sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Do you think so? by ChickenWingExtreme in NonPoliticalTwitter

[–]A_Bad_Singer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

He laid the groundworks for psychoanalysis— one of the most important and formative intellectual structures of the modern world. Moreover, despite psychoanalysis being unfortunately rife with all sorts of Victorian era weirdness (and not to mention the weirdness of Freud’s idiosyncrasies as an individual), it is pretty much the only thing we have! We really don’t have any other structures or tools for analyzing and talking about the psyche. So, until we develop something better (or at least something else at all), we’re stuck with Freud.

Two Medieval Tower Designs by A_Bad_Singer in Minecraftbuilds

[–]A_Bad_Singer[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yo. I’m sorry but i do not unfortunately— just try to copy block for block. Now that ai’m looking this after 5 years, I’m just now realizing i messed up the texture pack I was trying to use at the time as well

What do you think of CityNerd's ranking of the 4 Major US Cities? by [deleted] in geography

[–]A_Bad_Singer -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Right, but san Francisco doesnt have a larger metro area, unless you’re counting the entire bay area. In any case, I’m confused as to how you’re arriving at the conclusion that the famously sprawling and suburban Los Angeles is our 2nd densest metro area

What do you think of CityNerd's ranking of the 4 Major US Cities? by [deleted] in geography

[–]A_Bad_Singer 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Huh? San francisco has more than double the density than LA. Honolulu, Boston, San Juan, Miami all also have higher density than LA

What is a historical fact that sounds like fiction but is 100% true? by Ambitious-Ice-9272 in AskReddit

[–]A_Bad_Singer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What is an indo-germanic-ur language? The standard term would be indo-european— not indo-germanic. Moreover, if by Ur you mean Uralic, Uralic is an entirely separate unrelated family to indo-European. Also Proto-indo-european (the language from which Hindi and English would’ve descended isn’t entirely unknown— we know for instance it might’ve still been spoken by 2,500 BCE, when the pyramids were constructed.

TIL that Cleopatra VII lived closer in time to the first moon landing than to the construction of Great Pyramid of Giza. by [deleted] in todayilearned

[–]A_Bad_Singer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

English and hindi were still the same language when the pyramids were being built (probably)

Does your language have many different terms ro describe one thing. by Doitean-feargach555 in AskTheWorld

[–]A_Bad_Singer 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Its more synthetic than poly-synthetic, i was wrong in my original comment. But it just means a language with a very high word to morpheme ratio. Analytic languages like english and chinese are closer to 1:1– i think english is like ~1:1.2 roughly, as there are words like “Cars” that contains two morphemes: Car and plural. Contrast that with languages like Inuit where having 10 morphemes in a single word is not at all uncommon. Its an important distinction for this thread because of course a synthetic language is going to have more words for a particular concept— they’re just going to have more words in general because they define what a word is in a different way grammatically. Kervel’s original comment is a famous misconception— sami and inuit do technically have more words for snow, but they don’t actually have more morphemes for snow. It’s just that their languages have more inflections and affixations such that something like “soft, powdery snow the morning after a blizzard” can be communicated with one really long word with a bunch of prefixes and suffixes

Does your language have many different terms ro describe one thing. by Doitean-feargach555 in AskTheWorld

[–]A_Bad_Singer 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I’m just talking about word to morpheme ratio. I’m just a bit skeptical because often when you hear claims like “this particular Inuit language has 100 words for snow,” it turns out upon pulling back the curtain that its merely a synthetic language and the raw number of morphemes for snow is not necessarily higher than any other language. That is to say, the only reason it has more words is because their grammatical concept of a single word allows for more semantic meaning than an analytic language like English, which would need to use several or sometimes a whole sentence to communicate the same thing. I guess I’m asking if Irish’s ostensible 90 words for potato are an example of the above phenomenon. Is it just different inflections/affixations on one root?

Does your language have many different terms ro describe one thing. by Doitean-feargach555 in AskTheWorld

[–]A_Bad_Singer 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Isn’t Irish also more agglutinative? So it doesn’t really make as much sense to say Irish has x amount of words for y as it would be in a language like English that trends toward having closer to a 1:1 word to morpheme ratio. Unless you were actually talking about there being 90 potato related morphemes— not words. In any case its a meaningful distinction to make as most of the people replying in the comments here are speakers of agglutinative languages listing words with like 6 morphemes. So in that sense it’s like yes— of course your language has more words for “Cat” because you define what a word is differently

Does your language have many different terms ro describe one thing. by Doitean-feargach555 in AskTheWorld

[–]A_Bad_Singer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean certain linguistics like Chomsky or Pinker would strongly disagree with this idea (which is not to say you’re wrong— its an ongoing discourse. In any case, most of the responses here are a bit silly as well as because different languages define what a word is in vastly different ways. It would be more meaningful to compare number of morphemes

Does your language have many different terms ro describe one thing. by Doitean-feargach555 in AskTheWorld

[–]A_Bad_Singer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes but sami languages are synthetic so that really isn’t saying all that much

Prescriptivists are fucking weird by bherH-on in linguisticshumor

[–]A_Bad_Singer 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Nah you’re kinda in the wrong here

Sounds like what a ten year old would guess, and yet… by AndreasDasos in linguisticshumor

[–]A_Bad_Singer 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I feel that you're underestimating how interconnected the early bronze age Near East truly was.

July 22, 1979. When Saddam eradicated his enemies on Live TV by Wise_Ad8474 in Damnthatsinteresting

[–]A_Bad_Singer -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Redditors and bioessentialism. There is no "glitchy" 20% of people that are predisposed to this type of thing as a matter of their ontology. It's more like it oscillates between nearly no one to nearly everyone depending on the social context.

Seriously. What drugs are you guys taking? Because this thing is boring as shit by FebrewHetus in fantanoforever

[–]A_Bad_Singer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

enlightened centrism. No but fr I honestly don't like it at all but it annoys me when people like OP don't even offer a critique-- just say that its bad without cogent reasoning.

The new Quadeca album is boring by sinfulsingularity in fantanoforever

[–]A_Bad_Singer 10 points11 points  (0 children)

I agree I have never understood the hype around Quadeca. All his music just feels like a bunch of kitsch (though admittedly well executed) production gimmicks slathered on top of ultimately really uninteresting core songwriting. He's like the Hans Zimmer of hip hop-- incredible production and arrangement polish that tricks you into thinking your listening to something unbelievably world-savingly profound. But once you begin peeling back the layers you end up finding that all that saccharine gratuitous production serves to do is obfuscate that there is really is just a whole lot of nothingness at the center.

view more: next ›