Stack Exchange
log in

lly

 Discussion between cmw and lly

Imported from a comment discussion on latin.stackexchange.com/...
lly
Jun 19, 2023 16:36
Alright, it's past midnight. Hopefully you'll realize the way you just misunderstood and apologize later. If not, eh, I know you're normally good xD Have good night.
lly
Jun 19, 2023 16:26
The letters z e r o
lly
Jun 19, 2023 16:26
It does xD
lly
Jun 19, 2023 16:26
Yes it does
lly
Jun 19, 2023 16:25
That's the entire point
lly
Jun 19, 2023 16:25
It's zero in Latin
lly
Jun 19, 2023 16:25
because the "in English" part is being added
lly
Jun 19, 2023 16:25
There is no possible way my words mean what you're taking them to be
lly
Jun 19, 2023 16:25
It was an honest request
lly
Jun 19, 2023 16:25
That isn't insulting
lly
Jun 19, 2023 16:24
and I'm annoyed that you had to be this unpleasant because you forgot how to decline 2nd declension neuter nouns for a bit
lly
Jun 19, 2023 16:24
Anyway, you are normally a force for good
lly
Jun 19, 2023 16:24
You insulted me and left instead of doing that
lly
Jun 19, 2023 16:23
I told you to remove them
lly
Jun 19, 2023 16:23
instead of just seeing the link that shows exactly what I was always saying
lly
Jun 19, 2023 16:23
Then insulted me and left
lly
Jun 19, 2023 16:23
You added words in your head which confused you
lly
Jun 19, 2023 16:23
That is exactly what I was saying
lly
Jun 19, 2023 16:23
The dative and ablative of zerum is zero
lly
Jun 19, 2023 16:23
The words aren't confusing.
lly
Jun 19, 2023 16:07
Click through and look at the dative and ablative forms of zerum.
lly
Jun 19, 2023 16:06
but my words aren't the problem. The words you're adding in your own head were the problem.
lly
Jun 19, 2023 16:06
I'm not belittling anyone
lly
Jun 19, 2023 16:05
zerum
Noun: zerum n (genitive zerī); second declension
  1. (New Latin, mathematics) zero
lly
Jun 19, 2023 16:05
They aren't unclear
lly
Jun 19, 2023 16:04
Remove the [in English] part that you added to what I was saying and see if you can get what I was actually saying.
lly
Jun 19, 2023 16:04
They all mean zero in English and English doesn't have a dative or ablative, really.
lly
Jun 19, 2023 16:03
The [in English] part is entirely in your own head.
lly
Jun 19, 2023 16:03
No, that's not at all what those words mean.
lly
Jun 19, 2023 16:01
That is not at all what that means and I don't understand how you could possibly parse it that way. Kindly try to walk me through that part.
lly
Jun 19, 2023 16:01
Nothing in anything I wrote suggests (or could possibly mean) that I think that the word zerum alone in all of Latin possesses a dative and ablative declension. I continue to not understand any of your reasoning or what your question is trying to ask.
lly
Jun 19, 2023 16:01
I don't mean to be rude because you're here a lot and generally extremely helpful for everyone. That said, reread what you wrote and see if it makes sense to yourself.
lly
Jun 19, 2023 16:01
I don't understand how it could be said any more clearly, so I still don't know what you're asking for. Which part is the confusing bit?
lly
Jun 19, 2023 16:01
I don't understand the request.
 

 Discussion on answer by Greybeard: Is…

Imported from a comment discussion on english.stackexchange.co...
lly
May 23, 2023 17:07
It may also be worth mentioning that the phrase is jocular tech slang: it's intended to be more familiar and less demeaning or patronizing (although of course that's an option too if someone's repeatedly overcomplicating something and leaving too many points of failure).
lly
May 23, 2023 17:07
Assuming that the Wiki origin described below is accurate despite being unsourced (big ask so it needs to be checked), this answer could be improved by including that origin and how it still doesn't matter. There's no way to make that formulation be understood by native English speakers without using and and, even then, it doesn't make much sense and isn't what almost all users of the phrase intend.
 

 Discussion on answer by bobflux: Is o…

Imported from a comment discussion on politics.stackexchange.c...
lly
Nov 9, 2022 14:40
@NotThatGuy The bit just above it where Hayek was cited as the conclusive explanation for why present-day China is a hellscape for the majority of its population already did that. I'm sure that when challenged on the point, bob would be happy to NoTrueScotsman them as fascists or WhatAbout the prison population substantially below the US level but it doesn't mean he deserves any credibility for understanding anything he's talking about. This is all pseudophrenological nonsense.
 

 Discussion on answer by Don Hosek: Is…

Imported from a comment discussion on politics.stackexchange.c...
lly
Nov 8, 2022 18:26
I know Trump is awful and Don is well meaning but, for all his just-don't-think-about-it general approach, Trump pushed hard for a vaccine, got one, and talked about how great it was for months afterwards. Meanwhile, the Dems heavily politicized the issue and questioned or simply denied the vaccine's usefulness until Biden was elected. No one is actually covered in glory here and pretending Trump is responsible for vaccine distrust is heavily revisionist.
 

 Discussion on answer by Allure: How c…

Imported from a comment discussion on politics.stackexchange.c...
lly
Apr 1, 2022 09:50
@Tiercelet You're wrong: The US did formally activate Art. 5 over 9/11 and NATO was specifically obligated to help with Afghanistan even though other groups were also involved, as you point out. That said, you're right that they can go to war without using Art. 5 and have effectively done that several other times.
 

 Discussion on answer by lly: Is there…

Imported from a comment discussion on english.stackexchange.co...
lly
Jul 17, 2021 17:32
@henry Even if the confusion with the negative sense of invalue itself wasn't an issue, which it is.
 

 Discussion on answer by Ryathal: Why …

Imported from a comment discussion on politics.stackexchange.c...
lly
Jul 15, 2021 14:59
@Mazura No, it doesn't. "Desubjugating humans", even if that were a serious issue instead of rooftop howling, isn't a political consideration. You may mean something like "it helps Democrats in elections, so they oppose mucking it up" but need to state it in those terms.
lly
Jul 15, 2021 14:59
This doesn't really address the political concerns OP says they're most interested in.
 

 Discussion on answer by thieupepijn: …

Imported from a comment discussion on history.stackexchange.co...
lly
Jul 12, 2021 17:48
Similarly, there were all kinds of knockon effects to the way the war was run and financed that fed directly into the robber baron era afterwards.
lly
Jul 12, 2021 17:48
@AzorAhai-him- And not presenting it that way probably runs afoul of several of the anti-CRT laws being passed in various Republican run states at the moment. There are probably safer alternatives, although few or none as important to US students. I think the "other side" here that is legitimate is to explore how northern states couldn't just let the south go because their exports were the majority of the country's foreign trade at the time, in an era when excises and tariffs were main sources of federal revenue.
 

 Discussion on answer by Astralbee: Wh…

Imported from a comment discussion on ell.stackexchange.com/qu...
lly
May 27, 2020 20:35
@KeithLoughnane It's precisely this. It's an Americanism.
 

 Discussion on answer by Tom Au: Why C…

Imported from a comment discussion on history.stackexchange.co...
lly
Mar 8, 2020 04:43
Similarly, the general idea that philosophers or the written language are what held China together―when the vast majority of the population were illiterate superstitious peasants speaking mutually unintelligible languages―is risible.
lly
Mar 8, 2020 04:43
A lead answer for such an important topic should also have at least some sources. Is there any leading Chinese scholar or scholar of China who has written in detail supporting these ideas?
lly
Mar 8, 2020 04:43
It's sad that this is our leading answer to such an important question, when Mr Au handles the topic so badly. The Shang & Zhou united China by arms, not envy; the Mongols & Manchus worked to stay distinct, while using the Chinese bureaucracy to keep taxes coming in. The three 'European groups' are all Indo-European, & the Slavs had so little power most of the time they remain our eponym for slaves. Latin was the nearly universal written language for 2000 years, & the Chinese never had a unified common speech until the PRC. Christendom's culture was at least as unified as China's. &c.
 

 Discussion on question by Miles Means…

Imported from a comment discussion on worldbuilding.stackexcha...
lly
Mar 7, 2020 17:09
@Harper-ReinstateMonica I'd love to see that thread if it exists, but the obvious answer is they did have faster-than-horse travel and ships on the Mediterranean were much more important for keeping the empire together than couriers. Even as late as the founding of the US, it was much cheaper to transport goods across the Atlantic than 100 miles inland.
 

 Discussion on answer by ceejayoz: Why…

Imported from a comment discussion on politics.stackexchange.c...
lly
Dec 24, 2018 21:13
@guest271314 De facto, sovereignty exists when one's territory is respected by other sovereigns. Given their general rapacity, you're right that it usually requires making some people perish in battle. In any case, it's not a 'state of mind' and the term exists because the US does already recognize some of those rights, while obviously not permitting the Navajo Nation to wage war on Liberia &c. Since they can't hope for better terms, it's where we are these days.