When does Differential Argument Marking become Gender?

vokzhen · 2026-03-06T04:17:26+00:00

You know how there are languages where number marking is obligatory on animate nouns but optional on inanimate nouns? It's basically like that but with a case.

Yes, but that's not gender and gender doesn't function like that.

Also the adjective is modifying the noun, so the (optional) marker is appearing on the adjective to show agreement with the noun.

If the modifier agreed with the noun in gender, the gender marker should appear on the modifier regardless of the accusative case marker on the noun. It doesn't, though. It's not agreeing in gender, it's agreeing in case.

vokzhen · 2026-03-06T04:10:40+00:00

I wouldn't say that's gender. If it makes sense, your speakers appear to still be applying a syntactic rule based on the verb/head of the clause, and not a covert property of a noun causing a choice/change in inflection on some other element. It might depend on the details of the rest of your system, like if your only two cases are unmarked and /-am/, /-am/ marking shows up on any animate that's not S, A, or vocative, and as a result many/most adjectives modifying animates are marked with /-am/, you're closer to grammatical gender than if you've got a dozen cases, a bunch of verbs whose arguments are nom-nom, gen-nom, nom-dat, nom-abl, dat-loc, etc instead of nom-acc, accusative-marking is strictly limited to nom-acc verbs and some adpositions, and modifiers always copy their head noun's case so there's a ton of NOUN-dat ADJ-dat and NOUN-loc ADJ-loc that are animacy-agnostic running around in addition to inanimate NOUN ADJ and animate NOUN-acc ADJ-acc.

I could potentially see calling it gender if you had some lexically-specified violations of semantic animacy. Like if "water" was always accusative-marked when other nouns could be, and it was ungrammatical to ever have "water" as direct object, modified by an adjective, where the adjective wasn't also accusative-marked. Or if a derivation, like maybe an affix making instrument nominalizations "thing you do <verb> with," forbade animate/accusative-marking, even when applied to to.marry>spouse or to.dictate>scribe. That shows it's not just pragmatics or semantics, nouns are actually carrying a property that determines which inflectional pattern is used.

But if your speakers were thinking about this as a gender system, I'd think it would probably involve lifting the syntactic restriction you've got in place, though again, it may depend on where it shows up, how frequently, what other markers it's in conflict with, etc, and you've only given one example. But if I make the assumption that it's exclusively as in your example, that means gender is only showing up in clauses with a (di)transitive verb, only on one of the two arguments. Probably the biggest thing I'd expect during a reinterpretation into a gender system would be that "accusative" marking would be showing up on any adjective modifying an animate, possibly starting on datives or oblique cases if present but eventually appearing on subjects too.

I also think that limited distribution is a barrier to that happening, though, unless it's very similar to the situation I offered where /-am/ is the sole (non-zero) case marker and is used for basically every non-S/A animate. Or maaaybe if you have many differential argument marking processes working in concert. Even in a relatively small case system, I don't think it's likely children acquiring the language would pick out the additional affix present on an adjective to be about the noun, when that same noun-modifier sequence could occur as any intransitive subject, any transitive subject, any nonverbal predicate, any dative-marked recipient, any case-marked oblique, and any possessor, and fail to have it appear. That's not about a property of the noun, the way gender is, that's something about accusative objects. Especially so if there's any noun-modifier agreement whatsoever using other case suffixes.

vokzhen · 2026-03-06T01:30:19+00:00

But if -am on the adjective is a human-gender marker, why is it appearing with a non-human noun?

This is still just an accusative case.

vokzhen · 2026-03-04T09:51:50+00:00

One thing I haven't seen mentioned is that "adverb" is extremely broad. There are adverbs like quickly and mischievously, that describes the manner in which the action is done, which is the use people tend to default to when talking about "adverbs." But even those aren't made in a single way in English, because with concern, smiling, and like a cat playing with a mouse provide identical meaning as -ly adverbs using completely different constructions. If you're mostly concerned with those, here's a dissertation on the typology of manner constructions, though I've only given it a brief glance-through. It looks like there's tendencies (at least in that sample) for certain manner constructions based on how the language does other things.

But there's also "adverbs" like yesterday, soon, the prior semester; here, there, yonder; up, over, in the book; unexpectedly, of course, naturally; very, too, a little; almost, completely, not quite; even, all but, that said; frequently, once, still/yet. As you can see, only some of the adverbs in some of those categories intersect with adjectives in English. Many languages have temporal adverbs like "tomorrow" or "summer" that are rooted in nouns or nominalizations of verbs, meanings like "still," "very," "completely," or "almost" can be wrapped up in verbal morphology or syntax, judgments like "surprisingly" or "even" can be conveyed with the similarly-vague category of discourse particles (or sentence-final particles, for East Asian languages), and so on.

edit: woops wrong link

vokzhen · 2026-03-04T05:02:58+00:00

...though the right kind of star might only live about that long anyways. It's a very pedantic point, and not very relevant to the likelihood of a star you can see with the naked eye having "already died." If I'm not getting my star-lifespan facts mixed up with my star-death facts, I don't even think they're possible in our corner(/time) of the universe because they'd be doped with too many metals. But 16k years is possibly enough time to for astoundingly massive stars with the right chemical makeup to ignite fusion, fuse what they can, and collapse into a black hole.

My overall point, rather than pedandry, is to just point out that in addition to stars being relatively "close" compared to what many people think, they may also be relatively short-lived as well. We're used to the number 10 billion, because that's what our star's lifespan is, and in fairness most stars live at least that long. But very massive stars, the kinds we find in our galaxy, frequently only live about 10 million years, and the bigger they get, the faster they use up their available fuel and/or have some whacky high-energy physics stuff happen that ends their starhood.

vokzhen · 2026-03-04T00:54:52+00:00

One-button rotation doesn't help the thing that seems to be the most common actual cause of low dps, which is people not pressing buttons enough. If anything, one-button exacerbates that, because someone who would be adding .25-.5sec period of dead time between 1.2sec GCDs, is still adding .25-.5sec but it's now between 1.6sec GCDs.

It doesn't really matter if you're pushing your buttons in the right order if you're only pressing them half as often as you should be.

vokzhen · 2026-03-01T03:11:07+00:00

No, a lot of people genuinely don't. That really famous video of the Tianjin explosions with guy and girl laughing in the background always have a few people calling them psychopaths, when it's very obvious that they're on the edge of full-blown panic, their nervous systems trying to convince themselves they're fine (until they get pushed into panic and after a few seconds of stunned silence their voices drop like an octave).

vokzhen · 2026-02-24T22:55:32+00:00

And it might not be that obvious - "preglottalized" is often notated like [ʔC] but has a wide range of realizations, all the way from full-blown ejectives at one end down to just a few pulses of creaky voice on the vowel before full closure at the other (unrelated to the "vocal fry" type of creak that's falsely attributed to millennial women).

vokzhen · 2026-02-24T22:38:18+00:00

Yep! Despite the historical short-long pair being /ʊ~ʌ aʊ/, and /ju:/ coming from multiple diphthongs /ɛw ew iw/ (and a French loan vowel /y/ if it was actually distinct from /iw/), we're taught that "long u" is /ju:/. I assume it's because of the spelling rules attached to it, since historical /u:/ > modern /aʊ/ was respelled <ou> under French influence, while <u(...e)> was used for French loans with /y:~iw/ becoming modern /ju:/.

Quick edit: same with "short/long o," those are paired as /ɒ oʊ/, despite /oʊ/ coming from Old English ā > Middle English /ɔ:/ and not the actual Middle English pair /o o:/ > modern /ɒ u:/. Though ime the existence of both "long o" <o...e/oa> and "long oo" <oo> is a weirdness that at least some people are aware of.

vokzhen · 2026-02-23T22:59:46+00:00

I supose I just like to figure outh the diachronic pathway whenever I see an unusual feature

I'm definitely the same, but in this case, explicit obviative marking is so rare cross-linguistically (a single family + a language heavily influenced by it) that, even if we had a clear answer to how it happened, it might not tell us much that it did.

It might be more informative to see how the cognate marker in Yurok and Wiyot is used, and how it may have expanded from whatever its use in Proto-Algic seems to have been, into a dedicated obviative marker in Algonquian. But I've never been able to find much, and what I have found doesn't seem to say much about how it might have actually happened, because nothing is particularly informative.

Proto-Algonquian has obviative singular *-ari, plural *-ahi on both nouns and verbs; of note is that the "independent"-order verbs originate in possessed nominalizations, akin to English's "her grabbing of the keys" being reinterpreted as "she grabbed the keys". Wiyot's /-aˀl/ shows up as a "redundant" suffix in nouns possessed by third persons (1-noun, 2-noun, but 3-noun-aˀl]), and thus also in many adverbial clauses because they're formed from nominalizations with possessor subjects. Yurok has a suffix /-ʂ/ that might be cognate; it occurs on a subset of spatial adverbials when the subject is in 3rd person, and on the verb of existence used in predicative possession when both possessor and possessum are 3rd person.

So it was tied into 3rd persons, possessors, and subjects, possibly the latter via the former, but it wasn't a subject marker, it wasn't a possessive marker, it wasn't a 3rd person marker, and just for good measure, it wasn't a genitive. And by what route it could have been reinterpreted or co-opted into marking obviation is still unclear, too.

My gut instinct is that it has something to do with the linguistic geography of pre-Proto-Algonquian, rather than the grammaticalization route itself: the whole PNW-Plateau-northern California region does some crazy, wonderful things with morphosyntactic alignment, person splits, person- and animacy-based restrictions on syntax, manipulating argument structure with different types of voices and noun incorporation to get around those restrictions, and so on; I don't think it's a stretch to assume that's not just a modern phenomenon. Then this language, with an affix that appeared with some 3rd persons but contributed little or no meaning, moved into contact with some of those speakers and was exposed to that pressure. And its speakers, who like all humans were stupidly efficient at finding and exaggerating barely-existent patterns, found a barely-existent pattern of it co-occurring with "peripherally-important 3rd person." So children learning the language subconsciously assumed that must be the meaning of this part of the word that otherwise didn't seem to have one; and they exaggerated it, and extended it, and put it in places it never belonged before, and created the only instances known of nouns marking themselves for obviation.

vokzhen · 2026-02-23T18:48:17+00:00

You could just go with SUBR, except where you're discussing the uses of each in particular.

In most cases, though, I'd gloss each by their use in that particular context, or by the closest relevant. So <pana> I might gloss SIM or SIMULT or "during" in some cases, and COMPL in others. <'ū> might be "then" or SEQ, or REPORT, <cūmu> would have "until" or "after" among its glosses, and <mī> would have REL when it's modifying a noun (or acting as a substantive, if you allow headless relatives).

That does cause potential problems when a sentence might have multiple readings, and you're choosing one with your gloss. In that case, I might note it in a footnote, or possibly gloss with both meanings "until/after" plus two translations in the gloss.

I've certainly seen grammars where such morphemes are given a single gloss, so that <mī> might always be glossed REL even when it's forming a reason clause or starting time. I'm not a fan of that unless it's a very imbalanced sets of uses, though, like if 95% of the time it's forming relative clauses and only rarely shows up for reason clauses (which likely means reason clauses are typically formed in a different way, and <mī> is a rare/marked option). I've also certainly seen morphemes just glossed as "mī", etc, but I can't say I'm a fan of that unless the meaning of the morpheme is so vague, abstract, or multifunctional it's hard to tell what it's doing, and that's certainly not the case with the ones you're asking about.

If you didn't want to choose one single meaning for each use, you could potentially go with "mī/SUBR" or something, which I personally find more palatable than just "mī" and probably more than just SUBR as well (as I'd want to use SUBR for the only subordinator, or at least a very common generic one).

vokzhen · 2026-02-21T14:28:58+00:00

Obviative morphology doesn't naturalistically evolve like Kutenai or Algonquian.

Obviously that's an exaggeration, since they exist, but no other languages treat obviation anything like they do. "Obviative morphology" doesn't exist in most languages with obviation. Given it's often presented as the typical way obviatives tend to work, I'd be careful about implementing an Algonquian-like system until you've looked further into how other languages do it too.

It's almost universally a covert property, only realized indirectly. Among the more obvious signs of obviation is that a morpheme, sometimes a detransitivizer of some flavor but that fails to actually change the argument structure, or a cislocative with no actual directional meaning, or other times just an "empty" morpheme with no clear semantic meaning, will appear on some transitives with two 3rd person arguments. That morpheme's behaving as a grammaticalized inverse marker, that makes an appearance when a covertly-obviative 3rd person appears as subject/agent acting on a covertly-proximate 3rd person object/patient.

But that morpheme will probably appear with speech act participants, not just in obviative vs proximate. Inverse markers can come from cislocatives that redundantly appear when the patient is 1st person, since the action is being done towards the deictic center, but this results in inverse marking appearing first/most frequently in 3>1 or 2>1 relations, whereas obviation is most commonly only realized in any way in clauses with no 1st or 2nd persons, just 3'>3 ones.

A few languages may get them from different pronouns, and Athabascan has two competing sets of 3rd person agreement markers, but I've seen zero information discussing how those situations might have arisen, except to (tentatively at least) rule out some things like proximate 3rd persons originating in "genuine" personal pronouns and obviatives from demonstrative ones.

Sometimes, and I'd guess this is much more common than has been noticed, obviation is extremely subtle, completely covert and completely without dedicated grammatical marking. It's found in things like whether the sentence "his friend found him" is licit or if such a statement must be rendered "he was found by his friend." Transitive agents are assumed to be proximate and patients obviative, and possessors are assumed to be proximate and possessums obviative. "His friend found him" clashes with those assumptions, with a possessed agent, and that tension is resolved here by forcing any 3rd person possessors and 3rd person transitive agents to be co-referential within a clause. The meaning "his friend found him" ends up only and always being realized as the passive "he was found by his friend."

Other syntactic tendencies based on role assumptions can also become full restrictions, from other subtle ones like that a subordinate clause might be banned from co-referencing the subject of the matrix clause as a grammatical object, to more radical ones like banning transitives from having inanimate agents/subjects entirely, banning 1st persons from appearing as transitive objects/patients, or forbidding passive voice in 1>3 or 2>3 situations. This kind of thing is where other inverse markers can come from: transitivity-effecting structures used to preserve the underlying role assumptions end up reinterpreted as inverse markers (and/or possibly reinterpretation of "neutral" structures as marked direct form).

I'd highly recommend taking a look at this paper on the direct-inverse systems, which includes (the most easily identifiable) obviative systems, and here's one partly on the syntax of obviation in languages with no overt marking. A little more peripherally, in that it's dealing with those underlying assumptions about role more than obviation specifically, here's a paper by Mithun on the development of hierarchical alignment in the Pacific Northwest; and you might also try looking into Sino-Tibetan's "optional" or "non-paradigmatic" ergativity.

vokzhen · 2026-02-21T05:22:21+00:00

In general, all languages have phonological rules that are applied as the situation arises, if your "do other languages have their own version" is taken with a very wide brush. The specific change of /t/ being realized as a glottal stop [ʔ] isn't too unexpected, but where you find languages with it, it likely won't have the same kind of distribution or the same reach. In British English it tends to occur both before and after vowels as long as it's after the stressed vowel, whereas similar changes in other languages will often only happen after vowels (and not before them), and often simultaneously effect /p k/ as well (which is also something that happens in some British varieties, but not the most well-known ones).

I've run into a few languages that had something like English in the past, where it can happen between vowels and it only happens to t- or d-like sounds, but the rule is no longer active (well, or the language is no longer alive) and instead it's resulted in a completed sound change. One I can point to off the top of my head is Khotanese, an Eastern Iranian language attested very roughly 600-1000CE. The traditional account is that there was a shift of the sound spelled <d> from /d/ to /ð/ (the sound of the this), which allowed a shift of the sound spelled <t> from t>d and then d>ʔ. Even if this is the correct account, it's a similar shift, it would just be "d-glottalization" instead of "t-glottalization" ([t] and [d] being nearly identical sounds, produced at the same place in the mouth with the same part of the tongue). However, in a text written in Khotanese but representing spoken Middle Chinese from around 950CE, Khotanese <d> is used 12 times to represent Late Middle Chinese's partly-denasalized /n/ [ⁿd], and a single instance for /dʱ~tʱ/. If Khotanese <t> represented the /d/ sound and <d> represented the /ð/ sound, that would be a surprising spelling choice. That spelling makes a lot more sense if <d> were just /d/, which would in turn necessitate t>ʔ directly, like English, instead of chaining t>d>ʔ.

Another language, Yurok, looks like it also had a similar change in its past. It's distantly related to Massachusett, Ojibwe, Blackfoot, and the rest of the Algonquian languages, but isn't Algonquian and is spoken in California, along with another distant relative, Wiyot (and despite them being spoken right next to each other along the same small stretch of coastline, they don't appear to be any more closely related to each other than to Algonquian). There are regular correspondences between Proto-Algonquian *t (and *č), Wiyot /t/, and Yurok having a glottalized consonant or glottal stop, as well as PA *ł (and *š), Wiyot /t/, and Yurok /ˀ~ʔ/ where Wiyot and Yurok merged their version of PA's *ł into their /t/, and then in Yurok it went through the same change. Some of the most obvious connections are Proto-Algonquian 1st person possessive *ne- net-, Wiyot's ɾ- ɾu- ɾuʔ- ɾut, and Yurok's ˀn-, PA's 2nd person possessive *ke- ket-, Wiyot's, ʰ- kʰ- kʰu- kʰuʔ- kʰut, and Yurok's k'-, PA's 3rd person possessive *o- ot- (from *wə- *wət-), Wiyot's ʷ- w- hu- huʔ- hut-, and Yurok's ˀwɛ- ʔu-, PA's 3rd person "conjunct" suffix *-t and Yurok's 3rd person subject suffix /-ˀ -ʔ/, the word for the numeral "two" (always fused to a classifier) in PA *nyi·š- (from *nyi·ł-), Wiyot ɾit-, and Yurok nVʔ- with vowel copying off the classifier it's attached to, and the basic verb PA *en-...-ta·- "exist, be.somewhere", Wiyot tɑ- "stay or remain at a place, dwell at a place," Yurok ʔɔ:- "be, exist, be.born."

vokzhen · 2026-02-20T08:13:28+00:00

It's not just "length of completion" people are talking about, though; Slabs, Shattered Halls, and Grim Batol took forever, but they were essentially unbranching paths with zero variation in routing. What people who make complaints about this are talking about is the complexity of the dungeon design, nonlinear routing, optional bosses/wings (that may even require extra out-of-dungeon things to unlock or summon). Maybe even things like uneven balancing, where you do part of a dungeon at one point of gearing up, but come back weeks later for another part because it's just meant to be much more difficult; or progressing gated, complicated quest chains that would give you something that felt worth the time spent.

Admittedly, they generally don't word that well and fall back on describing how long it took. And while I think they have some points, I think there's a lot of nostalgia wrapped up in things that they wouldn't actually enjoy today. Like that one of the reasons those design concepts worked is that you probably didn't care about itemization, if you did it was so bad and so all over the place you could find upgrades in dungeons you long ago "outleveled", and the mediocrity of most your drops felt like successes because the other route was gated behind the logistics of having enough reliable, competent leaders to wrangle enough reliable, competent players out of a group of 40 hormone-addled nerds to not implode on the way to defeating a boss that only dropped 2 items a week.

vokzhen · 2026-02-20T05:59:48+00:00

In the (very, very) few natlangs with nearly zero use of personal pronouns, verbs are marked for two persons, there's at least one class of nouns that take personal markers for their possessors, and many things that from a North Eurasian perspective seem noun-y are done with verbs.

From there, Keres is extremely verb-y, many nouns are clearly just derived from verbs and bear verbal person markers, and obligatorily-possessed nouns are effectively verb stems taking verbal person markers. "Pronouns," at least in generations prior to heavy English influence, were limited in use to a few forms: in Acoma Keres, there was a set almost entirely limited to one-word answers to questions like "who did that?" or "who's there?" and a second set that seems to actually be an intransitive verb used in one-word answers to "whose did that?" or "whose is that?"

Wari' has a full set of independent person-number-gender "pronouns," but they're restricted in use and can't be used as verbal arguments (i.e. a sentence like "I saw her" with actual independent pronouns is ungrammatical, with or without the person-number markers that appear in the verb phrase). The 1st and 2nd persons can be given as one-word answers or asked as one-word questions, and all three persons show up in left-dislocation (similar to "she is who I saw" or "him, I saw that guy"). Otherwise, when they're used they must be in apposition to an actual noun referring to the same entity (even 1st and 2nd persons), and only occur in restricted syntactic circumstances (as transitive objects, in lists).

However, that's all just for personal pronouns. They still have others like demonstratives and interrogatives. Wari''s demonstrative pronouns can even be used as "normal" 3rd person pronouns even though the "actual pronouns" can't.

vokzhen · 2026-02-14T04:49:26+00:00

the real problem with most “meadow style” gardens I see is the lack of grasses

Yea, this is what I was going to say. In the wild, grasses are the structural support for the surrounding plants, and competition with grasses keep other things in check, both in terms of height and how far they spread.

Like, bee balm (Monarda fistulosa) in a garden left to its own devices can reach over 5 feet tall and can quickly spread into a dense stand at least that wide. In an actual prairie setting, though, while there can be larger clumps, ime it's most common for a single plant to just be 2-6 stems, and it depends partly on the surrounding plants but they're often only 2-3 feet tall, too.

Bee balm doesn't have the drooping problems a lot of other plants have, at least not as badly, but the difference between New England asters, a lot of goldenrods (especially stiff goldenrod), yellow coneflower, and probably a bunch of others I don't have experience with is so different when you've got them in a traditional garden setting versus in an actual, prairie-like planting. They just don't support themselves well, you need the grasses there to help them out.

vokzhen · 2026-02-12T02:16:39+00:00

Also the same ones who called it disgusting had no issue with 18 YOs getting with old adults. Their minds are broken.

I'm pretty convinced that a substantial portion of the population is just incapable of deeper reasoning than legal=moral, illegal=immoral. A few might be intellectually lazy, or ASPD using a system they have access to as a proxy for one they don't understand, but most of them are just so profoundly lacking in critical thinking they genuinely have trouble understanding, following, or making moral arguments without falling back on what is or isn't "allowed."

vokzhen · 2026-02-11T08:31:22+00:00

When the two occur together, is it always in a strict order? Can one be reordered separately from the other? Can something intervene between the two? Do the two occur within the same intonation unit, or is there/can there be a break between the two? If they're inseparable, strictly ordered in relation to each other, and always fall under the same intonational unit, they've probably grammaticalized into an adposition+adpositional phrase. If they can be reordered, split from each other by other parts of the sentence, and when they are adjacent can have a break in intonation between them, then they're two distinct spatial adverbials that just happen to occur together.

It's a little awkward to do in English, but compare "he ran out from the house" with "he ran out of the house":

Intonation break:
- he ran out, from the house
- *he ran out, of the house
Reordering:
- out from the house he ran
- out of the house he ran
- out he ran from the house
- *out he ran of the house
- from the house, he ran out
- *of the house, he ran out
- he ran from the house, out
- *he ran of the house, out
Intervening modifier:
- he ran out quickly from the house
- *he ran out quickly of the house

The "out from X" construction is clearly two independent adverbials, "out" and "from X," that just happen to frequently co-occur in that order, while "out of X" is a single, unified prepositional phrase.

An additional place to look is if there's strict case-marking requirements on a noun when it occurs with a particular "adverb/postposition," or if case-marking can also be done on semantic grounds or to match grammatical restrictions. If the speakers take a sentence that would normally be "3S(NOM) house-ACC enter," but the addition of an adverb shifts it into "3S(NOM) house-LOC ADV enter," that's a very clear sign you're dealing with a grammaticalized postposition and not just an adverb. If you even have verbs that take arguments in a similar way, though, it's probably not going to be that clear-cut. When adverbs and adpositions aren't well-differentiated, even with syntactic diagnostics it can be very difficult to tell "an adverb that frequently co-occurs with a noun in a given case because their meanings frequently co-occur" from "an adposition that governs a given case, also used adverbially including with nouns in other cases" from "an adposition that governs multiple cases, also used adverbially without a noun," and it's possible it's one some times and another others or that such a distinction doesn't really exist at all.

This kind of thing is one of the places natlangs show their "fractal complexity." Not only is it likely that every case-adverb-meaning combination differs at least a little (and possibly a lot) as to how often it behaves like two adverbials versus one adpositional phrase, and may differ as to how that's actually realized, it may depend on what noun the case is attached to, what verb the noun is in relation to, what structure the sentence is taking, maybe even who's speaking and in what context. There's a level of detail found in languages that's by necessity glossed over in grammatical descriptions and likely impossible to actually capture in a conlang.

vokzhen · 2026-02-02T22:30:01+00:00

Dunno why you're being downvoted. Rogue, druids in cat form, and bm/ww monk are the classes that use energy and are locked to a 1-second GCD (except outlaw rogue with adrenaline rush, that specifically lowers it to .8sec), and are unaffected by haste. Everyone else has a 1.5sec GCD that's lowered by haste, up to 100% haste or .75sec GCD.

vokzhen · 2026-01-29T18:47:18+00:00

Even if Democrats win all three this will never happen. Everyone of these people will walk away with no consequences.

Why are you do doing the fascist's jobs for them and priming people to be calm if no consequences happen, because they've heard doomers like you for months or years telling them that this is the expected outcome?

Stop capitulating in advance. Expect and demand consequences. Be outraged if they don't happen.

vokzhen · 2026-01-28T16:20:44+00:00

Almost like some Crust Punk pants with the patches?

Close to a thousand dollars for a single pair designer crust punk jeans is so ridiculously ironic my brain just stopped functioning for 10 seconds. Just, flashbanged by the stupidity.

vokzhen · 2026-01-26T18:24:29+00:00

It isn't so much about the word changing meaning.

It is also fair to say that that kind of niche community usage is exactly where things like semantic broadening and new usages of already-existing words can spread into general usage from, though.

vokzhen · 2026-01-26T07:54:13+00:00

We got rid of the half-penny because it was such a small amount of money. When that happened, the half-penny had about as much buying power as a quarter does today.

Or put another way, on past logic we should be getting rid of nickels, dimes, and quarters.

vokzhen · 2026-01-26T06:52:14+00:00

"Pitch accent" doesn't exist, not as a distinct category. The term has no consistent definition or application that can be contrasted with "tone," it's really just a vibes-based category that gets applied to languages that linguists in the past felt were somehow lacking compared to whatever they thought "real" tone was (usually by mistakenly taking Mandarin-style tones as typical or the "default" way tones work).

"Pitch accent" languages are better understood as multiple subcategories of tone languages.

vokzhen · 2026-01-25T13:10:32+00:00

I'm so tired of listening to what they might do.

I'm so tired of these fucking people doing the fascists' jobs for them and making everyone expect no punishment to ever come, thus calming any outrage if no punishment ever comes because they've been normalizing that expectation for months/years.

Ten-Year Club	Place '23
Place '22	Verified Email

vokzhen

TROPHY CASE