (a great war)
suggested -rok- as a root equivalent to psych-, but yerokivńe looked like it needed a simple noun, so "mind" fit the bill.
ńe (they)
uńe (theirs)
Fe (that)
yegevfe (this type)
Yerokdǒvfe (this psychological war)
had given me the impression that ye-XYZ-(iv)ńe meant "their XYZ".
keyn — the interrogative and indefinite pronouns are the same, so in this case the intended meaning is "somebody" rather than "who".
I noticed you'd translated šo as both "that" and "where", so something like this was evident.
ruňet́ey yežalevfe — not necessarily a plural verb but rather an imperfective verb, and indeed a verb derived from the word for "head"
yeruňev (the head CONS)
indicated -ruň(e)- as the root "head". I got the plural notion from
zuruňet́ey (jointly rules) and
truňet́ey ([everybody] believes),
since those verbs' agents are plural (pair jointly, everybody) but -y- crops up enough elsewhere for me to have been cautious about that.
Incidentally, (QUERY 2) are zuruňet́ey (jointly rules), truňet́ey (believes), and yekruňuynev (the academy CONS) all using the -ruň- root? I can see a potential there: someone who "heads" an organisation also "rules" it; belief is an activity within the head; academies put ideas into heads. But false cognates are a thing too, though I am left wondering if sokruňeynevńe belongs in that group (QUERY 3).
yeKődev — not the code, no.
Capitalisation like that looks like it's representing proper nouns (or perhaps loan words), where there's a bit more phonetic similarity to English, so this was just a bit of simplistic guessing.
kay (INT)
kaysuliv (questions CONS)
kaysulećke = (inquisitive)
kaysulet́e (asks)
QUERY 4: Does -ećke indicate either having the property of, or maybe motion away from?
My attempt to make sense of these (with some guessing) is:—
spoiler
2: Hay Hiḱey {to|in???} {yaRoyčoḱiya|the R***}!
Pe-1-e A. M***ŕe {ňa|TOPIC} anime-dećti {:|is/are} {kyertiv|love??? CONS} {xaíde|most ADJ???} lo {še|she???} {na|on} dećte {ňa|TOPIC} "sule {:|is/are} buhe" čay. Suliv daŕi {to|in???} yeruňevše {ko|to} {yecigempoĺevše|???book???}, no {še|she???} {la|yet} {nay|not} {nat́e|VERB make???} {yekoḱev|the move???} {anske|first???} hiḱev anime-dećte, {na|on} {fe|that} {šo|that} {še|she???} {ňa|TOPIC} dećte {dum|as} aniḱe {nay|not} {može|a possibility} čay. {Rine|A friend} K. S****é {ňa|TOPIC} {ariḱe|a girl} {so|with} {yerokev|the mind??? CONS} roynasinćke {:|is/are} yénske, {šo|that} {nat́e|VERB make???} zede {na|on} yeydrestev M***ŕe. Ńesint́ev hazoske, {šo|that} sokruňeynevńe, yesnij́iḱev biśe {so|with} M. C****ye {iḿej́eske|named} {ňa|TOPIC} hoževše xaye {:|is/are} dećke {he|TEMP}, ńehke čoḱiya {na|on} dećte va {pset́e|VERB???} "{yalanav|the universe-CONS} lobuha" {to|in???} {yerokivńe|their minds???}.
3: YaVaňgleynav Buhčonska
Yaceyv vaňgla {ňa|TOPIC} {keyn|who} {udet́e|VERB???} {he|TEMP}, noževše {u|and} {dent́e|VERB???} bone {so|with} ogestev ranske čay. Yažalav vaňgla {ňa|TOPIC} {dot́e|VERB???} {bone|a thing} {ko|to} randogiyey {so|with} {šo|that} moḱiḱe {še|she???} {dum|as} {bonev|a thing CONS} {gune|other}. Yaceyv vaňgla {ruňet́ey|VERB(pl.) head???} {yežalevfe|this??? ???}, no {može|a possibility} pet́ede lo yaceyvfey {so|with} {bonev|a thing CONS} {so|with} "yeKődev yeTruňeyne" {iḿej́eske|named}. Jaḱav {so|with} E. E****a {iḿej́eska|named} {ňa|TOPIC} si žari {he|TEMP} vaňgleynav marka {dent́av|VERB??? CONS} ŕusulska bene {so|with} yatǒvša {so|with} A*****a {iḿej́eska|named}. E****a {so|with} vaňgla ŕaza {u|and} hira va {sot́a|VERB???} yarǒv yatǒvša {na|on} čoniya. {so|With} {šo|that}, yavaňgleyneyv 2 {kot́a|VERB go???} yőravńa va {udet́a|VERB???} yaboneyvńa {anskey|first???}, {u|and} {yeKődev|the Code??? CONS???} yeTruňeyne {to|in???} yaradaxey.
This appears to be from a paywalled FT article but the author is given on the Vietnam category page:—
A new reality began to dawn’: the fall of Saigon, 50 years on
Chris Mullin describes the last days of the Vietnam war and the aftermath
I'm assuming there aren't too many Chris Mullins who are journalists writing about Vietnam and, therefore, he is the former MP with a Wikipedia page that gives this context:—
Having reported from Cambodia in 1973 and 1980, in 1990 he was outspoken on the British Government's record in Cambodia, being a leading voice in some of the first protracted debates on Britain's provision of clandestine military support to Khmer terrorists, allied to the Khmer Rouge.
and
his politics shifted leftward in response to the Vietnam War
and
He has been highly critical of the American strategy in Vietnam and has stated that he believes that the war, intended to stop the advance of Communism, instead only delayed the coming of market forces in the country
This doesn't read like ignorance to me. Like a lawyer prompting a witness, this seems like someone asking the questions that allow the interviewee to give the most effective replies.
I can't read the "reply was devastating" line as being personally devastating to an ignorant journalist, because someone in that position didn't need to write that and put it on show. Instead I read it as being devastating to the naive sentiment, perhaps held by the reader, that Vietnam's only legitimate response was to run to the UN.
The author has an extensive history with the topic and doesn't appear to be blindly anti-Vietnam, so I think you may have the wrong end of the stick here.
You couldn't, because Eve wasn't called Eve at the time, and because God doesn't deadname trans women.
Original SRS surgeon God creates a woman from male flesh in Genesis 2:22. First ally Adam insists that "she shall be called Woman" in Genesis 2:23. By Genesis 2:25 they're acknowledged as man and wife. But Eve doesn't get her own name until Genesis 3:20, and then that's the only name we ever know her by.
Stream of unconsciousness? 
How are you at thinking about years, decades, and centuries?
If we take it step by step:—
- 10 years of a century is ten years out of a hundred.
- 10% is ten out of a hundred.
- So 10 years is 10% of a century.
Looking at the same thing another way:—
- 10 years is a also a decade.
- There are 10 decades in a century.
- So one decade is one tenth (1/10) of a century.
Bringing in the comparison from earlier:—
- 90% of a century is 90 years, or 9 decades.
- 9 decades is nine tenths (9/10) of a century.
- 110% of a century is 110 years, or 11 decades.
- 11 decades is eleven tenths (11/10) of a century.
Are these familiar enough to make sense as a parallel, or just further irrelevant confusion?
one OZ = 0.625 LB
I think you're missing a zero, or have transposed the zero and decimal point. You need 16 oz for 1 lb, right? Or did you just give your customers really good deals?
But, but... percentages are already fractions. Per cent = "out of a hundred".
The % symbol even looks like a fraction to remind everyone.
Now, simplifying fractions from 90/100 to 9/10—in spite of it literally being removing a zero from each side—does seem to cause some real problems.
Yeah, the homophone {迂愚|うぐ} is a nice little bonus. And if this is a transitive verb using を, then you'll even get the 'w' sound creeping in from the transition from 'o' to 'u' bringing it phonetically closer to the source too.
A few more of these and we can make an unofficial JLPT level: N6(熊).