Get out of jail indeed - I still need to get better apparently ^^.
But one may be on the computer, but at the desk, on the chair, in the house, but at the friend's house!
About your example, which one is more correct between at and by the elevator? I guess "by" is slightly further away while "at" is when you can actually touch the button.
What languages do you speak?
And English is less weird ^^' I guess sibh is You-plural, chuaigh is have in the past, go is go, dtí is to, an is definite as opposed to english and its absence shows indefinity, and I like the writing of síopa
Try playing the same game in Japanese ^^'
Ah your wrong Chuaigh is the past tense version of the verb "Téigh". It is one of the few irregular verbs that completley change spelling and words when you change tenses. So
Past Tense: Chuaigh mé
Current: Téim (Remember when your talking about yourself in current you cannot say "mé". Has to be combined)
I can shed light on the inflammable thing. There are two roots for an 'in-' prefix.
The 'in-' or 'en-' prefix which exists in both Germanic and Latin, meaning "to go into", is the prefix used for inflammable. It's pretty much the same as the word, "in". So, if something can be made to go into flame, or be enflamed: it's inflammable.
The other prefix is 'in-' from Latin, meaning 'not'. In Germanic, this became 'un-' instead.
I think a good way to think of this "in-" is that it uses the n sound from the word "no" or "not". If something is not edible, n-edible: then it's inedible. (In Romance languages, the n sound in this prefix can be covered up by words starting with certain consonants: 'inlegal' becomes 'illegal' just because it flows better on the tongue.)
Latin and Germanic still have a distant ancestor, so they have certain sounds like 'in' and 'not' that retain a similar meaning between them, but the sounds ended up sounding similar in this case, since English is a mutant genetic throwback.
But anyway, that confusion is why most establishments write flammable instead.
You "hop on", "are on" and "get off" a bus. Just never say that you "get off" something that isn't transport or physically you can be on top of.
You "enter", "are at" and "leave" a house. But you can "be at a point where".
You "go into", "are in" and "go out of" a city. And you clearly go out of jail as oppose to simply leaving it.
You "join", "are with", and "go away from" someone.
You "enter", "are in", and "leave" a country.
I think you can 'leave' all of those things and nobody will bat an eye at your use of grammar. Maybe not a bus. 'Leave someone' sounds more natural to me that 'go away from someone'. You can also enter a bus, country or city, and can go into a bus or country.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Formerly Gamelord. Pixelmon Server Owner. Server IP: pixelmonprisma.mc-server.net | Server Discord:https://discord.gg/HkK855b
I know that inflammable is an old word and such but why not change it to clear up confusion of the "in" meaning?
People don't like it when you goof around with the language they've only been using forever without their permission. Hypothetically, if we taught every child born from this point forth to say 'flammable' rather than 'inflamable', we would be able to remove it from the dictionary simply due to a fade in usage. Of course, we can't do that, but I suppose that's how languages evolve (of course on a slower scale than 'stop teaching kids the word inflammable'). Who knows? I wouldn't be surprised if inflammable and other words anomalous to established language patterns eventually faded out.
Interestingly, I've never used the word inflammable and would have assumed it meant not flammable. I always say flammable. Am I just so uneducated I don't use a common word?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Formerly Gamelord. Pixelmon Server Owner. Server IP: pixelmonprisma.mc-server.net | Server Discord:https://discord.gg/HkK855b
If there is a rule for english, there are a handful of words that are the exception. Not to mention double meanings, words that sound the same but aren't spelled the same and with different meetings, and other assorted nonsense like that. Consider also the regional differences between, say, American English, British English, Australian English, etc. etc. and you have a giant mess of things.
English stem changes are a remnant of the old Germanic strong/weak verb differences. This comes from the ablauts in PIE, where the verbs change sounds. There are also numerous other verb irregularities, coupled with the hundreds and thousands of obsolete verb forms.
'hope', 'hoped', 'holpen'
'eatest', 'eateth',
'pay' and 'paid', yet 'payed out a rope'.
'hoise', 'hoist'
'bid, bade, bidden'
'beget, begot, begotten (except for Bible's begat)
'hang, hung, but 'Gregory hanged the man'
Interestingly, some words that did have irregularities have lost them in common parlance, and some have gained them.
'beseek, besought > beseeked'
'crow, crew > crowed'
'get, 'gotten (US English retains this) > got.
'string, stringed > strung'
English also retains vestiges of a singular/plural 'you'. It is as follows:
'Thou eatest him'
'He eateth thee'
'Ye eat them'
'They eat you'.
If you think Irish is weird for having some verb-subject agreement, then Latin must be even stranger!
'Moneo' I warn
'Mones' Thou warnest
'Monet' He warns
'Monemus' We warn
'Monetis' Ye warn
'Monent' They warn
Nearly every verb has these six forms in various different aspects, moods and voices!
Greek also has a singular, dual, plural system of nouns (dual is rare though) and moods completely foreign to English like the Optative and Hortative.
But I digress; English is difficult yet supremely interesting because it is such a 'sponge' of different languages. Germanic, Latin, Greek, Hindu, Arabic &c. Often the spelling isn't changed either. One can have 'cake' and 'cakes', 'fox' but 'foxes', 'bacterium' but 'bacteria', 'octopus' but 'octopodes' &c.
There are two basic varieties of English:
British English
American English
Of course, there are dialects, but most varieties fall under one of these categories. They both have major differences, regarding some areas of grammar, spelling and pronunciation.
I know that inflammable is an old word and such but why not change it to clear up confusion of the "in" meaning?
All that is gold does not glitter, Not all those who wander are lost
The old that is strong does not wither, Deep roots are not reached by the frost
From the ashes a fire shall be woken, A light from the shadows shall spring
Renewed shall be the blade that was broken, The crownless again shall be king
Ah your wrong Chuaigh is the past tense version of the verb "Téigh". It is one of the few irregular verbs that completley change spelling and words when you change tenses. So
Past Tense: Chuaigh mé
Current: Téim (Remember when your talking about yourself in current you cannot say "mé". Has to be combined)
Future: Rachaidh mé
Rant over
- C.C.
Clearly we must simply use the word "uninflammable" now.
also you should check out Link Removed
There's actually a word "noninflammable"
Putting the CENDENT back in transcendent!
There is no word called noninflammable. I checked Oxfords Dictionary and Google.
- C.C.
I can shed light on the inflammable thing. There are two roots for an 'in-' prefix.
Latin and Germanic still have a distant ancestor, so they have certain sounds like 'in' and 'not' that retain a similar meaning between them, but the sounds ended up sounding similar in this case, since English is a mutant genetic throwback.
But anyway, that confusion is why most establishments write flammable instead.
Fireproof?
Weird: Specific words
Difficult: Spelling those specific words
Interesting: The phonetic system
ignore this thing right here its dumb!
I think you can 'leave' all of those things and nobody will bat an eye at your use of grammar. Maybe not a bus. 'Leave someone' sounds more natural to me that 'go away from someone'. You can also enter a bus, country or city, and can go into a bus or country.
People don't like it when you goof around with the language they've only been using forever without their permission. Hypothetically, if we taught every child born from this point forth to say 'flammable' rather than 'inflamable', we would be able to remove it from the dictionary simply due to a fade in usage. Of course, we can't do that, but I suppose that's how languages evolve (of course on a slower scale than 'stop teaching kids the word inflammable'). Who knows? I wouldn't be surprised if inflammable and other words anomalous to established language patterns eventually faded out.
Interestingly, I've never used the word inflammable and would have assumed it meant not flammable. I always say flammable. Am I just so uneducated I don't use a common word?
This will blow your mind -
If you take What, Where, and When, replace the Ws with Ts; they all answer their own question.
http://www.minecraftforum.net/forums/minecraft-discussion/survival-mode/2372609-journal-the-ballad-of-dirtdog
English is difficult. It still can be understood through tough thourough thought, though.
English - the language that beats up other languages in dark alleyways, then rifles through their pockets for loose grammar and spare vocabulary.
http://www.minecraftforum.net/forums/minecraft-discussion/survival-mode/2372609-journal-the-ballad-of-dirtdog
If there is a rule for english, there are a handful of words that are the exception. Not to mention double meanings, words that sound the same but aren't spelled the same and with different meetings, and other assorted nonsense like that. Consider also the regional differences between, say, American English, British English, Australian English, etc. etc. and you have a giant mess of things.
Nothing to see here, move along.
Yes, English has stem-changers too. The Germanic kind.
break - broke - broken
steal - stole - stolen
bear - bore - born
tear - tore - torn
drive - drove - driven
strive - strove - striven
write - wrote - written
smite - smote - smitten
rise - rose - risen
forbid - forbade - forbidden
eat - ate - eaten
slay - slew - slain
fly - flew - flown
draw - drew - drawn
Putting the CENDENT back in transcendent!
English stem changes are a remnant of the old Germanic strong/weak verb differences. This comes from the ablauts in PIE, where the verbs change sounds. There are also numerous other verb irregularities, coupled with the hundreds and thousands of obsolete verb forms.
'hope', 'hoped', 'holpen'
'eatest', 'eateth',
'pay' and 'paid', yet 'payed out a rope'.
'hoise', 'hoist'
'bid, bade, bidden'
'beget, begot, begotten (except for Bible's begat)
'hang, hung, but 'Gregory hanged the man'
Interestingly, some words that did have irregularities have lost them in common parlance, and some have gained them.
'beseek, besought > beseeked'
'crow, crew > crowed'
'get, 'gotten (US English retains this) > got.
'string, stringed > strung'
English also retains vestiges of a singular/plural 'you'. It is as follows:
'Thou eatest him'
'He eateth thee'
'Ye eat them'
'They eat you'.
If you think Irish is weird for having some verb-subject agreement, then Latin must be even stranger!
'Moneo' I warn
'Mones' Thou warnest
'Monet' He warns
'Monemus' We warn
'Monetis' Ye warn
'Monent' They warn
Nearly every verb has these six forms in various different aspects, moods and voices!
Greek also has a singular, dual, plural system of nouns (dual is rare though) and moods completely foreign to English like the Optative and Hortative.
But I digress; English is difficult yet supremely interesting because it is such a 'sponge' of different languages. Germanic, Latin, Greek, Hindu, Arabic &c. Often the spelling isn't changed either. One can have 'cake' and 'cakes', 'fox' but 'foxes', 'bacterium' but 'bacteria', 'octopus' but 'octopodes' &c.
There are two basic varieties of English:
British English
American English
Of course, there are dialects, but most varieties fall under one of these categories. They both have major differences, regarding some areas of grammar, spelling and pronunciation.