random item

Troperville

Tools

Find recent edits by troper:

back to: UsefulNotes / GrammarInForeignLanguages

edit article | go to discussion page

14th Apr '13 4:43:53 PM DamianYerrick

Send DamianYerrick a PM notification explaining the badness of natter: natter-fy

dang you negativland for not keeping old UR Ls active when "archiving" things

Changed line(s) 42 (click to see context) from:

to:

23rd Mar '13 10:08:26 AM karstovich2

Send karstovich2 a PM notification explaining the badness of natter: natter-fy

Changed line(s) 15 (click to see context) from:

to:

23rd Mar '13 10:06:08 AM karstovich2

Send karstovich2 a PM notification explaining the badness of natter: natter-fy

Changed line(s) 8,9 (click to see context) from:

to:

19th Feb '13 11:46:27 AM szaleniec1000

Send szaleniec1000 a PM notification explaining the badness of natter: natter-fy

Added line(s) 15 (click to see context) :

28th Jan '13 4:52:39 AM MisterBernie

Send MisterBernie a PM notification explaining the badness of natter: natter-fy

Changed line(s) 41 (click to see context) from:

to:

1st Jan '13 2:19:26 PM lakingsif

Send lakingsif a PM notification explaining the badness of natter: natter-fy

the previous example didn't make sense, both 'we will beat them' and 'we do not like you' are exclusive examples - neither includes the addressee. I now think the writer of that believed that the latter was inclusive (?), as in neither the addresser nor addressee liked the person addressed however the 'you' at the end is a formal state of address and so separates the subject, removing any grammatical possibility that the 'we' at the start could be inclusive. The proper way to express this would be "I/we do not like you, and you do not like yourself". "We are at a disagreement" is inclusive, however. For clarification.

Changed line(s) 22 (click to see context) from:

to:

13th Dec '12 7:42:08 AM darthbutters

Send darthbutters a PM notification explaining the badness of natter: natter-fy

Added line(s) 14 (click to see context) :

12th Dec '12 4:17:36 PM ac220

Send ac220 a PM notification explaining the badness of natter: natter-fy

Added line(s) 13 (click to see context) :

23rd Nov '12 6:13:31 PM Tuuliska

Send Tuuliska a PM notification explaining the badness of natter: natter-fy

Added line(s) 23 (click to see context) :

Added line(s) 31 (click to see context) :

Changed line(s) 45 (click to see context) from:

to:

* Is written using logograms (Chinese)[[hottip:*:Each symbol stands for a word or a morpheme, as in mean-ing-ful]], abjads (Arabic, Hebrew)[[hottip:*:Vowels are not written]], syllabaries (Inuktitut)[[hottip:*:Each symbol represents a syllable]], abugida (the languages of India and Ethiopia)[[hottip:*:Vowels are written as attachments to consonants]], or a hodgepodge of everything (ancient Egyptian and modern Japanese), instead of an alphabetic writing system. And not all writing systems include the concepts of upper and lower case[[hottip:*:Most languages.]], cursive writing[[hottip:*:For instance, all Arabic writing is cursive, while in Hebrew the "cursive" script is non-connecting]] and/or punctuation, and if they have them, they may not use them the same way.
** Korean Hangul is a very fascinating one: it's a syllabary where each syllable character is a combination of the characters for the sounds it contains and each sound character is actually a "code" describing that character phonetically. Sounds complicated but it's very logical in use.

23rd Nov '12 5:26:52 PM Tuuliska

Send Tuuliska a PM notification explaining the badness of natter: natter-fy

Changed line(s) 18 (click to see context) from:

to:

This list shows the last 10 events of 70. Show all.

new edits

TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org.
Privacy Policy