it is not neuter. It is impersonal. It is used to refer to things that have no gender, not for when there is a gender, but it is unknown. "They" is much more accurate. It confers the personal state, and doesn't lose anything.
English has that. "They". "Where did they go last night?" is ambiguous between plural and singular, both gender neutral.
Technically "he" is gender neutral, as it is the proper singular form when talking about an unknown-gender person. "What gender is he?" is the proper pronoun for asking the sex of a baby. Though it's not used as much because the gender-neutral pronoun is also the male-gender pronoun. Much like "bark" can mean tree covering or dog sound. But "he" is refused as the proper gender-neutral pronoun because people object to the "unrelated" second definition as non-gender neutral.
Grammar isn't easy in every language. One thing that makes English hard for Chinese speakers is tenses. There are more tenses in English than most other languages. And certainly more used regularly. In Chinese, there are no tenses. No genders. No modifications to words of any kind (plurals, conjugation, etc.).
There are plenty of languages with more gender use than English, but none that has as many commonly used tenses.
Grammar in Chinese is much less rigid. You throw words at a wall and the general meaning is all that's left. English is the most descriptive language in the world because if there isn't an English word for it, use the German or French or whatever word for the same thing, and it'll become English. What's the English word for Kabuki theater? Oh yeah, Kabuki.
Nope. English was a full language before it became the trash heap. It absorbed thousands of words from French, Italian, Spanish, Latin, and others. It mixed Greek plurals on Latin roots, and vice versa. But before all that, it was a small regional language on a little island in Northern Europe.
It's "constructed" in the sense that English speakers deliberately used foreign words when an English one didn't work to describe something, absorbing the words into English, and often changing the meanings to uniquely English meanings. That's one of the hardest things for non-natives to understand.
"America" was initially Italian/Spanish for collective North and South America. When English took that term on, and put it in a 7-continent context, the meaning of "America" became unambiguously "related to the USA". But those who learned other languages first object. Because they don't understand English. Just because the word doesn't mean what its root means doesn't mean English is wrong. Just the learner who refuses to learn the English version of the cognate.
International language isn't the language that someone speaks in their village when dealing with locals. Perhaps you should learn what "international" means before jumping into a conversation you obviously don't understand.
In my travels, a French guy who walks into a room in Asia full of people he has never met will start the conversation in English. Perhaps a bit of French to see if anyone objects, perhaps the local language, but *never* Spanish, and almost always English only, unless told otherwise.
When you travel the world someday, you'll find that signs in touristy areas are in local language and English, never Hindi, and only Arabic in some edge cases (areas of Europe and such where a large number of locals speak it, but then that meets the "local language" definition).
The same is true of many languages. Spanish and Russian have regular pronunciation. I've heard that French has finite pronunciation rules, though they are complex, but haven't learned it.
When's the last time that happened? I remember about 5 warnings in the last 10 years, and not a single one caused an interruption in the radio comms we were using.
I'm sure the video showing a cop shooting a black guy in the back is all a fiction. He was actually charging the cop with a gun in his hand, but the video and witnesses were re-written in a horrible anti-white conspiracy.
Go on, spin that one. If there wasn't a camera, I bet the dead black guy would have ended up with his corpse in prison. The police report shows that the black guy was actively tasing the cop when he was shot, but the biased video shows him unarmed and running away, but shows the cop planting the taser on the dead body. The cop also claimed to have performed CPR, but the video clearly shows him standing over the dead guy, after cuffing the corpse, for good measure.
By your standards, the error was not shooting the guy taking video, and destroying the video, claiming it looked like a gun.
The Nuclear power plant I visited back in the late '70s did not have a "large number of armed guards" and the ones I visited in the '90s had at most one or two working the front gate, and no others visible (one even had zero armed guards, and the nuclear power plant was "guarded" by a door with a swipe-card access).
Though the one with no guards isn't a self-sustaining nuclear reactor that creates power, but a fissionable nuclear reactor that exists to generate radiation for educational purposes. I'm sure a cyclotron with sub-critical levels of radioactive substances isn't high on the list for terrorists.
Mainly because the fault is always assigned as such. Like the Gimli Glider mentioned above, the Pilot flew with an "illegal" plane, after notes in the maintenance manual and the previous pilot indicated it was legal to fly. The Pilot also flew with insufficient fuel, after a metric conversion error indicated the wrong numbers. It was the pilot's fault they got into the situation. Also, after the incident, the crews who tested the flying after the failures, all failed to land the plane. The pilot caused the problem, and "fixed" the problem. The airline was at fault for letting a plane fly days with fuel gauge problems, as well as other failures in the incident.
But what about problems like Air France 447? The computer was wrong, and the pilots did the wrong thing to make it worse. The pilots should have recovered from a stall without incident. They didn't. 100% pilot's fault, caused by a computer error that we have no idea how a computer would have handled.
I know you have a real allergy to putting anything at all in any kind of actual context, but he was talking about serial trespassers and burglars,
He was talking about Black people because everyone knows they are the problem.
You keep tap-dancing around context,
No, I accept the context. You reject it. He was frustrated. He wanted someone to pay. Especially someone Black. That's the context you reject. When will you stop dancing around the context?
And he still didn't reach for his gun until he was on his back getting his head bashed into the sidewalk.
So? He wanted to make sure that the murder-one it was wouldn't stick. So he kept the gun hidden until he was hit by the prey he was stalking. Then he went for it.
Let me guess, you're also in the "hands up don't shoot" camp, in complete contradiction to what witnesses saw in that event, too.
No, I'm in the "why would a cop in fear for his life get out of his car and charge the dangerous person" camp. He was angry he was hit, so he got out of his car to kill himself some Nigger for the Capital Crime of Disrespect of Cop.
Welfare? You are just jealous that I'm in the top 10%. You don't understand someone who (successfully) plays the game but recognizes and says it's rigged.
No, it's called an analogy. You started it, buy have a fit when someone else uses them against you. The guy committed one act (an ongoing act over a long period) that broke multiple laws. You say he should not be responsible for the separate incidents of law-breaking over that period, but one arbitrary charge to cover the whole thing.
That's not how the law works.
All done with this conversation, because psychopaths are never wrong in their minds.
Cheaper is to let someone else do it, then copy them, or buy it from them. Then build/buy two (to their one). You'll still beat them in a fair fight, and paid less.
Intent isn't time travel. He indicated an intent to "teach a lesson" and that Black people should be targeted. Then he did so. That shows intent. Martin didn't intend to be followed home from the store, then attack the armed aggressor following him. But Zimmerman intended to provoke a lethal situation. He said so previously, and carried a gun hoping to have to use it, and acting in a manner to guarantee it.
A guy who robs 1 bank is not brought up on charges for every customer of that bank, he did 1 very wrong act and should pay for that one act.
A guy who robs one bank and shoots 6 people in it will be brought up on the 6 shooting charges, as well as the robbery. Your argument is that you get the one (presumably worst) act at any moment, and can't count the others. I find it fatally flawed.
So his racist rants caught on previous 911 calls didn't happen?
No, they said they didn't "need" him to follow Martin. Shortly afterwards (with Martin having continued to walk away, and gone from Zimmerman's view), Zimmerman was walking back to his truck.
Nope. He was in his car driving after him when told to not follow. He then got out and followed Martin. It was after he walked into the alley after Martin that the attack happened.
You are lecturing me on the events, and you don't seem to have even the basics right. Your account disagrees with Zimmerman. Why do you think Zimmerman is a liar?
Slashdot Mirror
"He went too, room number five too/two" would also work. Jack went to a hematologist also, who is in room 5 [2|as well].
it is not neuter. It is impersonal. It is used to refer to things that have no gender, not for when there is a gender, but it is unknown. "They" is much more accurate. It confers the personal state, and doesn't lose anything.
"It drove it's car to the store last night, and bought some oranges which it ate on the way home."
No information is lost with "it" but "they" sounds much better, which is the definition of language, not whether it has the most information.
English has that. "They". "Where did they go last night?" is ambiguous between plural and singular, both gender neutral.
Technically "he" is gender neutral, as it is the proper singular form when talking about an unknown-gender person. "What gender is he?" is the proper pronoun for asking the sex of a baby. Though it's not used as much because the gender-neutral pronoun is also the male-gender pronoun. Much like "bark" can mean tree covering or dog sound. But "he" is refused as the proper gender-neutral pronoun because people object to the "unrelated" second definition as non-gender neutral.
Grammar isn't easy in every language. One thing that makes English hard for Chinese speakers is tenses. There are more tenses in English than most other languages. And certainly more used regularly. In Chinese, there are no tenses. No genders. No modifications to words of any kind (plurals, conjugation, etc.).
There are plenty of languages with more gender use than English, but none that has as many commonly used tenses.
Grammar in Chinese is much less rigid. You throw words at a wall and the general meaning is all that's left. English is the most descriptive language in the world because if there isn't an English word for it, use the German or French or whatever word for the same thing, and it'll become English. What's the English word for Kabuki theater? Oh yeah, Kabuki.
Nope. English was a full language before it became the trash heap. It absorbed thousands of words from French, Italian, Spanish, Latin, and others. It mixed Greek plurals on Latin roots, and vice versa. But before all that, it was a small regional language on a little island in Northern Europe.
It's "constructed" in the sense that English speakers deliberately used foreign words when an English one didn't work to describe something, absorbing the words into English, and often changing the meanings to uniquely English meanings. That's one of the hardest things for non-natives to understand.
"America" was initially Italian/Spanish for collective North and South America. When English took that term on, and put it in a 7-continent context, the meaning of "America" became unambiguously "related to the USA". But those who learned other languages first object. Because they don't understand English. Just because the word doesn't mean what its root means doesn't mean English is wrong. Just the learner who refuses to learn the English version of the cognate.
International language isn't the language that someone speaks in their village when dealing with locals. Perhaps you should learn what "international" means before jumping into a conversation you obviously don't understand.
In my travels, a French guy who walks into a room in Asia full of people he has never met will start the conversation in English. Perhaps a bit of French to see if anyone objects, perhaps the local language, but *never* Spanish, and almost always English only, unless told otherwise.
When you travel the world someday, you'll find that signs in touristy areas are in local language and English, never Hindi, and only Arabic in some edge cases (areas of Europe and such where a large number of locals speak it, but then that meets the "local language" definition).
The same is true of many languages. Spanish and Russian have regular pronunciation. I've heard that French has finite pronunciation rules, though they are complex, but haven't learned it.
When's the last time that happened? I remember about 5 warnings in the last 10 years, and not a single one caused an interruption in the radio comms we were using.
Arquette is the worst of the bunch. Regardless of the stories, the series is unwatchable. I tried once. Probably won't again.
Often they are hacking the government. So you can't count every hack against them.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04...
I'm sure the video showing a cop shooting a black guy in the back is all a fiction. He was actually charging the cop with a gun in his hand, but the video and witnesses were re-written in a horrible anti-white conspiracy.
Go on, spin that one. If there wasn't a camera, I bet the dead black guy would have ended up with his corpse in prison. The police report shows that the black guy was actively tasing the cop when he was shot, but the biased video shows him unarmed and running away, but shows the cop planting the taser on the dead body. The cop also claimed to have performed CPR, but the video clearly shows him standing over the dead guy, after cuffing the corpse, for good measure.
By your standards, the error was not shooting the guy taking video, and destroying the video, claiming it looked like a gun.
The Nuclear power plant I visited back in the late '70s did not have a "large number of armed guards" and the ones I visited in the '90s had at most one or two working the front gate, and no others visible (one even had zero armed guards, and the nuclear power plant was "guarded" by a door with a swipe-card access).
Though the one with no guards isn't a self-sustaining nuclear reactor that creates power, but a fissionable nuclear reactor that exists to generate radiation for educational purposes. I'm sure a cyclotron with sub-critical levels of radioactive substances isn't high on the list for terrorists.
Have you seen Die Hard 2?
Mainly because the fault is always assigned as such. Like the Gimli Glider mentioned above, the Pilot flew with an "illegal" plane, after notes in the maintenance manual and the previous pilot indicated it was legal to fly. The Pilot also flew with insufficient fuel, after a metric conversion error indicated the wrong numbers. It was the pilot's fault they got into the situation. Also, after the incident, the crews who tested the flying after the failures, all failed to land the plane. The pilot caused the problem, and "fixed" the problem. The airline was at fault for letting a plane fly days with fuel gauge problems, as well as other failures in the incident.
But what about problems like Air France 447? The computer was wrong, and the pilots did the wrong thing to make it worse. The pilots should have recovered from a stall without incident. They didn't. 100% pilot's fault, caused by a computer error that we have no idea how a computer would have handled.
I know you have a real allergy to putting anything at all in any kind of actual context, but he was talking about serial trespassers and burglars,
He was talking about Black people because everyone knows they are the problem.
You keep tap-dancing around context,
No, I accept the context. You reject it. He was frustrated. He wanted someone to pay. Especially someone Black. That's the context you reject. When will you stop dancing around the context?
And he still didn't reach for his gun until he was on his back getting his head bashed into the sidewalk.
So? He wanted to make sure that the murder-one it was wouldn't stick. So he kept the gun hidden until he was hit by the prey he was stalking. Then he went for it.
Let me guess, you're also in the "hands up don't shoot" camp, in complete contradiction to what witnesses saw in that event, too.
No, I'm in the "why would a cop in fear for his life get out of his car and charge the dangerous person" camp. He was angry he was hit, so he got out of his car to kill himself some Nigger for the Capital Crime of Disrespect of Cop.
Not legally, for most problems that would be a problem.
Welfare? You are just jealous that I'm in the top 10%. You don't understand someone who (successfully) plays the game but recognizes and says it's rigged.
That's not how the law works.
All done with this conversation, because psychopaths are never wrong in their minds.
You are living proof of that.
Cheaper is to let someone else do it, then copy them, or buy it from them. Then build/buy two (to their one). You'll still beat them in a fair fight, and paid less.
It is not the overwhelming likelihood that order occurs from chaos.
It is overwhelmingly proven that order comes from chaos.
That you choose to ignore the proof doesn't make it untrue.
Your moving goalposts and strawmen prove you are here to win an argument, and wouldn't change your mind, even if proof were presented.
Intent isn't time travel. He indicated an intent to "teach a lesson" and that Black people should be targeted. Then he did so. That shows intent. Martin didn't intend to be followed home from the store, then attack the armed aggressor following him. But Zimmerman intended to provoke a lethal situation. He said so previously, and carried a gun hoping to have to use it, and acting in a manner to guarantee it.
A guy who robs 1 bank is not brought up on charges for every customer of that bank, he did 1 very wrong act and should pay for that one act.
A guy who robs one bank and shoots 6 people in it will be brought up on the 6 shooting charges, as well as the robbery. Your argument is that you get the one (presumably worst) act at any moment, and can't count the others. I find it fatally flawed.
So being punched to the ground and attacked, then pulling a gun to defend your self and shooting then is hunting?
It is when you've expressed a desire to "take care of" (in the mob sense) something, then arm yourself, and track it, that's hunting, isn't it?
Zimmerman never said that, and you know it.
So his racist rants caught on previous 911 calls didn't happen?
No, they said they didn't "need" him to follow Martin. Shortly afterwards (with Martin having continued to walk away, and gone from Zimmerman's view), Zimmerman was walking back to his truck.
Nope. He was in his car driving after him when told to not follow. He then got out and followed Martin. It was after he walked into the alley after Martin that the attack happened.
You are lecturing me on the events, and you don't seem to have even the basics right. Your account disagrees with Zimmerman. Why do you think Zimmerman is a liar?