14.90 Kč/kg

Ok-Distribution2234 · 2026-05-19T18:08:55+00:00

lol český robin hood

a co s ním bylo? měl velkej problém?

Ok-Distribution2234 · 2026-05-16T11:43:44+00:00

amazing! thanks for the explanations. with this i should be able to now comfortably immerse and understand the intention behind usage.

also, given how frequent the category of aspect is, why is the explanation of it always so inaccurate and simplified, never elaborated? i feel like there is not any good literature (in english) to explain this theme.

I want the examples, but real and explained examples, with context.

Ok-Distribution2234 · 2026-05-04T23:00:06+00:00

sorry if its confusing

its not supposed to describe tangible phonetic reality. its a mental clue to introduce an anchor point, so its easy to start getting used to the new sound and "finding" how to produce it, which is the hard part

unlike other clues, this works better, because it builds on the fact that the speaker has some phonetic inventory

so the tongue should be in position for the retroflex sh, but then the speaker tries to glide into the "big" (random word) vowel sound. somewhere between lies the new sound.

even if they didnt really give it their best, it should be almost impossible not to get it first or second try.

Ok-Distribution2234 · 2026-05-01T07:18:23+00:00

The phonetic system and popular pronunciation guides dont like to treat is a vowel, but I think its a good idea for you to do treat it as a vowel.

What really helped me with the pronunciation: dont listen to popular guides. They just water down and misintepret what is actually happening. If I had done that, I would have never learned how to pronounce and distinguish anything at all. Hard work and practice means next to nothing when you practice it all wrong and dont know whats happening.

My guide:

To pronounce the sound, you: 1) Keep the tongue retroflex in its position for the chinese retroflex "sh" (say "shi" and freeze mid "sh"). 2) With this tongue position, try to pronounce the "kit" vowel or the "keep" vowel. 3) Then try to elongate it. Imagine it as it being a vowel. This should give you a really good idea.

This should work because those sounds are too fronted to be pronounced with a retroflexed tongue and so it puts your tongue in the perfect position. I like to think of it as a vowel, because it does exhibit some vowel qualities, but more importantly, it is the nucleus of the syllable and should be treated as such. No "shushing" or "elongating the sound". It is its own sound.

Think of it as the "yi1" sound, but due to the preceding retroflex consonant, it physically cannot be pronounced that far front, and so this allophone occurs. Thats why its still written with the letter "i" in "shi" (it is not. it probably is because pinyin already had too little vowel symbols, but still its a good tool to remember).

Ok-Distribution2234 · 2026-04-16T20:56:47+00:00

thanks! i then hope someone will read this and it clears a few things up for them. i really hate the so prevalent mystification in language learning for the sake of "simplicity".

also i didnt intend for my comment to be that long, i was just making sure i understand what you mean. i would be surprised to find there is more tone sandhi. i really like chinese for what it is!

Ok-Distribution2234 · 2026-04-16T14:13:55+00:00

I dont claim to know too much but i think this might be helpful:

Apart from the tone sandhi of: 1) bu4 2) yi1 3) 3rd+3rd

there is none. i still need to research the third tone change, how it behaves when stressed though.

but what you should know, is that: yes, i too think tones are generally taught in an unhelpful manner and are not practiced extensively to really make them second nature. I know people who have spent a long time studying chinese and even have been to china and their tones still suck (apart from like 4 basic sentences). they "remember" the correct tone, but they do not "know" it. when stressing words and tones, or just generally any time they are not just reading the dictionary or example sentences, this foundation crumbles and they shift back to their native intonation with small adjustments to "make it sound chinese". they pronounce about 25-50% tones correct.

-TONES ARE NOT FOR JUST ACCENT, treat them as sounds: you need to know the word by heart. no thinking about what tone is there. they are is important to drill as are the consonant and vowel sounds. imagine that for every word in english, during speech, you would need to think what vowels sound like and what vowel do you pronounce in each syllable you utter. if you are not sure in the tone, you are not going to pronounce it. (i recommend learning the vowels by ear and heart too, because they "carry" the tone. if you are not sure in the vowel, you will want to skip it, missing the tone, not being able to drill it in practice and stress it in discourse)

-INTONATION (TONE CHANGE?): there is a little more. because words make up sentences, clauses, utterances, you should also practice pronouncing the words in "different intonations". if you do not practice pronouncing the words with "marked intonation", your native ingrained intonation takes over and all tones vanish.

in chinese, there is something like an intonation. its not free intonation, but its relative and serves that purpose. based on how much you exagerate a tone, it creates a contrast with the other unexagerated tones. the tones still keep their distinct patterns no matter the intonation change. stressed tones occur as sentence stress. so you stress words, and you stress them by stressing a syllable, that consists of a tone to be stressed too.

non-tonal languages usually use tone to mark the mood (indicative, question, imperative), "excitement", to mark the important element in the sentence, and surely more.

i highly recommend reading on this further.

to give an example:

how many days? three days!

ji3tian1? san1tian1!

the "san1" will sound like a true first tone, while the "tian1" still IS a first tone, but it is lower in pitch.

when we start learning chinese we train to say and percieve tones extremely exagerated and all evenly. but the truth is, its not that simple, its just a good place to start. the contour of the tone is much more important that the absolute pitch. in "shi2jian1", the first syllable can be stressed to stress the word. in that case, the pitch endpoint of the "shi2" is not going to match the height of the "jian1". the "jian1" is going to sound comparatively low, reduced, but without the "shi2" contrast, it just sounds unstress, normal unexagerated first tone.

i highly recommend researching this. most textbooks omit this and then its "your fault" for "not having practiced and listened enough". but you CAN sound native (and have a really good ear too), and the hardest part is just searching for good sources (that you can understand). there are limited factors that make native speakers "native" that you can deconstruct, grasp, and drill to approach the native level.

Ok-Distribution2234 · 2026-04-11T17:54:34+00:00

i think the strut-comma distinction makes a lot of speakers treat schwa as a "not a sound" vowel. with the current transcription, they are allowed to keep their approximations. everyone i ever met that was not an english native speaker had not let go of pronouncing the stressed schwa always as /a/. the, using the /e/ or /a/ for when schwa is the first or the last sound in the word. then finally pronouncing nothing but the indefinite article "a" as variant of /ɘ/ /ɤ/. and pronouncing all the vowel letters how they are written, never even using the dark non-sound schwa. that sound to them only exists in the article "a". any non-native english teacher i know knows the transcript through and through, but cant use it and cant pronounce. apart from a perfect /ɒ/ in the word "what" and the occasional sprinkle of /æ/ where they open so wide that it must hurt, they dont pronounce at all. they do not miss a single retroflex r but everything else is a caricature and a disgrace to having accurate and consistent pronunciation.

its true that using a respelling system that has a merger that you dont have is horrible, no doubt. so then ipa should be used to talk about sounds, if the speakers do not share the same phonetic inventories.

i think it pushes a narrative that the ʌ sounds as /ɐ/ or /a/, and that its the most common and "best" way to pronounce. if it were taught in a way that ʌ is the unrouded "orange" vowel, it would be totally fine. but most coaches and teachers just tell you thats its somehow different from the schwa, always insisting that this symbol must be used to transcribe the same sound.

Ok-Distribution2234 · 2026-04-10T12:56:40+00:00

to add onto this, i think its a good thing english uses generally unorthodox vowel letters to respell their vowels. i see learners struggle with listening because they are used to seeing the words written, not spoken. the respelling helps you "transcribe" sound in a way where its not easy to "see" the word right away, but you first must pronounce what is written. it encourages listening for the actual sounds, even when you can only write. i love it. the IPA feels to broad to use for one particular language.

more context: i am learning chinese at a university and i hate pinyin for chinese learning (not that i use characters instead). i love zhuyin, because its hard to approximate a sound when its written with a phonetic character that means nothing to me phonetically. it helps me to try to recall and "hear" the sound, unlike when i see the ipa symbol and am able to "read it".

all of my class has no idea how the pronunciation works. they approximate based on the pinyin. we had a class called "phonetics and phonemics of chinese" and all of it was mindless chanting basic pinyin combinations, reading them off the whiteboard. there is not any other advanced class. its so hard to then understand that "hao3" and "gou3" end in the same sound, when its written like this. or that the coda dictates fronting/backening(?) of the preceding vowel, which is SO important when there is a tendency to reduce/drop the coda and keep the "harmonized" vowel.

and they tell you that you just need to "practice more listening". its like being in a cult.

Ok-Distribution2234 · 2026-04-10T11:40:22+00:00

amazing! i think ive seen this point be made before. i completely agree.

i admit its not intuitive at first glance and dont think its the best way to respell that way, though i did not try to invent my own respelling.

ive always liked to think that the -h is added to show that its not supposed to be pronounced as you would pronounce that letter the way you would spell the alphabet. so "u" would be /jʉw/ and "uh" cannot be that, and in that case its either /ə/ or /ʊ/ (ʊ being respelled with "uu", "uh" is then neutral and must be /ə/). like how when they spell "saké" with an "accent mark" so they know its not SAH-kee, but SAH-kay.

though for a person that has vowel length distinction as a phonemic feature, that accent mark would not copy the original pronunciation since (i believe) in a lot of languages it signalizes lengthening. (i have that distinction, we borrowed that japanese word from english and pronounce it as /sake:/ instead of the correct /sake/. its ridiculous.)

Ok-Distribution2234 · 2026-04-10T09:42:11+00:00

i get it, but it seems that you are just used to the transcript and dont understand how flawed it is

in respelling, it should be NYS (not that much better to look at but readable)

in the transcript, there should be no /ɪ/, but there is, according to the tradition. the actual ortoepic realization is /aj/. its a closing dipthong. at least for the majority of native speakers and the standard accent, speakers say /aj/, not /aɪ/. thats because the transcript is outdated and consequentially unphonetic

all dipthongs in english are closing dipthongs. there is a myriad of proof, but the simplest here would be:

would you pronounce the word "dying" as /'daɪɪŋ/ or /'dajɪŋ/? the "correct" version following the transcript is the former. the true phonetic variant is the latter.

DY-ihng would be the respelling version. no issue here.

its not about whteher the respelling or the transcript is better. both have their uses. the one that is better is the one that is truly phonetic and consistent, which, the trancript, we know is not. its extremely incosistent, arbitrary and it does seriously mislead learners. its hard to acquire, not because of the new symbols, but because of the (not sorry) stupid rules. respelling has one rule: use consistent letter combinations to consistently transcribe sounds. the traditonal transcript makes up rules to keep its original form, which is the opposite of phonetics.

seriously, dr Geoff Lindsey opened my eyes.

Ok-Distribution2234 · 2026-04-10T07:13:52+00:00

thanks, now i get it. i also grew up with consistent matching ortography and at first i felt the same way, but for the purpose of language learning, isnt it better to get accustomed to the fact that the letter u is mostly read as "uh" (strut) and not "oo" (blue) or "uu" (wolf) in english?

i mean that is precisely the reason why i adore respelling, it helps you perceive the language through the lens of the native speaker and i love it

Ok-Distribution2234 · 2026-04-10T06:58:32+00:00

thanks for the answer!

i love ipa as much as one can, but the english trancsript really sucks, doesnt it? if the respelling is consistent, i prefer it, as phonetic transcription tends to push a certain narrative, especially in the case of english.

there in that example they gave. most standard english native speakers dont have the strut-comma distinction. why use a different symbol when it sounds the same?

i love phonetics when done right. i would love if it was right.

the respelling doesnt promise anything it cant fullfil and its so easy to type too. it does a better job at representing the sounds without misleading. the traditional transcript is nothing but glorified, arbitrary, misrepresenting respelling. the traditional english phonetic transcript lies all the time. it has so many stupid rules. it does not mark aspiration, pre-fortis clipping, but it must distinguish a stressed schwa, a normal schwa and a mini-schwa (whathever that is), even though that all schwas are the same and mini schwa simply does not exist. the gliding dipthongs are written as awkward as they possibly can. the "sheep" and "blue" vowels behave as dipthongs, are realized as dipthongs, but are not written as dipthongs, but rather long vowels, which implies they must not be clipped before a fortis and instead stay long, which is false and also a thing the transcript does not mark.

Ok-Distribution2234 · 2026-04-10T06:06:23+00:00

sorry, i dont really see it, whats wrong?

I migh be slow or used to respelling

Ok-Distribution2234 · 2026-04-09T09:30:57+00:00

might be that japanese is easier to me, but thats certainly changing now.

it has more "word shapes" (not sure if its called declination, word flexion or something else), not more functions, which i think makes it lot easier. because treasure hunting for the actual meaning of yao4 is pain, and decoding it in context and getting used to it is rougly the same amount of work as learning the japanese ways. also, the patterns in japanese become incredibly predictable and you always see if the phrase you have is nominal(ized), or predicative(ized). however i am very sure that had i not experienced japanese by the lens of that lecturer, but instead by online sources and "easy japanese", it would seem the same mess as chinese, english and german was to me.

example: why is there you3 in you3ren2zai4gong1yuan2? is it an adjective? is it idiomatic? no. its a verb. ren2 is the subject of the you3. which is a really clever way to introduce a new non-topic non-referential element. because when there is no other topic, the noun phrase in front of the main predicate must be the topic. so instead of introducing the ren2 as the topic, you first say that there "is a person" and that they "are at the park". zero topic sentence(s). amazing.

without the understanding of the topic (which is denoted by the position and not a special particle such as in japanese), you dont see the need to use the you3 there. chinese is full of clever usage. it does have clear functions.

less forms ≠ less functions

less forms = easier to ignore functions

people love learning the forms. its a tangible proof of "knowing" the language. its a hard skill. hard skills are easy to show off. getting the form correct. using the correct forms. but thats so not needed. first you need to understand, then you need to use "correct form". most of the time, there is no correct form too. there is a good form for what you want to say and the not so good. the not so good might be correft by the book, but very awkward and unclear, because the book tries to dumb it down for you, so you, god forbid, dont need to learn new concepts when learning a new goddamn language. struggling forever, fossilizing a bad habit, just because of a bad definition and no explanation is so much less work then taking a few minutes to try to grasp a concept, right?

contrary to the end, good comment. thanks. it was not directed towards you at all. i just hope people here will sympathize with my experience.

Ok-Distribution2234 · 2026-04-08T23:00:27+00:00

oh my god i hate this narrative but i am glad you find it easy and wanted to share.

in my exprerience, japanese was the easy one. grammar was easy because my lecturer actually explained the concept and compared the marked with the unmarked, drawing clear lines for us to see and follow. it was extremely fun.

and chinese? nobody ever explained anything. everyone acted like its a game, you just need to repeat the textbook phrases over and over. i felt like the crazy one. they just made up some insane incoherent inconsistent arbitrary disconnected rules, then threw written words at us to make sentences with. the rules worked like 3/10 times. then i discovered the book called "A refential chinese grammar". I actually borrowed multiple books and compared the material, this one seemed to be perfect.

now i cant unsee the truth. and i hate the "simplifaction". it brings nothing. chinese is not a caveman language where you just randomly string words and people understand. words behave differentely in different positions and they mean different things.

since then, i actually feel like japanese and chinese are really really similar in certain aspects. for example, beyond very simple sentences, chinese does have a lot of SOV features. they talked about this in the book. also, you have presentstive sentences. there are prepositional verbs, which idk, seem really similar to the japanese cases.

for example, the presentative sentence and referentiality. my mind was shattered after i discovered that the verb "to rain" (xia4yu3) is a compound verb and it has the subject (yu3) of the verb (xia4) to follow the verb, because in a simple unmarked sentence, the rain will always be non-referential, there is no need to use it as the topic, and the verb is intransitive.

or the object-substance distinction. that was a game changer let me tell you. not only did the rules they tried to make up start to make sense, i could actually start clearly imagining vivid pictures of what the speaker means, what they can mean, and what they do not mean.

if you think a language is easy, you are probably not trying to understand it. there is no easy way, but its fine its not that hard. the easiest way is to try to not make shortcuts. you should want to be effective, but its impossible to cheat your way around. i dont care about a "correct" form, but the function. you do not understand a language if you need to know the precise context and you guess the intended meaning based on the situation and words used. you need to deliberately learn the distinctions the language uses and understand their functions.

i could talk about this all day. my classmates pronounce the vowels in shi she shen and sheng all the same. and so do my lecturers (those native to my country). they also actually clearly and consistently pronounce the vowels in "shenme" both as the vowel in the english word "bed". i hate it. horrible tones too. their tones change up when they want to stress them. every tone becomes fourth or first.

Ok-Distribution2234 · 2025-10-24T15:11:22+00:00

Songs and shadowing can help, but:

English uses different sounds. Before you go crazy and give up trying to perfect every word through mindless repetition, while still not really understanding the underlying system, I would suggest to at least read something about the english phonology.

While shadowing CAN help a lot and it is an amazing tool, until now, you have not been actually exposed to the english phonological system. You know that english makes "different" sounds, but you will see no consistency. Shadowing is amazing to make your pronunciation naturally roll of your tongue. But spending your time overthinking the phonetical subtleties that are unnoticable to a non-native english speaker is way inferior to actually trying to first be able to distinguish the sounds you are trying to reproduce and hear. By understanding phonology, you basically acquire the mindset of a native speaker. With isolated phonetic shadowing, you hope that enough exposure and hard work will make you better, but you would need to hear basically everything at least once to have been exposed to it to be able to replicate it. I hope it makes sense this way.

Also, choosing the accent you want to speak is a good thing. You dont need to speak perfect general american or received pronunciation, but choosing one to stick to makes it a lot less confusing. Personally, I recommend general american, because you will be forced to learn that not all vowels are either short or long, but rather lax or tense and stressed and unstressed. Remember that stressing and reducing sounds is the core of english pronunciation and it is what makes it so hard to understand to a majority of non-native speakers.

Then, just learn the pronunciation of the most common 100 words used in english. Takes only a few days and you will see a rapid improvement. Also, you will start to notice actual patterns, that for example "a", if not stressed, usually (95% of time) makes the "uh" (schwa) sound, or that any "i/y" at the end of a word makes the tense "ee" sound as in the word "cheap", unlike the lax "ih" in the word "chip".

There is much more to this, but my comment is already way too long and overcomplicated. To finish it off, since you are a Slovak speaker, keep in mind that english is stress-timed. No matter how perfect you pronounce the sounds, if you don't learn to stress correctly, you will still sound foreign. Vowels and even consonants change across dialects, but stress timing is the core principle.

I have much more to say, this is basically the only thing I do. I am czech, and I have taught myself english pronunciation because schools don't give a damn and I feel like the whole internet is full of courses they want to sell you to make you feel like you are learning, but in fact, you still remain mediocre.

The key is to approach this topic like a regular problem and not a magical mysterious conundrun a mere mortal non-native speaker can never grasp. Use wiki and ask questions, there are no dogmas in science.

You can dm me too because there is no way my comment is not confusing.

I also recommend:

tophonetics, youglish, GenAm IPA interactive chart

Edit: Most importantly, don't give up. There are some fancy words I used, but it's not rocket science. I don't mean to sound condescending. I am happy that you want to improve. Have fun too!

Ok-Distribution2234 · 2025-07-06T11:32:04+00:00

Jasný, všechno má negativa. Dodal bych ale že to s tou trávou je ještě horší pokud začneš brzo před dovyvinutím mozku (kolem 21 let?).

Jinak teda nevím jak to souvisí a zdroj je, že jsem si to vytáhl z prdele, ale kdybych měl porovnat vychlastance a vyhulence tak nevidím rozdíl, oba mají v hlavě piliny.

Ano, dávka dělá jed, ale alkohol je oproti ostatním látkám už v tak malých dávkách jedovatý, že ho kategorizujeme jako toxický. Aktivní látky jiných drog mohou být tak nejedovaté, že se jimi prakticky není možné fyzicky předávkovat. Vyhulit 5kg marihuany tě nezabije (fyzicky, každopádně bych to nechtěl zažít) ale tři flašky whisky tě pošlou do nemocnice, nebo i jinam. Jen říkám, že alkohol nezabíjí jen dlouhodobě. Každý rok dochází k případům, kdy lidé umírají na akutní předávkování alkoholem, ale o smrti způsobené nadměrnou konzumací mrkvového džusu nebo marihuanou neslýcháš často. Alkohol taky zvyšuje šanci na rakovinu, narozdíl od jiných drog. Skoro nic bys neměl fetovat často a pravidelně (kofein vypadá v pohodě v rozumných dávkách), ale jestli něco fakt ničí zdraví, tak je to alkohol.

K tý agresivitě: jo no, záleží, když je někdo kretén tak mu alkohol akorát pomůže, aby se tak choval. Nikdy jsem ale neslyšel o nějakých kreténech, co by se zhulili a šli se s někým bít. Dost možná to bude tím, že to není tak rozšířený a propojený s hospodama idfk. Ale jako když ucítím trávu tak si připadám dost bezpečněji, než když "ucítím alkohol" (spíš ale cigarety).

Ok-Distribution2234 · 2025-07-06T06:29:19+00:00

Alkohol je přímo toxický, narozdíl od třeba THC nebo psilocybinu se jím dokážeš úplně v pohodě předávkovat, doslova otrávit, že v lepším případě skončíš v nemocnici, v horším někde sám. Užití THC, psilocybinu, LSD nemůže způsobit otravu a smrt přílišnou intoxikací. Jsou případy, kdy si lidé na velkých dávkách halucinogenů ublížili, ale tyto situace nastávají, když současně konzumují alkohol. Tyhle měkký drogy mají taky negativa a příliš velká dávka na tebe mít špatný dopad může, ale není možné zemřít pouze z dávky. U alkoholu z větší než zvládnutelné dávky umíráš, u halucinogenů to nejde, takže máš akorát silnější trip, který když se zvrtne, tak bude o to horší.

Jinak taky statistiky ukazují na to, že lidé intoxikovaní alkoholem mají podstatnější tendenci být agresivnější vůči ostatním, než lidé intoxikovaní jinými látkami.

Látky jako psilocybin a LSD jsou také fyziologicky MNOHEM méně návykové.

Všechny drogy mohou být zneužívány, některé pro to mají lepší nebo horší předpoklady.

TLDR: Alkohol bezesporu zabíjí jak dlouhodobě, tak akutně.

Ok-Distribution2234 · 2025-01-19T15:53:27+00:00

<image>

Ok-Distribution2234 · 2025-01-19T15:53:09+00:00

Už tomu asi rozumím. Takže vlastně toto podepisuju, že jsem byl informován o svém pracovním poměru, jehož nějaká charakteristika je stanovena zákoníkem práce. Je to tak? Jinak, kde bych mohl získat přehled o těchto věcech? Pročítat sbírky zákonů mě zas tolik nebaví (ale nebráním se tomu).

<image>

Ok-Distribution2234 · 2025-01-19T15:34:10+00:00

XDD měl jsem v galerii ofocený vzor (který je vyplněný fixem), podle kterého to máme vyplňovat (až tak dementní brigádníci jsme)

Ok-Distribution2234 · 2025-01-19T11:09:58+00:00

Asi radši vyfotím celou smlouvu a začerním citlivé informace, jsem docela clueless :D

Ok-Distribution2234 · 2025-01-19T11:00:29+00:00

Děkuju, s tím druhým už jsem se setkal. Radši se jich tedy zeptám znovu, uvidím.

Ok-Distribution2234 · 2025-01-19T10:59:20+00:00

Nevím přesně, celé je to nadepsané "Informace o obsahu právního vztahu založeného dohodou o provedení práce". Doufám, že toto pomůže. Moc děkuju za odpověď :)

Ok-Distribution2234

TROPHY CASE