I am not sure but for me it looks like a giant house spider, Eratigena atrica. The abdominal pattern is really similar, compare yours (up) with the one from Wikipedia:
It's like a mini-Gandalf telling all those Balrog-shaped hot molecules "YOU SHALL NOT PASS!".
Research on language acquisition is often genuinely cute.
I have some related anecdote on this. When my nephew was learning to talk (back then he was, like, 1~2yo? He's now 16), I recorded and transcribed some things that he said. Here's a few of them:
Orthographic | Adult pronunciation | His pronunciation | Gloss |
---|---|---|---|
chocolate | [ʃo.ko.'lä.te] | [ku.'wä.te] | chocolate |
vovó | [vo.'vɔ] | [bu.'bɔ] | grandma |
Amon | [ä'mõ] | [mu'mõ] | my cat's name |
dodói | [do.'dɔɪ̯] | [du.'dɔɪ̯] | boo-boo, hurtsie |
mexerica | [mi.ʃi.'ɾi.kɐ] | [mi.'ji.kä] | mandarin orange |
Look at the pattern - pre-stressed vowels get raised. The reason why my nephew was doing this in Portuguese is basically the same as why Orla (from the text) is using [χ] (the "guttural ck") in her English, because even as the child is learning to talk, they're already picking up features from the local variety. And that pattern where the vowels get closed before the stress is common place for Sulista Portuguese speakers (check how "mexerica" is pronounced, with [i] instead of [e]), just like Scouse English conditionally renders coda /k/ as [ç x χ].
Yup, I'm using it as a unit of length there. It's clear enough in context even if the result is a bit silly.
Typically posting a correction is enough. You can also warn the user, something like this:
[Speaking as a mod] When joking or memeing, please say so in the post/comment of the joke/meme. I get that it spoils the fun, but it's better than getting someone hurt - brown recluses are spiders of medical significance after all.
Most users are surprisingly reasonable if the mod is reasonable with them.
Two* empty cardboard boxes. One is roughly the width and length of my desktop tower; another is ~1/3 of the size of the first.
My desk used to have two drawers, right below the surface top. I was always hitting those bloody drawers with my thigh. Eventually I had enough, unscrewed them, and threw them away.
...ok, but what about the stuff that I stored there? Inside the big box, that is now over my desktop tower. The smaller one and its lid became divisions for the bigger one. It's organised, within the reach of my hands, and far from my thigh.
*actually three. One of my cats saw it on my chair, as I was organising the stuff here, and went into "if it sits, I fits, I call dibs" mode. It's in my living room now.
I don't think that the title is a mistake either; I was focusing solely on what the title says, on a language level, versus what the other user (Kairos) believes to be more accurate.
With that out of the way: yup, copyright was always like this. The basic premise of copyright is to not allow you to share things under certain conditions, and yet this sharing is essential for culture.
I guess that those aren't seen often because they require the phonology and grammar to be already close to finished - or at least enough to know which constructions are used so often that get contracted.
That said I full agree with you, they're awesome when done right. They're when the conlang stops being a bunch of sketches in a book to become something living, at least in the mouths (or gestures) of imaginary speakers.
Since the phonology of my main conlang (Tarune) is finished, but the grammar is still heavily WIP, my only progress in this regard was creating a formal register vs. local pronunciations. Not quite what you're asking about, but close enough, so I'll share two examples here:
Hiatuses between words
In the formal register you're supposed to dissolve them with [h]. However, people in Central/Northern cities don't do this bother in quick speech. Example:
- Romanised: ⟨Sobeca ep Lorā⟩
- Phonemic: /su.bi.ca ip lu.ɾa:/
- Phonetic (formal): [sʊ˥.bɪ.cɐ hɪp lʊ˥.ɾä:]
- Phonetic (Central/Northern urban, quick speech): [so˥.be.cɐɪ̯p lo˥.ɾä:]
- Translation: "Sun and Moon"
And it's hard to represent in IPA, but Central speakers have a tendency to shorten the long vowels. They're still distinct from the short vowels, but in quick speech you're telling who's who by the quality, not by the quantity.
Rendering of voiced consonants
In the formal register, when a voiced consonant or consonant cluster is near a nasal vowel, you're "supposed" to nasalise it midway: a single consonant gets pre-/post-nasalised, and in a cluster only one consonant gets nasalised. In practice... well, only people in the coast do this in a natural way. The others either don't nasalise the consonant at all, or do it fully, like this:
- Romanised: ⟨Duamde⟩, ⟨ṭelsemd⟩
- Phonemic: /dwã.di/, /ʈil.sĩd/
- Phonetic (formal): [dw̃ɐ̃˥.n͜dɪ], [ʈɪl˥.z̃ɪ̃n͜d]
- Phonetic (C/N, informal but increasingly common): [dwɐ̃˥.ne], [ʈel˥.zẽn]
- Phonetic (Southern, #1): [nw̃ã˥.ni], [ʈil̃˥.z̃ĩn]
- Phonetic (Southern, #2): [nw̃ã˥.di], [ʈil̃˥.z̃ĩd]
- Translation: "Southern Wind", "45 days month/season"
So it's a lot like the Central/Northern speakers shifted the nasalisation to the right, while Southern speakers either spread it further or shift it left.
EDIT: ah, Southern backchannel ['u:˥˩ʔu]; typically spelled ⟨ōho⟩. This... interjection? has a weird story - it was initially used by cattle herders to direct their cattle. Eventually the usage spread towards humans too, to convey "are you following?"; and then as backchannel, to convey "I'm following it, go on".
In English, the simple present often implies a general truth, regardless of time. While the present continuous strongly implies that the statement is true for the present, and weakly implies that it was false in the past.
From your profile you apparently speak Danish, right? Note that, in Danish, this distinction is mostly handled through adverbs, so I'm not surprised that you can't tell the difference. Easier shown with an example:
Danish | English |
---|---|
Jeg læser ofte. | I read often. (generally true statement) |
Jeg læser lige nu. | I'm reading right now. (true in the present) |
Note how English is suddenly using a different verb form for the second one.
On itself, a simple claim (like "copyright destroys culture") cannot be fallacious. It can be only true or false. For a fallacy, you need a reasoning flaw.
Also note that, even if you find a fallacy behind a conclusion, that is not enough grounds to claim that the conclusion is false. A non-fallacious argument with true premises yields a true conclusion, but a fallacious one may yield true or false conclusions.
The issue that you're noticing with the title is not one of logic, but one of implicature due to the aspect of the verb. "X destroys Y" implies that, every time that X happens, Y gets destroyed; while "X [is] destroying Y" implies that this is only happening now.
I believe that most of the native species here don't even sting, and if you annoy them they'll flock around you and... that's it, like a bunch of kids calling you meanie. Or at least the ones that look like wasps, like this:
I've seen quite a bit more of those this winter.
Fixed it - thanks! "Dodói" (I also forgot the diacritic) is boo-boo, indeed - a childish way to call small injuries.
Amon isn't a common pet name here. The one naming him was my mum, who loves Old Egyptian culture; to give you an idea, my childhood cat was Cleópatra, and even one of my current cats (Kika) was supposed to be called Ísis. (The one naming Kika was my nephew - by then he already understood how this "naming" thing works.)