Pregnancy is a medical condition, and as such has an ICD codes
Normal Delivery, Care in Pregnancy, Labor and Delivery ICD Codes 650 Delivery requiring minimal or no assistance, with or without episiotomy, without fetal manipulation [eg, rotation version] or instrumentation [forceps] of spontaneous, cephalic, vaginal, full-term, single, live born infant. This code is for use as a single diagnosis code and is not to be used with any other code in the range 630-676 V22 Normal pregnancy
As well as menopause:
627 Menopausal and postmenopausal disorders 627.0 Premenopausal menorrhagia Excessive bleeding associated with onset of menopause Menorrhagia: climacteric menopausal preclimacteric 627.1 Postmenopausal bleeding 627.2 Menopausal or female climacteric states Symptoms, such as flushing, sleeplessness, headache, lack of concentration, associated with the menopause 627.3 Postmenopausal atrophic vaginitis Senile (atrophic) vaginitis 627.4 States associated with artificial menopause Postartificial menopause syndromes Any condition classifiable to 627.1, 627.2, or 627.3 which follows induced menopause 627.8 Other specified menopausal and postmenopausal disorders Excludes: premature menopause NOS (256.3) 627.9 Unspecified menopausal and postmenopausal ydisorder
*laugh* well, I appreciate your intentions. A subtle innuendo is actually pretty funny most of the time, it's just when surrounded by a bunch of blatant sexual statements, it comes across as poor taste.:(
Then how the hell did changing to an ergonomic keyboard and trackball stop the excruciating pain in my wrists that I experienced when using my old keyboard and mouse?
Because you were naturally predisposed to an RSI, and and ergonomic keyboard makes things easier on your wrists once they have been inflammed by an RSI. An ergonomic keyboard is not necessary for all people, as not all people are predisposed to RSI, and that's why you have the code monkeys who sit at their computer for hours, and don't develop any RSI at all.
The only reason why CTS and RSIs appear to be more common in computer users is because we're more likely to aggrevate the situation. It's not that we have more CTS and RSIs, it's because the effect is significantly more pronounced.
Some good points. And you're right, the Federal Government (as much as it would like to try) can't condemn gambling handled entirely within a single state.
The problems always arrive when you're going outside of your own state. Suddenly, you're doing "interstate commerce" which Congress does have free reign to control.
It makes sense to me, but seriously, our government especially at the Federal Level has been lead by such morality freaks that they've constantly done stupid things. Like prohibition. Who's brilliant idea was that? The Reactionary Right Wing, that's who.
Who's in charge of the executive now? The Reactionary Right Wing. And they're going to try and do all this stuff over and over and over again, trying to beliger states with more liberal tendencies to conform.:(
I had 7 million credits at the end of like one week of playing. People I had borrowed money from (with interest for them) who had started before me, were totally amazed at how much money I was able to make.
It's not a matter of learning to play, I knew how to play. Just the almost unlimited free PvP nature of EVE online makes the game unenjoyable to me, because it allows anonymous people to turn into ganking assholes. They don't know me, they don't care about me, there are no real repercussions for their anti-social behavior.
Maybe a lot of guys like to play in a world where they can constantly prove who the better person is, and then get enjoyment out of totally ruining a person's day, and showing them that you are better than them. However, I enjoy a more sedate game, where I am able to go about doing what I want to do, without being harrassed all the time, by some guy who wants to prove his dick is bigger than mine...
Surprise! She has no dick, you win, you don't even have to prove it... Let it go, and leave me be, you're not proving anything to me, except how much of jerks men turn into when there are absolutely no rules.
While I know that EVE Online is pretty much the same as that game, it's like... not loaded with PvP people ready to destroy me and take my cargo, and they've been playing for centuries compared to me, so I can't really put up much of a fight...
Reading further down, other people noted other points later in the FAQ...
That you do need to register a copyright before you sue... which strikes me a bit as odd, since otherwise you don't have to register a copyright at all. It all comes down to when you register your copyright, rather than whether you register your copyright.
1. Copyrights do not have to be registered in the US for any purpose at all, even to enforce them. 2. Why register your copyright? There are higher penalties for violating a registered copyright rather than an unregistered copyright. 3. You do not have to register a copyright before persuing legal actions in the USA.
In general, copyright registration is a legal formality intended to make a public record of the basic facts of a particular copyright. However, registration is not a condition of copyright protection. Even though registration is not a requirement for protection, the copyright law provides several inducements or advantages to encourage copyright owners to make registration. Among these advantages are the following:
In the absence of modern contraception, homosexuality is a powerful disease vector. Cultural acceptance of it leads to declining birth rates in a civilization. Therefore, civilizations that accept it in the absence of modern contraception and in the presence of civilizations that would compete for resources die off.
First, modern contraception is not just condoms. The Pill is contraception (against-conception). What you're looking for is not "contraception" but rather, sexual protection.
You also obviously don't have a clear understanding of history, and reality. You're simply taking modern beliefs, inventing justification for them, and then applying them as if they were fact. Truth is that homosexuality has been accepted in a number of cultures without modern sexual protection. Not only that, but in more primative cultures where Christian (or western) morality has actively discouraged the use of sexual protection, any sex is a powerful disease vector. This includes Africa, where AIDS does not impact just homosexual men, but everyone.
As for a culture that accepted homosexuality (before Western "modern" influences) Japan has a long history of accepting homosexuality in men, as it was seen as a man's right to place his love where ever he wanted.
Records of homosexuality in Japan date back to ancient times; indeed, at some times in Japanese history love between men was viewed as the purest form of love. While homosexuality had never been viewed as a sin in Japanese society and religion and was only briefly restricted by legal prohibition, exposure to Western religious thought and the desire to appear "civilized" have influenced the way that homosexuality is viewed by both the Japanese government and by the population at large since the end of the nineteenth century.
Jewish peoples dietary constrictions are the same sort of thing. In the absence of modern pasteurization, sterilization, packaging and cooking techniques, their system of beliefs kept them alive when other peoples poisoned themselves. And again, they do not apply critical thinking to their own beliefs in the modern age.
Let's recall that the entire European culture pre-Christianity ate pork under the same conditions, as well as many other cultures that the Jews had contact with. While your assertion is that they were poisoning themselves, the Jews ended up secondary to all those pork eating cultures.
Mixing meat and dairy is known by far to not be an issue with sanitation and health protection, likewise, the restriction to cloven hooves that chew their cud... well, the specific exclusion includes Rabbit, which has never been a significant cause of disease due to simply eating it.
As for seafood, there is nothing special that must be done to keep shrimp safe beyond that done for fish... yet they're allowed to eat fish, yet not shrimp.
The "health benefit" justification for the existence of Kosher is actually a fairly poor one, the restrictions are largely unnecessary to keep safe... and kosher applies to much more than simply "don't eat pork".
This is the same as the justification mentioned before on Slashdot that women prefer more a more red-spectrum color, while boys prefer a more blue-spectrum color, thus justifying the use of pink for girls, and blue for boys, when in actual case, that preference shifted within modern recorded history.
Any hypothesis given as justification for why culture and society acts a certain way, must actually account for all cultures, past and present, not simply the limited data set which is America, but Americans tend to neglect this matter... mostly because we're so locked into our own private world, that we forget that there are far more data points out there than simply ours.
I kind of have to agree with your view on things. Religion causes a lot of problems, but mostly only where they get an attitude of "my way is right, if your way is different, then you're wrong".
A good example is fundamentalist Christians attacking homosexuals with claims such as: "They claim that they're not hurting anyone else, but God says homosexuality is a Sin, and since Sin hurts God, they are hurting someone else: God." The falacy in that argument is in the assumption that God exists, or even more strictly, that God exists as the narrow vision that they have of him.
There needs to be a realization in the world that Religion can be a good thing, it can bring people together, bring them to good actions, and also lend support for secular morality. (That since all people are equivalent in worth, noones permissive rights outweigh the violation of another's rights.)
The issue that brings people to conflict about religion is when a religion declares something wrong for its followers, and the followers interpret that restriction to apply to all people. Think of the conflict if Jews believed that all people should be eating Kosher... they might be flurried into a frenzy to blow up pig farms, and cheeseburger stands, and oyster bars.
So, it's when a religion feels the need to restrict the behavior of people who are not their followers that it presents the conflict, not when a religion is acting positively towards encouraging their followers to do good deed, but again rather when a religion is encouraging their followers to renounce actions of others.
German Rating Boards typically have a very strong sense that sex is as inappropriate for entertainment, as Americans Rating Boards typically have a very strong sense that sex is inappropriate for entertainment.
A good example is that while the US and Germany both agree that the movie "Payback" staring Mel Gibson should receive the highest restriction of a rating, (R here in the USA, and "ab 16" (age 16 and up) in Germany) they disagree about what the movie Hitch should be.
While the MPAA rated Hitch in the US as: "Rated PG-13 for language and some strong sexual references." Germany's equivalent rating board rated it "ab 6" (age 6 and up), effectively giving it the equivalent of a "G" rating.
Watching the movie Paycheck in Germany, I noticed that the censors pulled out all of the violence, anything showing a person getting hurt was editted out, while in the USA, I've seen quite a bit of gore in, for instance, TNT's showings of "Die Hard".
Ok, well, just to show you how good a dictionary is: From your example of dictionary.com: nuclear [noo-klee-er, nyoo- or, by metathesis, -kyuh-ler] Have fun with that... because that's a correct pronunciation. (Now, or before, it doesn't matter, George Bush and others are not WRONG for saying "nookyooler")
I pronounce the "t" in "tsunami", though probably not as hard as the Japanese do.
[t] and [s] are articulated at the same point. The Japanese "t" in this instance is non-aspirated, non-ejective, non-retroflex, non blah blah blah. It's is a light articulation of on the alveolar ridge, to produce what is called an "affricative". The Japanese do not pronounce this "t" very hard, and if you were to pronounce the "t" any lighter, it would be an "s". I did oral mentoring for awhile for a Japanese class, the students were unable to recognize if they were saying "ts" or "s" in spontaneous speech. PURPOSEFULLY paying attention to their speech, they could articulate it appropriately.
However, you may be different and actually articulate the "t" rather than just omitting it in spontaneous speech like the vast majority Americans do. However, my position is that the majority of Americans say "soo-nah-mee", not "tsoo-na-mee". Not to mention every Japanese word that ends in "-e" is massively mutilated by American phonology, and takes it from an "-eh" to an "-ee". So you have "sah-kee" (not "sah-keh") and "keh-ree-oh-kee" (not "kah-rah-oh-keh"... I'll give them a pass for misarticulating the "r", they've likely never been exposed to that sound before, but all the vowels are there.)
The compound verb form can have problems with tense and singularization. For example, "He backups the system twice a day.", "They kissed and makeupped.", "They were setupping the conference room for the meeting.", etc. Ick, ick, ick. Non-compound words don't have this problem ("jumped", "jumping")...
Funny, German doesn't have any problem with this: "auszeichnen" -> "ausgezeichnet", "mitteilen" -> "mitgeteilt", "überfahren" -> "übergefahrt". The answer to your examples are "backsup", "madeup" and "settingup". You're composing the words how you presume that they should be dealt with "there's a no space between them, so the ending goes at the end!" No, wrong. The verbial stems go on the verbial element, not to any additional forms that occur.
... and not all compound words have this problem with the verb form ("blindfolded", "forecasting", "upgrades"), but those that do should not have a compound verb form.
Not always. For example, "upgrade", "bypass".
Ok, this is where things get tricky... because now you have to start distinguishing how the words are actually treated, not just "do they contain a verbial word, and a prepositional word?" The reason why, is these words are no longer considered separable. They have been taken into the English language as individual units, and not as individual parts. They are the same as "include", "assimilate", "impersonate" and "expel". Just instead we can actually recognize the roots, rather than them being relatively unknown, the examples being composed of: "in - clude", "ad - similate", "in - personate" and "ex - pell".
Your use of "blindfold" and "forecast" are particularly inappropriate, as we do not use a preposition "fore-" anymore, as all words that use that root word are now inseparable. While "blindfold" is not a verb with a prepositional inclusion, which is what I am limiting my argument to. (By nature of compound verbs like "blindfold", they are placed as a single "lexeme" in our dictionaries, not as individual parts that contribute to the whole of the meaning. It's just a little harder to notice when the words actually relate to the words used... unlike "butterfly".)
(though, admittedly, I frequently pronounce it as "kum-fer-tih-bul" or "kum-fr-tih-bul", not "kum-for-tah-bul")
This is what is called a "Elision". It is the muting or diminishment of a noise in order make the sound easier to pronounce for the speaker. Specifically: comfortable: [k??.f?(?).t?.b?l] ? [k??f.t?.b?l] (If you don't know IPA, so you can actually show what you're saying rather than some crazy subjectively decided phonetics, then learn it. Otherwise, you'll always remain a Prescriptive Grammar Nazi, forever doomed to complain about the degradation of our sacred language.) This IPA representation of how most people say "comfortable", lines up with my account. If you do not pronounce it that way, then you are the incorrect one.
I can cry and scream all I want that the only valid pronunciation of "tsunami" involves actually articulating the "t", although I doubt that you do, because English's phonetics disallow a word from starting with "ts", so people pronounce it as if the "t" were silent. ("OMG?! It's not?") And "psych-" comes from a Greek work starting with the character "Psi", which isn't pronounced the same as "sigh", but rather it actually articulates the "p", and thus it is "p-si", but don't break it up into two syllables and then you would have it.
I find mispronunciations such as "ree-lah-tor" and "joo-lir-y" annoying.
That's because you presume that everyone should speak your Ideolect (it's like a dialect, but only you speak it.) That's not how the world works. I speak something that I call English, you speak something that you call English, and we both just simply hope that we'd be able to understand each other.
I also find annoying "it's" vs "its", "there" vs "they're" vs "their"...
These are homophones. I'm sure there are Spanish speakers out there who get upset when someone writes "qué" vs. "que". The words are not different in speech, they are only different by the arbitrary spellings assigned to the words.
"effect" vs "affect"
This is actually something different. These words are pretty much pronounced differently (from some people) but since [?] (from effect) and [a] (from affect) are both very close together, that many people "elide" them together to one vowel. The same thing happens with "cot" and "caught". (The only reason why people probably don't screw that spelling up more often is because a "cot" is so rare.)
and the misuse of compound nouns as verbs (e.g., "setup", "backup", etc. (in fact, most compound nouns ending with "up")), but those are spelling errors, not verbal errors.
Again, only because of our arbitrary spelling system. German could choose tomorrow to follow the lead of every other Germanic language (ok, well, except Dutch) and declare that separable-prefix verbs should be split apart during spelling, or during nominalization. "[to] Set up" and "setup" are the same root "word", except that "setup" is the nominalized form for "[to] set up" (the "to" is provided as a courtesy to you, as I imagine that you're not already aware that it is not part of the infinitive from a linguistic standpoint, and is only there in the infinitive from a prescriptive grammar nazi.) If you make the noun "Jump" from the verb "[to] jump", then why isn't the verb form for "Setup" not "[to] setup"? English actually has a ton of these compound words, and we're perhaps the only Germanic language, which denies that this happens. I mean, if Germans complained about "hanging" prepositions, they'd be complaining about the style of Goethe, and Schiller, and no one wants to go against them. Not only that, but it's against their grammar (not the prescriptive grammar mind you, but the grammar of the language that every 5 year-old who can spe
Actually, Jimmy Carter said "nucular", too, and he was a nuclear engineer!:P
People don't like it, but it's in large use over America. Period.
Oddly enough, people don't complain to dictionaries that they say that a common pronunciation of "comfortable" is "comf-ter-ble."
Both follow from Standard American English phonemic rules. No one complains that "true" is pronounced "chroo"... they're not even aware that they're doing this. Just like English speakers don't realize that they aspirate unvoiced initial consonants, while not aspirating voiced initial consonants.
Grammar Nazis like me (Linguistic Grammar Nazis) usually don't get along with Prescriptive Grammar Nazis. Perscriptive Grammar Nazis complain about things that are perfectly valid human language features that do not impede understanding at all. Prescriptive Grammar Nazis usually get pissed at Linguistic Grammar Nazis because Linguists document how people actually use language, rather than prescribe and tell people what to do. Descriptive Grammar Nazis just complain about things like "Um... if you're speaking Standard American English, you need to agree your verb to your subject." not "OMG! YOU USED A DOUBLE NEGATIVE YOU'RE GOING TO DIE!!!! YOU'RE UNCLEAN!!!!!1111one"
Regardless of your opinion on the matter, and the calm cold-hearted approach that you're talking about...
I will not change my behavior. I spent all of college trying to hang out with the boys, and stuff, and I went to a lot of LAN parties, and was fairly well accepted by them. But now that I've realized that doing that is precisely the cause of the significant amount of depression that has been in my life.
Telling me to bottle up my emotions means I'm going to become a black-hearted mean-spirited bitch, like I was in college. If you want me to play friendly with other people, there needs to be an allowance for a woman to act like a woman, and that includes crying.
When did you get admin rights to my box? I don't recall ever giving them to you.
However, if you're interested in obtaining admin rights, I'm willing to give up the few shell accounts that I am hosting right now, and actually consider it.
However, you must be on hand to help me with any issues... I don't like remote administration.
Ick! Well, fortunately, I'm rootkit free as of now, and I don't do anything that would put me at risk for being infected.
And while I don't come with a spam blocker, I do have a fairly strict spam filter. And if any spam comes in with any person information, I don't just put it in the bit bucket, but rather, I make sure that it's securely deleted.
Slashdot Mirror
As well as menopause:
Ok "some men"...
I mean of course those who are married have been trained in civility by their wives.
*wink*
*laugh* well, I appreciate your intentions. A subtle innuendo is actually pretty funny most of the time, it's just when surrounded by a bunch of blatant sexual statements, it comes across as poor taste. :(
No, Emacs pinky does exist, and is entirely not made up by the Evil VI Propaganda Machine. ^[:wq
Because you were naturally predisposed to an RSI, and and ergonomic keyboard makes things easier on your wrists once they have been inflammed by an RSI. An ergonomic keyboard is not necessary for all people, as not all people are predisposed to RSI, and that's why you have the code monkeys who sit at their computer for hours, and don't develop any RSI at all.
The only reason why CTS and RSIs appear to be more common in computer users is because we're more likely to aggrevate the situation. It's not that we have more CTS and RSIs, it's because the effect is significantly more pronounced.
CTS is typically caused by being predisposed to it in the first place. At that point, using computers makes things a lot worse.
So, he's right, and you're kind of right. The CTS was not caused by your computer use, but your computer use certainly did aggrevate it.
PS. I was about to applaud you for being the first "non-porn" post until your last line. *sigh*
I'm pretty sure we stole a lot of gold from the Incas... well, ok, the SPANISH did.
You are definitely on to this one. Britain definitely violated international laws by violating China's patent on tea.
That's why I'm proud to be an American... we drink Coffee... which, um... I guess we stole from the Incas also....
Ok, you know what? That's clearly a lie, no one would particularly say that I'm proud to be an American, if anything, I'm embarassed!
Some good points. And you're right, the Federal Government (as much as it would like to try) can't condemn gambling handled entirely within a single state.
:(
The problems always arrive when you're going outside of your own state. Suddenly, you're doing "interstate commerce" which Congress does have free reign to control.
It makes sense to me, but seriously, our government especially at the Federal Level has been lead by such morality freaks that they've constantly done stupid things. Like prohibition. Who's brilliant idea was that? The Reactionary Right Wing, that's who.
Who's in charge of the executive now? The Reactionary Right Wing. And they're going to try and do all this stuff over and over and over again, trying to beliger states with more liberal tendencies to conform.
I had 7 million credits at the end of like one week of playing. People I had borrowed money from (with interest for them) who had started before me, were totally amazed at how much money I was able to make.
It's not a matter of learning to play, I knew how to play. Just the almost unlimited free PvP nature of EVE online makes the game unenjoyable to me, because it allows anonymous people to turn into ganking assholes. They don't know me, they don't care about me, there are no real repercussions for their anti-social behavior.
Maybe a lot of guys like to play in a world where they can constantly prove who the better person is, and then get enjoyment out of totally ruining a person's day, and showing them that you are better than them. However, I enjoy a more sedate game, where I am able to go about doing what I want to do, without being harrassed all the time, by some guy who wants to prove his dick is bigger than mine...
Surprise! She has no dick, you win, you don't even have to prove it... Let it go, and leave me be, you're not proving anything to me, except how much of jerks men turn into when there are absolutely no rules.
Wing Commander: Privateer was really cool, too.
While I know that EVE Online is pretty much the same as that game, it's like... not loaded with PvP people ready to destroy me and take my cargo, and they've been playing for centuries compared to me, so I can't really put up much of a fight...
Do I sound bitter?
Reading further down, other people noted other points later in the FAQ...
That you do need to register a copyright before you sue... which strikes me a bit as odd, since otherwise you don't have to register a copyright at all. It all comes down to when you register your copyright, rather than whether you register your copyright.
2. Why register your copyright? There are higher penalties for violating a registered copyright rather than an unregistered copyright.
3. You do not have to register a copyright before persuing legal actions in the USA.
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html
First, modern contraception is not just condoms. The Pill is contraception (against-conception). What you're looking for is not "contraception" but rather, sexual protection.
You also obviously don't have a clear understanding of history, and reality. You're simply taking modern beliefs, inventing justification for them, and then applying them as if they were fact. Truth is that homosexuality has been accepted in a number of cultures without modern sexual protection. Not only that, but in more primative cultures where Christian (or western) morality has actively discouraged the use of sexual protection, any sex is a powerful disease vector. This includes Africa, where AIDS does not impact just homosexual men, but everyone.
As for a culture that accepted homosexuality (before Western "modern" influences) Japan has a long history of accepting homosexuality in men, as it was seen as a man's right to place his love where ever he wanted.
Let's recall that the entire European culture pre-Christianity ate pork under the same conditions, as well as many other cultures that the Jews had contact with. While your assertion is that they were poisoning themselves, the Jews ended up secondary to all those pork eating cultures.
Mixing meat and dairy is known by far to not be an issue with sanitation and health protection, likewise, the restriction to cloven hooves that chew their cud... well, the specific exclusion includes Rabbit, which has never been a significant cause of disease due to simply eating it.
As for seafood, there is nothing special that must be done to keep shrimp safe beyond that done for fish... yet they're allowed to eat fish, yet not shrimp.
The "health benefit" justification for the existence of Kosher is actually a fairly poor one, the restrictions are largely unnecessary to keep safe... and kosher applies to much more than simply "don't eat pork".
This is the same as the justification mentioned before on Slashdot that women prefer more a more red-spectrum color, while boys prefer a more blue-spectrum color, thus justifying the use of pink for girls, and blue for boys, when in actual case, that preference shifted within modern recorded history.
Any hypothesis given as justification for why culture and society acts a certain way, must actually account for all cultures, past and present, not simply the limited data set which is America, but Americans tend to neglect this matter... mostly because we're so locked into our own private world, that we forget that there are far more data points out there than simply ours.
I kind of have to agree with your view on things. Religion causes a lot of problems, but mostly only where they get an attitude of "my way is right, if your way is different, then you're wrong".
A good example is fundamentalist Christians attacking homosexuals with claims such as: "They claim that they're not hurting anyone else, but God says homosexuality is a Sin, and since Sin hurts God, they are hurting someone else: God." The falacy in that argument is in the assumption that God exists, or even more strictly, that God exists as the narrow vision that they have of him.
There needs to be a realization in the world that Religion can be a good thing, it can bring people together, bring them to good actions, and also lend support for secular morality. (That since all people are equivalent in worth, noones permissive rights outweigh the violation of another's rights.)
The issue that brings people to conflict about religion is when a religion declares something wrong for its followers, and the followers interpret that restriction to apply to all people. Think of the conflict if Jews believed that all people should be eating Kosher... they might be flurried into a frenzy to blow up pig farms, and cheeseburger stands, and oyster bars.
So, it's when a religion feels the need to restrict the behavior of people who are not their followers that it presents the conflict, not when a religion is acting positively towards encouraging their followers to do good deed, but again rather when a religion is encouraging their followers to renounce actions of others.
German Rating Boards typically have a very strong sense that sex is as inappropriate for entertainment, as Americans Rating Boards typically have a very strong sense that sex is inappropriate for entertainment.
A good example is that while the US and Germany both agree that the movie "Payback" staring Mel Gibson should receive the highest restriction of a rating, (R here in the USA, and "ab 16" (age 16 and up) in Germany) they disagree about what the movie Hitch should be.
While the MPAA rated Hitch in the US as: "Rated PG-13 for language and some strong sexual references." Germany's equivalent rating board rated it "ab 6" (age 6 and up), effectively giving it the equivalent of a "G" rating.
Watching the movie Paycheck in Germany, I noticed that the censors pulled out all of the violence, anything showing a person getting hurt was editted out, while in the USA, I've seen quite a bit of gore in, for instance, TNT's showings of "Die Hard".
The issue at hand is the graphic violence.
[t] and [s] are articulated at the same point. The Japanese "t" in this instance is non-aspirated, non-ejective, non-retroflex, non blah blah blah. It's is a light articulation of on the alveolar ridge, to produce what is called an "affricative". The Japanese do not pronounce this "t" very hard, and if you were to pronounce the "t" any lighter, it would be an "s". I did oral mentoring for awhile for a Japanese class, the students were unable to recognize if they were saying "ts" or "s" in spontaneous speech. PURPOSEFULLY paying attention to their speech, they could articulate it appropriately.
However, you may be different and actually articulate the "t" rather than just omitting it in spontaneous speech like the vast majority Americans do. However, my position is that the majority of Americans say "soo-nah-mee", not "tsoo-na-mee". Not to mention every Japanese word that ends in "-e" is massively mutilated by American phonology, and takes it from an "-eh" to an "-ee". So you have "sah-kee" (not "sah-keh") and "keh-ree-oh-kee" (not "kah-rah-oh-keh"... I'll give them a pass for misarticulating the "r", they've likely never been exposed to that sound before, but all the vowels are there.)
Funny, German doesn't have any problem with this: "auszeichnen" -> "ausgezeichnet", "mitteilen" -> "mitgeteilt", "überfahren" -> "übergefahrt". The answer to your examples are "backsup", "madeup" and "settingup". You're composing the words how you presume that they should be dealt with "there's a no space between them, so the ending goes at the end!" No, wrong. The verbial stems go on the verbial element, not to any additional forms that occur.
Not always.
For example, "upgrade", "bypass".
Ok, this is where things get tricky... because now you have to start distinguishing how the words are actually treated, not just "do they contain a verbial word, and a prepositional word?" The reason why, is these words are no longer considered separable. They have been taken into the English language as individual units, and not as individual parts. They are the same as "include", "assimilate", "impersonate" and "expel". Just instead we can actually recognize the roots, rather than them being relatively unknown, the examples being composed of: "in - clude", "ad - similate", "in - personate" and "ex - pell".
Your use of "blindfold" and "forecast" are particularly inappropriate, as we do not use a preposition "fore-" anymore, as all words that use that root word are now inseparable. While "blindfold" is not a verb with a prepositional inclusion, which is what I am limiting my argument to. (By nature of compound verbs like "blindfold", they are placed as a single "lexeme" in our dictionaries, not as individual parts that contribute to the whole of the meaning. It's just a little harder to notice when the words actually relate to the words used... unlike "butterfly".)
This is what is called a "Elision". It is the muting or diminishment of a noise in order make the sound easier to pronounce for the speaker. Specifically: comfortable: [k??.f?(?).t?.b?l] ? [k??f.t?.b?l] (If you don't know IPA, so you can actually show what you're saying rather than some crazy subjectively decided phonetics, then learn it. Otherwise, you'll always remain a Prescriptive Grammar Nazi, forever doomed to complain about the degradation of our sacred language.) This IPA representation of how most people say "comfortable", lines up with my account. If you do not pronounce it that way, then you are the incorrect one.
I can cry and scream all I want that the only valid pronunciation of "tsunami" involves actually articulating the "t", although I doubt that you do, because English's phonetics disallow a word from starting with "ts", so people pronounce it as if the "t" were silent. ("OMG?! It's not?") And "psych-" comes from a Greek work starting with the character "Psi", which isn't pronounced the same as "sigh", but rather it actually articulates the "p", and thus it is "p-si", but don't break it up into two syllables and then you would have it.
That's because you presume that everyone should speak your Ideolect (it's like a dialect, but only you speak it.) That's not how the world works. I speak something that I call English, you speak something that you call English, and we both just simply hope that we'd be able to understand each other.
These are homophones. I'm sure there are Spanish speakers out there who get upset when someone writes "qué" vs. "que". The words are not different in speech, they are only different by the arbitrary spellings assigned to the words.
This is actually something different. These words are pretty much pronounced differently (from some people) but since [?] (from effect) and [a] (from affect) are both very close together, that many people "elide" them together to one vowel. The same thing happens with "cot" and "caught". (The only reason why people probably don't screw that spelling up more often is because a "cot" is so rare.)
Again, only because of our arbitrary spelling system. German could choose tomorrow to follow the lead of every other Germanic language (ok, well, except Dutch) and declare that separable-prefix verbs should be split apart during spelling, or during nominalization. "[to] Set up" and "setup" are the same root "word", except that "setup" is the nominalized form for "[to] set up" (the "to" is provided as a courtesy to you, as I imagine that you're not already aware that it is not part of the infinitive from a linguistic standpoint, and is only there in the infinitive from a prescriptive grammar nazi.) If you make the noun "Jump" from the verb "[to] jump", then why isn't the verb form for "Setup" not "[to] setup"? English actually has a ton of these compound words, and we're perhaps the only Germanic language, which denies that this happens. I mean, if Germans complained about "hanging" prepositions, they'd be complaining about the style of Goethe, and Schiller, and no one wants to go against them. Not only that, but it's against their grammar (not the prescriptive grammar mind you, but the grammar of the language that every 5 year-old who can spe
Actually, Jimmy Carter said "nucular", too, and he was a nuclear engineer! :P
People don't like it, but it's in large use over America. Period.
Oddly enough, people don't complain to dictionaries that they say that a common pronunciation of "comfortable" is "comf-ter-ble."
Both follow from Standard American English phonemic rules. No one complains that "true" is pronounced "chroo"... they're not even aware that they're doing this. Just like English speakers don't realize that they aspirate unvoiced initial consonants, while not aspirating voiced initial consonants.
Grammar Nazis like me (Linguistic Grammar Nazis) usually don't get along with Prescriptive Grammar Nazis. Perscriptive Grammar Nazis complain about things that are perfectly valid human language features that do not impede understanding at all. Prescriptive Grammar Nazis usually get pissed at Linguistic Grammar Nazis because Linguists document how people actually use language, rather than prescribe and tell people what to do. Descriptive Grammar Nazis just complain about things like "Um... if you're speaking Standard American English, you need to agree your verb to your subject." not "OMG! YOU USED A DOUBLE NEGATIVE YOU'RE GOING TO DIE!!!! YOU'RE UNCLEAN!!!!!1111one"
Regardless of your opinion on the matter, and the calm cold-hearted approach that you're talking about...
I will not change my behavior. I spent all of college trying to hang out with the boys, and stuff, and I went to a lot of LAN parties, and was fairly well accepted by them. But now that I've realized that doing that is precisely the cause of the significant amount of depression that has been in my life.
Telling me to bottle up my emotions means I'm going to become a black-hearted mean-spirited bitch, like I was in college. If you want me to play friendly with other people, there needs to be an allowance for a woman to act like a woman, and that includes crying.
When did you get admin rights to my box? I don't recall ever giving them to you.
However, if you're interested in obtaining admin rights, I'm willing to give up the few shell accounts that I am hosting right now, and actually consider it.
However, you must be on hand to help me with any issues... I don't like remote administration.
Ick! Well, fortunately, I'm rootkit free as of now, and I don't do anything that would put me at risk for being infected.
And while I don't come with a spam blocker, I do have a fairly strict spam filter. And if any spam comes in with any person information, I don't just put it in the bit bucket, but rather, I make sure that it's securely deleted.
No, I have port knocking setup, so if you don't know how to get me to respond, I don't have to worry about being rooted.
I'm thinking about attending, I could maybe find a cute guy who knows a lot about computers, and have him, er... root my box?
That's the first time I've ever seen it spelt how Americans actually say it.