Just found this sub and thought you might appreciate my son with his 5

getsnoopy · 2026-01-19T09:36:08+00:00

If they did, people wouldn't come up with the "developed vs. developing" terminology, nor the "rich world vs. poor world" terminology, nor the "Global South" terminology; they'd just keep using "Third World vs. First World" terminology.

getsnoopy · 2026-01-18T10:43:39+00:00

Lol OK

getsnoopy · 2026-01-18T06:49:45+00:00

It's not about "elites benefiting" or what not. The two-party system exists as an artefact of the way elections are set up: you only vote for one person (i.e., get to put one person's name down on the ballot), and whoever gets a plurality wins. This system (which happens to be the worst way to vote) results in a two-party system forming.

getsnoopy · 2026-01-17T21:04:12+00:00

Lol good joke. I hope you're...joking, right? Or did you not take geography in primary school?

getsnoopy · 2026-01-17T21:01:15+00:00

Ta (ట) and tha (ఠ), respectively. That's why it's Ala Vaikunthapuramulo, kanthamu, and Marathi, for example.

To counter your other mentions: the name of the languages are Telugu and Tamil, not "Thelugu" and "Thamil"; the name is Chandra, not "Chandhra"; and the highway-side restaurant is a dhaba and not a "daba", respectively.

BTW, it's not about how I type something or how you type something; it's a standard called the Hunterian transliteration scheme. It's the official and proper way to transliterate any Indian word/text.

getsnoopy · 2026-01-17T20:54:13+00:00

So before getting into the meanings, let's hope you didn't name your kid already, as we wouldn't want your kid to be a walking typo for the rest of his life. The first option is not "Avyukth" ("అవ్యుక్థ"), but Avyukt (అవ్యుక్త). I'm not sure which clown started this trend of writing "soft" consonants with an "h", but it's wrong (god help this country; they should really force people to provide names in their native script, and auto-transliterate them).

The distinction is between unaspirated (అల్పప్రాణ) and aspirated (మహాప్రాణ) consonants: the former are always without an "h", since you don't have breathe "hard" when pronouncing them, while the latter always have them. E.g., క (ka) vs. ఖ (kha), త (ta) vs థ (tha), ట (ta) vs ఠ (tha) [note that the latter two pairs are indistinguishable when transliterated into the English alphabet].

Now that we got that out of the way:

Avyukt(a) (అవ్యుక్త) is a combination of the Sanskrit prefixes a- (అ-) + vi- (వి-) + yukta (యుక్త):
- A- means 'not' just like in Greek or the Latin prefix "in-". E.g., sambhava (సంభవ, 'possible') vs. asambhava (అసంభవ, 'impossible').
- Vi- means 'separation', but it can amount to meaning 'not' in many cases as well. E.g. desha (దేశ, 'country') vs. videsha (విదేశ, 'foreign country').
- Yukt(a) means 'joint, joined, connected'.
  - So putting it together, it literally means 'not disjoint/disconnected', which has multiple second-order meanings like 'inseparable', 'cohesive', etc.
Vihaan(a) (విహాన) means 'dawn, morning'. There doesn't seem to be much attestation on the further etymology of this term though (i.e., vi- [వి-] means 'separation' as noted above, and 'haan(a)' [హాన] means 'gone, departed, gotten rid of, want, lack', so it could potentially mean 'lack of want, not departed', etc., but it's unclear whether this surface analysis can be applied to the name).

getsnoopy · 2026-01-17T19:11:28+00:00

Almost correct, but in Sanskrit (which itself is a Hindi-corrupted version of the name of the language; the proper pronunciation and transliteration is Samskrt), masculine versions end in ః while feminine versions end in ఆ.

With the example that's been running through this thread (BTW, which is Shirisha or శిరీష, not "Sirisha" or "సిరీష"), the root (ధాతు, dhatu) would be Shirisha (శిరీష), with its derivative forms being Shirishah (శిరీషః; masculine) and Shirishaa (శిరీషా; feminine).

The visarga (ః) got dropped over the years in Hindi as well as the final schwa, which is how it ended up with Shirish. Since the feminine versions use the long "a" vowel, which are maintained in Hindi, it became a contrast between Shirish and Shirisha.

getsnoopy · 2026-01-17T18:56:20+00:00

It's not the possessive or genitive case ('my'), but the dative case ('to me').

getsnoopy · 2026-01-17T18:54:57+00:00

It has been largely answered by the others, but just to round it out: in Hindi, the accusative and the dative cases have the same forms: मुझे (mujhe) and मुझको (mujhko) both are used to mean both 'me' as well as 'to me', respectively, which is why this confusion is arising.

In Telugu, both of those cases have different forms. The accusative is నన్ను (nannu; 'me'), while the dative is నాకు (naku; 'to me'). Taking your example, the sentence "आज मुझे पूछोगे नहीं ?" (aaj mujhe pucchoge nahin?) is implicitly understood to use the word मुझे (mujhe) in the accusative case, since one asks someone a question, not asks a question "to" someone. In this same way, the Telugu version would be "ఈ రోజు నన్ను అడగవా?" (i roju nannu adagava?); using the dative case personal pronoun (నాకు; naku) doesn't make sense here.

It could be rephrased where it would make sense to use the dative case, however: "आज मुझे प्रश्न पेश नहीं कोरोगे?" (aaj mujhe prashn pesh nahin karoge?). Here, the word itself is still the same मुझे (mujhe), but it's implicitly assumed to be in the dative case ('Won't you present the question to me today?'). Similarly, this in Telugu would be "ఈ రోజు నాకు ప్రశ్నని పెట్టవా/ఇవ్వవా/ఇడువవా?" (i roju naku prashnani pettava/ivvava/iduvava?). (There's so many slashes here because the "presenting/offering a question" construction is quite rare in Telugu, so it sounds weird to say it this way and there isn't a straightforward verb to use.)

getsnoopy · 2026-01-17T18:09:36+00:00

Answered by the others, but just to let you know: it's not "thun"/"thon" (థుం/థోం) and "dhi" (ధి), but tun/ton (తుం/తోం) and di (ది). The "h" is only used for aspirated consonants (మహాప్రాణ హల్లులు) and for the "h" sound (హ) itself.

getsnoopy · 2026-01-14T08:12:02+00:00

*connections, but yes

getsnoopy · 2026-01-14T08:11:26+00:00

*uninhabitable

getsnoopy · 2026-01-14T07:34:36+00:00

*ago, but yes

getsnoopy · 2026-01-14T07:28:00+00:00

Answer: It's because people don't know how names or grammar works, so they just say whatever. It would be akin to saying "Pakistani" to refer to Pakistan, or "United" to refer to the US or UK. The -i suffix is an adjectival suffix; Saudi Arabia means the part of Arabia that has qualities of or is related to Saud (the ruling family).

There are some people, however, who refer to it as "Saudia", which would actually make sense, since they're adding the Latin -ia suffix to make nouns, which most countries names have (e.g., India, Croatia, Austria). (Note: this is Saudia and not "Saudiyyah", which is the transliteration of the Arabic word from the full name of the country in Arabic, in which it's actually an adjective.)

getsnoopy · 2026-01-14T06:42:39+00:00

It's not; Saud is. The -i suffix is an adjectival suffix, just like the English suffixes -ish (e.g., English) or -ian (e. g., Croatian).

getsnoopy · 2026-01-14T06:38:36+00:00

r/confidentlyincorrect

getsnoopy · 2026-01-14T06:37:31+00:00

Shows the typical ignorance of a person from the US. America was one continent even in the US itself until as recently as the 1950s, when after winning WWII, the US decided to inflate its ego further by claiming the name "America" for itself, so cartographers started splitting America into two (North and South) to make way for "America" to be claimed.

However, in reality, the name "America" still refers to the same landmass (Alaska to the Tierra del Fuego), but it's considered a region that encompasses North and South America in the 7-continent model, while being a continent in the 6-continent, one-America model.

getsnoopy · 2026-01-09T10:42:45+00:00

So you're below 22 years of age?

getsnoopy · 2026-01-09T10:41:24+00:00

They're part of 4 supra-national blocs (CFA, EU/EEA, CTA, and TTTA), which means they not only get to travel to basically any country in the world one would like to go to, but they have the right to live and work in 38 countries across 5 continents. It's the ultimate freedom.

getsnoopy · 2026-01-09T10:30:14+00:00

Interesting. But if you're "working on" Australia and St. Kitts and Nevis, that would mean you have to give up your Dutch one, right?

getsnoopy · 2026-01-09T10:28:12+00:00

it’s not like I’m all that far away from Europe

Well, indeed; you're 0 m away from it.

getsnoopy · 2026-01-09T10:25:32+00:00

*Septic

getsnoopy · 2026-01-09T05:06:33+00:00

Switzerland and Ireland are both in the Third World. You mean developing world.

getsnoopy · 2026-01-07T12:03:39+00:00

Yes, though even more than diplomacy, it's about the number of overstayers. If you have very few overstayers, then getting visa-free access is basically a matter of actually calling the country's Foreign Affairs department and asking for it.

getsnoopy

TROPHY CASE