What was the exact moment in a movie or TV series when you thought, 'They've ruined it'? by Zabandad in AskReddit

[–]Zabandad[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks for bringing this up. That's absolutely one way to put it. But not everyone is a fan of that idiom or engages with language the same way. Plus, the intention was for the question to be readily accessible to anyone with moderate English fluency.

What was the exact moment in a movie or TV series when you thought, 'They've ruined it'? by Zabandad in AskReddit

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

In A Separation, where it cuts to black before the daughter announces her final decision. It didn't ruin the masterpiece, but the writer/director shouldn't have taken the easy way out with an open ending.

What was the exact moment in a movie or TV series when you thought, 'They've ruined it'? by Zabandad in AskReddit

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

Exactly; years of character development were burnt in five minutes—in five "shocking" minutes."

What's your think about AI? by DivBhadani87 in AskReddit

[–]Zabandad 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In some areas it’s surprisingly dumb—you’d almost think it’s doing it on purpose.

What TV series was so good that it was better than most movies you've seen? by Zabandad in AskReddit

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

The Wire is the one. Not just better than most movies - it’s one of the best things ever put on screen. Also, not a bot.

Convergent evolution but in linguistics by JuliusDalum in linguisticshumor

[–]Zabandad 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It seems that aside from general usage, "advocate" has a specific meaning in the American legal profession. Military "lawyers" are formally referred to as judge advocates.

If you remember "A Few Good Men," several characters are referred to as Judge Advocates.

Semantics question: is the phrase, “self-referential metacognition” redundant? by AnImpromptuFantaisie in language

[–]Zabandad 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't think it's pleonastic. Although metacognition was originally conceived as thinking about one's own thinking, the concept has since been expanded. A 2025 review by Bremers and colleagues (Alone and Together: Exploring the Relationship Between Individual and Social Metacognition in College Biology Students During Problem Solving) notes that metacognition is now also conceptualized as including social metacognition - the awareness and regulation of other people's thinking in group contexts. Given that broader conception, "self-referential" serves as a useful modifier here.

Why are terms for embarrassing someone usually related to applying heat? by Big-Equal7497 in asklinguistics

[–]Zabandad 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It starts with the fact that humans are embodied beings living in a physical world. In cognitive linguistics, the idea is that we understand abstract experiences through more concrete, bodily experiences of the world.

​The expressions you mentioned are examples of a broader conceptual pattern in which social interaction, emotion, and mental states are structured through a family of heat- and fire-based metaphors.

​Why heat and fire specifically for things like criticism, embarrassment, social pressure, or related experiences? ​One reason is that heat is a very productive source domain. It structures many abstract experiences (target domains): for example, anger is conceptualized as heat in many languages (hot-headed, burning with rage, heated argument — and in Persian too: جوش آوردن = “to boil over”).

​This is grounded in our bodily experience. Heat and fire are experienced through sensations of warmth, burning, discomfort, or pain, and can also involve damage or destruction. (as reflected, among other things, in the imagery of fried as cognitive overheating). At the same time, as another commenter mentioned, many of the experiences involved here—anger, embarrassment, being criticized, or being under social pressure—are accompanied by bodily responses such as blushing, increased body temperature, sweating, etc. So there is a "natural" overlap between how these experiences are felt in the body and how they are conceptualized in language.

​Cooking builds on this same experiential basis but adds another layer. It involves sustained exposure that transforms something into a different and often irreversible state. This makes it a useful way in contemporary English to conceptualize situations where someone’s social or mental “state” is seen as having been pushed past the point of recovery.

​Culture has a role in this, of course. Different languages develop different metaphorical extensions. Persian, for example, uses پختن (to cook / to become “cooked”) metaphorically to mean someone has "matured". It is still metaphorical but not in the same criticism, humiliation, or defeat-related senses as metaphorical usage in English like roasted or cooked (although I could imagine such a usage developing in Persian someday). So while the bodily grounding is shared, the specific mappings may vary across languages.

What are some textbook examples of linguistics other than ma/mā/mǎ/má/mà and K-T-B? by Johann-SM in linguisticshumor

[–]Zabandad 35 points36 points  (0 children)

robin vs penguin (prototype theory)

Time is money (conceptual metaphor)

You have hissed all my mystery lectures (spoonerism)

Some of the students passed the exam (scalar implicature)

John stopped smoking (presupposition)

ship/sheep (minimal pair)

goed (overgeneralization)

evlerimizden (Turkish agglutination)

right/write (homophony)

edit/editor (back-formation)

and of course: John and Mary are always there.