« first day (1444 days earlier)   

12:03 AM
have you flagged them?
12:35 AM
@RegDwigнt I'm afraid @Terdon is right.
I don't speak this dialectical novel weirdness.
Ancient literary Greek is quite different grammatically.
1:06 AM
@Neeku Dude! Stop rejecting those! He's doing good work... See:
Q: Call to action: fill in image descriptions

Matt ЭлленWe had a request a couple of years ago to replace "enter image decription here" with some sort of generic text. I think this is a bad idea, as it doesn't add anything. Shog's comment on the proposal essentially articulates how I feel: I would rather it changed to something like, "Author hates...

1:23 AM
@Mitch As a dog returns to his vomit, so a fool returns to his folly.
I propose more downvotes.
And so a purple square returns to its room.
1:38 AM
Mitch knows whereof I speak, while you who so seldom venture out of your den enjoy nostrils blissfully numb to the troll’s taint which even now like some rabid bulldog-puppy throwing a tantrum poisons our community composure less swiftly but more surely than even an adder’s dripping fangs could effect.
> . . . I do not believe that Latin ferus for “wild” and Latin fero for “I bear” have been shown to be related.
A: Two quite different meanings of “bear”

tchristProbably not, but maybe. For the ursid, Old English used bera, cognate to Old (and modern) Norse björn, and which both drew from older roots relating to the color brown, one of the creature’s most common colors. For the verb you’re referring to, Old English used the strong verb beran. It had t...

I’m simplifying, but it was a simplistic question.
So fero and beran yes, but ferus and bera no.
Or probably not.
1:56 AM
No Proto-Indo-European root for bera?
It’s *BHER meaning brown for the noun, and *BHER meaning carry for the verb.
But this is a fellow who thinks words that are spelled the same are the same word, so I didn’t care to distract him.
I’m writing those lazily. They have fancy diacritics, depending whom you ask.
2:12 AM
Hmm but those are very close.
Nothing about the two Proto-Indo-European roots' being related?
They appear identical.
But the relationship in PIE was the same as in English: apparently coincidental.
Why should carrying something be brown?
== Proto-Indo-European == === Root === *bʰer- to bear, carry ==== Derived terms ==== Present stem: *bʰére- Aorist stem: none Perfect stem: none *bʰōr (“thief”) ==== Descendants ==== From *bʰér-ti-s (“the act of carrying”): Armenian: Old Armenian: բարդ (bard) Proto-Germanic: *gaburdiz Old English: gebyrd Old Norse: byrð (“birth, descendance”) English: birth Gothic: 𐌲𐌰𐌱𐌰𐌿𐍂𐌸𐍃 (gabaurþs, “birth”) Old High German: giburt (“birth”) German: Geburt (“birth”) Middle Dutch: ghebort (“birth”) Dutch: geboorte (“birth”) Latin: fors (“chance”), forda (“cow in calf”) Persian: بردن, бурд...
There is a derived term given meaning thief.
Beowulf was a bee-thief.
And a bear.
I can’t get straight story on it.
They have a PIE root *bher- (1) and a PIE root *bher- (3).
I don’t know who’s on second.
So those are two different PIE roots, bher#1 and bher#3.
I know nothing.
I terribly fear we may have to go into brun and bruins, and burnishings.
English bruin of course having been long ago stolen (borne away?) from the Dutch.
So there are two similar-sounding Proto-Indo-European roots, and no connection is known between them.
That’s what it looks like to me.
@terdon I don't think Americans are too stupid to learn IPA. A shocking thing to say.
I don't think I will listen to Lawler anymore, after that silly comment.
@JasperLoy Oh really? Just think of how many are sub-arsible in this regard.
2:27 AM
Not many people in any country will known the IPA.
That is why they must learn it. Once they learn it, it is easy.
Of course not. Why would they? It’s not the MyCountryPA.
I was very confused by the MW way of showing pronunciation. That is one big reason why I am not getting MW (Collegiate Dictionary).
I have no fucking clue what MW means. It’s obscene, though.
However, note that MW Advanced Learner's Dictionary does use IPA.
@tchrist Merriam-Webster's.
2:29 AM
no no no no no
I knew your abbreviation.
I have no fucking clue what their hieroglyphics mean.
And there is no reason whatsoever to learn them.
Because they have no meaning in any other context and are highly inaccurate to boot.
Now it is also very weird that many of the Oxford dictionaries do not show IPA for common words, saying that native speakers should know them.
They rather offend me, in fact.
By being stupidly wrong.
And refusing to reform.

« first day (1444 days earlier)