could someone help me with this problem please? I am not that sure with the answers.
A. The authors conveyed the results in a series of graphs.
a. Draw a labeled tree conforming to our official phrase structure rules. Make sure that you label the part of speech of each of the words in the sentence.
b. There is more than one way to analyze the syntactic structure of sentence (A) that conforms to our official phrase structure rules. Draw one of the different trees. That is, draw a labeled tree for (A) that conforms to the official phrase structure rules but that makes different claims about constituent structure than your answer to part (a).
c. List the phrases that are constituents in the tree you drew for part (a) that are not constituents in the tree you drew for part (b), and then list the phrases that are constituents in the tree you drew for part (b) that are not constituents in the tree you drew for part (a). (Make sure you indicate which set of phrases is which.)
d. Carefully explain the meaning that each syntactic analysis corresponds to. Which reading do you think was intended by the New York Times? If you have a reason for why you think so, say what that reason is.
i.e., a sentence or phrase that exhibits syntactic but not overt semantic ambiguity.... is there a name for this?
i'm thinking of the sentence "he let his attention come to rest on the windowpane". "to rest" could be an infinitive as in "he let his child come to spit on the king" or it could be a preposition and its noun object, as in "he let his attention come to a halt on the windowpane/come to stillness on the windowpane". but the overt semantics of the whole seem, at least, very similar, regardless of whether "coming to rest" contributes arrival at a state of rest, or coming to be performing resting.
<FORGIVE NOW LET GO PLEASE PAIN CEASE/>
Syntactic ambiguity happens when sentences can be parsed in two or more different ways, such as "Flying planes can be dangerous". Are planes which are flying dangerous objects or is the activity of flying a plane?
Make sure to obey the restriction on short responses.
Hi all,
I'm trying to write a speech for a linguist's wedding, and I think I've written something nice and meaningful about syntactic ambiguity - but I need one or two examples of romantic syntactically ambiguous sentences.
So far the only one I've been able to think of is "he loves you more than anyone else" which can mean 'he loves you more than he loves anyone else' or also 'he loves you more than anyone else loves you'.
If anyone has some suggestions of sentences, or some strategies for coming up with more it would be greatly appreciated - I'm a bit stuck!
Now, why am I writing this? Mostly honestly, I just had to take my mother to the hospital yesterday and so I need something to distract myself without it necessarily being 'cheery'. Besides, I honestly enjoy doing research papers, and often wish I could take an intellectual job, but I don't have the money for a degree. I've been thinking that perhaps I could just do it for the sheer pleasure of it, and also to expand my own knowledge.
Anyway, I typed this out in a word document just now, and did a single proof-read of it. As I explained in the paper, German has some interesting features that could be used in a conlang, but despite this is rarely taken as a source of inspiration. I happen to be an intermediate in the language, so I know it quite well. Here I tried to summarize the parts that may be of interest to a conlanger, most notably I skipped over things like phonology and semantics. The whole document is a little over 3 pages long in word (double spaced), so hopefully it isn't that long of a read.
So, without further ado, here's what I came up with:
A Summary of German Grammar
Purpose:
The purpose of this paper isn't to teach the language, or give a detailed analysis of it. The purpose of writing this is to summarize the details of German that may be of interest for a conlanger. German has a number of rather unique features, but is rarely drawn upon when conlanging. Thus I am writing this so that someone could get learn about some of the strangeness of German grammar without having to read that much.
Noun Phrases:
The order of a noun phrase is: preposition-determiner-adjective-noun-adjectival clause
German distinguishes four cases, which are as follows:
Nominative: the subject
Accusative: direct object
Dative: indirect object
Genitive: possessive
Prepositions require the noun to be in a specific case depending on the preposition in question. Some, can take one of two cases which results in a change of meaning. The accusative indicates motion towards, while the dative indicates location. For instance, with the German preposition 'in', with the accusative it means 'into' but with the dative it means 'in' or 'inside of'.
Case is primarily marked on the article/determiner. Adjectives take their own markings depending on case, gender, number, and whether a definite or indefinite article is present. The adjectival endings used for when no article is present are the only ones detailed enough to determine case.
There is a fair a
... keep reading on reddit β‘Cop: You are the lawyer.
Lawyer: Exactly, so where's my present?
When reading Segments #4, I really liked the story for the challenge in the back half of the issue, so I decided to translate it myself. Here's the original story:
An old man lived alone with his dog on a small, rocky island. They lived in a wooden hut covered in moss. The sky was always gray and it rained often. The old man had gray hair and a thick, wiry beard. The dog was big with a long, brown coat. Each morning, the old man drank a bitter tea and shared cold leftovers with his dog. In the afternoon, he walked to the shore to catch some fish. The dog chased away seagulls that wanted to steal the tasty fish. The old man then chopped firewood, and the dog sat by his side, guarding the fish. In the evening, the man salted and cooked the fish, and ate them with the dog. They slept by the warm fire to keep away the bitter cold. His life was simple, but so long as he had his dog, the old man was happy.
And here it is in Tabesj:
α¨α¨α¨α¨α¨α¨ α¨α¨α¨α¨α¨α¨ α¨ α¨α¨α¨α¨α¨α¨α¨ α¨α¨α¨α¨ α¨ α¨ α¨α¨α¨α¨α¨ α¨α¨α¨ α¨ α¨ α¨α¨α¨ α¨α¨α¨α¨ α¨α¨α¨α¨ α¨α¨α¨ α¨α¨α¨α¨α¨ α¨α¨α¨α¨α¨α¨α¨α¨α¨ α¨
Sesjhan sesjhan, homamwa sabe e qadje tjo e malΔre sete telsatwe tovesarqΜ£.
/ΛseΚxan ΛseΚxan ΛhomamΚ·a Λsabe tΚo e ΛΕadΚe ΛmalaΛΙΎe Λsete ΛtelsaΛtΚ·e ΛtoveΛsaΙΎΕΜ/
sesjhan ~sesjhan, homamwa sabe, e qadje tjo e, malΔre sete telsa -twe tove -ta -rqΜ£
long.ago~AUG old man 3 dog POSS 3 alone small rocky.shore.island-LOC.surface dwell-FIN-PST
"A long, long time ago, (an) old man with his dog alone on a small rocky-shored island dwelled."
-
Here we can see the standard story-opener sesjhan sesjhan, kind of like "once upon a time."
-
We also see that the first sentence and the last are the only ones in the last tense. This is typical of Tabesj story-telling.
α¨α¨α¨ α¨ α¨α¨α¨α¨α¨ α¨α¨α¨α¨α¨ α¨α¨α¨ α¨α¨α¨ α¨α¨ α¨α¨α¨α¨α¨α¨ α¨ α¨α¨ α¨α¨α¨ α¨α¨α¨α¨α¨α¨ α¨α¨α¨ α¨α¨α¨α¨α¨α¨α¨ α¨ α¨α¨α¨α¨α¨α¨ α¨α¨α¨α¨α¨ α¨α¨α¨α¨α¨α¨α¨α¨ α¨
Kao e bosjo tjahe kΔ selαΈ₯ tovesa. Me tar mjotαΉ£j kaltadaαΊ‘s, sjodel tosαΉ qwΕbeta.
/Λkao e ΛboΚo tΚaxe kaΛ ΛselΛxΜ© ΛtoveΛsa/
/me taΙΎ ΛmΚ²otΚΜ© ΛkaltadaΛxas ΛΚodel ΛtosnΜ© ΛΕΚ·oΛbeta/
kao e bosjo tjah -e kΔ sel-h tove -ta
both 3 moss cover.NFIN-REL wood hut-LOC.in dwell-FIN
me tar mjotαΉ£j kal-tada -αΊ‘ -s, sjodel tosαΉ qwΕbe-ta
sky all when.past fog-color-COP-and rain often fall -FIN
"Both of them in a moss-covered wooden hut dwell. (The) sky is all the time fog-colored, and rain often falls."
α¨α¨α¨ α¨α¨α¨α¨ α¨α¨α¨ α¨α¨α¨α¨α¨α¨ α¨α¨α¨α¨ α¨α¨α¨α¨ α¨α¨α¨ α¨α¨α¨α¨ α¨ α¨α¨α¨α¨ α¨α¨α¨α¨α¨ α¨ α¨α¨ α¨α¨α¨ α¨α¨α¨α¨α¨α¨α¨α¨ α¨α¨α¨α¨α¨ α¨α¨α¨ α¨ α¨
**Kaltada kolsjosαΉ£ αΉ£ka sa
... keep reading on reddit β‘This is, eventually, a straightforward base-36 system. But, getting to 36 is a bit complicated.
(With apologies to jan Misali, I just could not make myself do a straightforward system with a sub-base of 6; mixing base 5 and base 7 with a couple of base-6 sidequests was way more fun!)
Valakwluuxa numerals (along with the words for "how much?" and "to count") are divided into three parallel series, for counting objects, people, and animate non-persons. Mixed groups are referred to with the highest relevant animacy, and in general it is acceptable, if weird and imprecise, to use a form with higher-than-necessary animacy, but not the other way around--referring to things as people is fine, but not referring to people as things! (As Granny Weatherwax once said, after all, treating people as things is the definition of "sin".) Thus, one might potentially ask, for example, "how many-people rocks do you have?" (perhaps you have a reason for personifying the rocks), but never "how many-objects children do you have?"
The basic forms are as follows; the animate forms are regularly derived from the root inanimate form, but phonological repair (and a bit of historical irregularity) makes them not always completely transparent, so I have listed all three forms in each case:
objects / people / animate non-people
one - pala / npala / pepla
two - pehe / npehe / pephe
three - kalas / nkalas / keklas
four - xwuken / ndexwuken / xwexken
five - kelk / nkelk / kekleks
six - latqem / ndelatqem / lelatqem
seven - kul / nkul / kekul
(Conveniently, Lillooet, from which I am deriving the inspiration for these forms, actually has compound forms starting at 8--a convenient coincidence which I was not aware of when I decided to adopt the mixed base-5/base-7 system for Valaklwuuxa!)
36 - k'enp / nk'enp / k'ek'enp
1296 (36^2) wolenb / ndwolenb / woolenb
46656 (36^3) wupes / ndwupes / wuupes
how much - k'wen / nk'wen / k'wek'wen
to count (tr.) - xeken / nexeken / xexeken
Basically, these are cardinality predicates; they would most literally translates as things like "to be a group of seven things". (The transitivized forms mean "to make into x things"; or in other words, "to divide into x parts".) Thus, it is easy to say things like
lelatqem txe nk'ap-la
six-0 DET coyote-0=ART
There are six coyotes.
or
tak txe ndexwuken nk'ap-la
go.along-0 DET four coyote-0=ART
Those four coyotes are walking by (something).
(NOTE: That second example may look lik
... keep reading on reddit β‘All languages have ambiguities of some kind, whether through homophones, multiple meanings on one word, or semantic or syntactic imprecision. All languages therefore have a way of dealing with these ambiguities when they come up, through whichever means. What kind of ambiguities might arise in your language, and how might native speakers clarify what they meant?
Fysh A has the following basic numeric roots, which cover the powers of 2 up to 256:
1 zo
2 la
4 xu
8 cea
16 reu
32 mei
64 hwo
128 keu
256 'lama
Excluding <'lama>, these can be juxtaposed in any order to indicate addition, allowing the formation of any number from 1 to 255 via essentially naming the "on-bits" in its binary representation. For example, numbers from 1 to 12 are:
zo
la
la zo
xu
xu zo
xu la
xu la zo
cea
cea zo
cea la
cea la zo
cea xu
and so on--or any permutation of those. (E.g., 7 can be expressed as xu la zo, la xu zo, la zo xu, zo la xu, zo xu la, or xu zo la).
256 is just <'lama>, but going higher requires the preposition <ni> to add on the remainder; thus, 257 is <'lama ni zo>, while 511 is <'lama ni keu hwo mei reu cea xu la zo>
To express 512, the preposition <'hpinei> "perpendicular to, multiplied by" is used: <la 'hpinei 'lama>, or "two times 256" / "two 256es". 513 would be <la 'hpinei 'lama ni zo>, and so on.
This pattern continues up to <'lama 'hpinei 'lama> (256 * 256, or 65536), after which the traditional system counting system breaks down, as there are no basic numerals for larger numbers. Larger numbers can be expressed by multiplication (e.g., <`lama ni xu 'hpine 'lama> = 66560, <'lama 'hpine 'lama hpine 'lama> = 16777216), but such expressions can be syntactically (and thus mathematically) ambiguous, and feel more like "doing arithmetic" than simply expressing a number. Fysh mathematicians have developed various systems for unambiguously specifying larger numbers, analogous to our own scientific notation, or simply reading out ordered digits.
Written numerals are base 4. Traditional Fysh A writing is done in the form of knotted cords, which are read by feel, with knots tied in the bight. Two types of knots are used to indicate units and groups of 2, with a 3 being encoded as a unit and a 2 in a single bight. A space in the cord indicates a zero, and sequential digit knots encode a little-ending base-4 number, of arbitrary size. This has pushed literate Fysh A culture towards preferring a little-endian recitation of numeral components (e.g., <la xu cea> for 14 rather than <cea xu la>), as it permits reading more quickly--big-endian recitation would require feeling the entire digit string and then reading it out backwards--for small numbers, although multiples of 256 must still come first. While th
... keep reading on reddit β‘noam chomsky said something funny here https://youtu.be/fOIM1_xOSro?t=179
BUT i think noam chomsky was only meaning a dumb language with no purpose??
this language seems not dumb at all may be??
'Iβd recommend you also look into philosophical conlangs like r/lojban, which are designed to completely eliminate ambiguity in communication, and have potential applications in machine learning and human-machine communication. For example, imagine laws and court cases being all in Lojban, such that the facts and testimonies of a legal case could be fed into a powerful AI, which could spit out a reliable and completely unbiased verdict in minutes. Missed an important mitigating factor? Ok. Express it in Lojban, throw it into the mix, and run the computer again. Make this computerβs logical maneuvers and all the Lojban data it uses for them public and open-access, as a safeguard against rigging the algorithm. Say goodbye to bribed judges, jury duty, and legal loopholes exploitable by lawyers.'
and this response may be is interesting too??
'The idea is comprehensible. It's what Leibniz, Frege, and many others hoped for from regimented invented languages. And if by communication, one means communication of truth conditions, there's something to be said for using regimented invented languages, as we do in science...and maybe sometimes when formulating technical legal requirements. But polysemy is often a good thing.
If we had to form a clear thought with a precise truth condition before we spoke or wrote a sentence, I'm not sure how much linguistic communication there would be. Luckily, kids are pretty good at seeing past polysemy and homophonies (lexical and structural) and figuring out what people were trying to say.
And how would anyone teach these invented languages to people who didn't already have a natural language? But if they already have a natural language, what's the actual payoff of them bothering to learn and use the invented ones?'
Umberto Eco had long been famous as an exponent of the theory of semiotics when his novel was published in 1980. Since then, Eco has also become known as a writer of fiction, and the relation between this work and his theoretical semiotics is a tantalizing subject. The title The Name of the Rose reminds us directly of the famous passage in Romeo and Juliet which has traditionally served as an argument for the conventionality of linguistic signs in Saussure's sense. The passage has often been quoted as a paraphrase of the most essential semiotic problem:
What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;
A juxtaposition of Eco's La struttura assente (1968) against La nome della rosa offers a rare opportunity to compare semiotic theory and practice from the same pen. The novel has its own merits, but an attempt to read and to understand it in the light of the earlier theory is revealing. It shows that this work of fiction turns the abstract principles of Eco's semiotics into the concrete features of a narrative. In doing so, The Name of the Rose raises to explicitness semiotic patterns that have always functioned in this literary genre, i.e., it is not just a novel but a kind of meta-novel that takes as its real subject the exposure of narrative patterns in previous literature. It does so through parody, allusion, and playful distortion of conventional narrative techniques.
The interrelation of literary categories
The Name of the Rose explores the semiotic features of four conventional categories of the novel as they have developed in Western narrative tradition. It is first of all a detective novel, but it is also an historical novel situated in the late Middle Ages. Furthermore, some of the details of central importance remind the reader of the traditional treasure hunt story, and in as far as the plot is the narrator's story, the whole can also be called a novel of initiation in the sense of a Bildungs- und Entwicklungsroman.
The influence which the two main genre types exercise on the novel is different in its different chapters. The happenings at the Papal court in Avignon, the heretical movement in Northern Italy, and the court of the Inquisition, for example, are predominantly historical; the investigations of the protagonist, his analyses of the murders, and his various discoveries are more on the detective side. In general, however, the two types of novel cannot be separated. This is the case even with su
... keep reading on reddit β‘
I don't want to step on anybody's toes here, but the amount of non-dad jokes here in this subreddit really annoys me. First of all, dad jokes CAN be NSFW, it clearly says so in the sub rules. Secondly, it doesn't automatically make it a dad joke if it's from a conversation between you and your child. Most importantly, the jokes that your CHILDREN tell YOU are not dad jokes. The point of a dad joke is that it's so cheesy only a dad who's trying to be funny would make such a joke. That's it. They are stupid plays on words, lame puns and so on. There has to be a clever pun or wordplay for it to be considered a dad joke.
Again, to all the fellow dads, I apologise if I'm sounding too harsh. But I just needed to get it off my chest.
Lojban is a constructed language that aims at clarity. As a language it is less syntactically ambiguous, contains no homophones and has many other features intended to reduce both semantic and grammatical ambiguity.
The big problem with trying to train an NLP on Lojban is, of course, is corpus size and scale. Although many side by side translations texts into Lojban exist, they have nothing like the scope that would be necessary to teach a neural net a language.
I think it's entirely possible that, if we did have a large enough corpus, a computer trained on Lojban might be able to achieve things a standard machine learning setup can't. Still we run into that fundamental barrier, corpus size.
I can't help but think though that there is something here- an opportunity for a skilled research team in this area, if only they could locate it. Perhaps some intermediate case, like Esperanto, might be more possible?
When it comes to Stanley Kubrick's movies, the mid and late period entries in his catalogue can give an impression of having been extensively workshopped in so many different conceptual directions that it is tough to identify any simple, linear metrics along which they can be comprehensively graded or understood. They often encompass enough concurrent strains of narrative, thematic, aesthetic and technical interplay that it becomes easy to neglect one in favour of another (or many in favour of a few). At the most immediate levels of engagement, there is a constant temptation to surrender our sense of conscious apprehension and give in to the spellbinding iconography with which the films envelope us. Across repeat viewings, as their atmospheres become more familiar, we increasingly notice their more unannounced, subcutaneous qualities. They are inexhaustible, ten-for-the-price-of-one experiential megastructures that almost give the sensation of interfacing with a polymorphous, psycho-responsive entity. As a result of their wealth of detail, there are aspects to the films that can go relatively underappreciated as we get wonderfully 'lost' within their gorgeous, labyrinthine walls. Of these, I think one of the most routinely overlooked and undervalued through-lines of Kubrick's movies is their cerebral application of metafictional awareness.
Most of Kubrick's movies from 2001: A Space Odyssey onward display a diverse-yet-distinctive brand of cinema-centric metafictional qualities; marking them with a reflexive consciousness of the medium that manifests not just in terms of style, but as part of their narratives and themes. In A Clockwork Orange, the protagonist is forced to endure acts of violence being projected onto a cinema screen, just like the movie's actual theatre audience. In Full Metal Jacket, one of the Marines refers to the battlefield conflict as "Vietnam: The Movie", while being taped by a camera crew. There is a sense in which Kubrick films are movies about "the movies" (bringing to mind Jack Nicholson's recount of Kubrick telling him that a film is a "photograph of a photograph").
While it would be reductive to say that these meta-cinematic factors have all been employed for the same purpose in each of the individual films, I do think it is in Eyes Wide Shut that this set of ideas reaches its developmental apex as a fully refined 'experience enhancement' device. Whereas the prior films seem to periodically foreground their me
... keep reading on reddit β‘I. Introduction
After some six years, I've finally gotten this language into a state that I like. It used to be a typical baby's first Romlang, but through some deft combination of my hatred of paradigm tables and actually learning how languages work, it's become something that I hope is both realistic and⦠somewhat odd.
The Velmarin Popular Latin Standard (Velmarina Nimmina Latina Veusyungoa; ιζ΅·δΊΊζ°ζ±ζζ¨ζΊθͺ) is an a posteriori language that is predominately Latinate (though not Romance) in its phonology and vocabulary, but with many Sinoxenic loanwords and a strong Sinitic (and East and Southeast Asian in general) influence on its verbs, adjectives, and syntax.
In universe, it's spoken as a first language by about 60~65% of the population (about three million people) of the Velmarin Empire (Sua Maesta Re Publica Aousta Velmarina; ιζ΅·εΌ΅ηε ¬εδΉε¨ε΄), an archipelagic city-state about two days' sail south of Hong Kong. Latin speakers, predominately from liminal areas along the Danube and Rhine, first arrived in the archipelago via the Indian Ocean during a short window between the early Severan dynasty and the early Third Century Crisis (ca. 190β240 α΄α΄), and have been isolated from linguistic developments in broader Romance ever since.
II. Phonology
The Popular Latin Standard is phonologically conservative, retaining velars before front vowels and /w/ and /j/ as approximants (often [Ξ²Λ] and [ΚΛ]), except around sonorants.
Consonants
| Labial | Alveolar | Palatal | Velar | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nasal | m | n | Ε | |
| Stop | p b | t d | k g | |
| Affricate | (tΙ) (dΚ) | |||
| Fricative | f v | s | (Ι) | x |
| Approx. | l | j | w | |
| Rhotic | ΙΎ (r) |
Voiceless stops are lightly aspirated.
/tj dj sj/ palatalise to [tΙ dΚ Ι] (younger speakers are in the process of depalatalising these to [ts dz s]). Geminated /ΙΎ/ is produced as a trill [r].
Some speakers have difficulty differentiating /ΙΎ/ and /l/; others can differentiate them, but do so by producing /l/ as [n] and /ΙΎ/ as [ΙΎ ~ ΙΊ ~ Ι ~ l]. This latter group of speakers generally produce stop-liquid clusters (/tΙΎ/, /bl/, etc) as voiceless aspirated stops (/tΚ°/, /pΚ°/, etc).
Vowels
| Front | Back | |
|---|---|---|
| Close | i iΛ | u uΛ |
| Mid | e eΛ | o oΛ |
| Open | a aΛ |
The extent to which long vowels and geminate consonants are phonemic is debated, but both do affect the pitch accent. At the very least, /eΛ ~ ei/ and /oΛ ~ ou/ are phonemic, and most speakers distinguish /a/ from /aΛ ~ ΙΛ/ in key syll
... keep reading on reddit β‘More on ShΓΊyh
Somewhat outdated phonology:
https://www.reddit.com/r/conlangs/comments/nav9p5/unnamed_language_wip_rate_my_phonemesphonotactics/
Verbs in ShΓΊyh
ShΓΊyh [Κu:Γ§] is spoken as the native language by a large minority in the Dual Monarchy of Tiras-Bangkesa, and is one of the several official languages of the state. It's not restricted to a particular cultural or ethnic group, and is spoken by both dwarfs, humans and elves.
ShΓΊyh originates as a trade pidgin between human Valfuan speakers and dwarfish Post-Chesaric speakers. Now, this means that it was originally a very simple language both grammatically and phonetically, but over the 1000+ years that have gone by since then, it's attained a good deal of complexity on its own. Especially in its phonetics, as part of an areal tendency towards consonant clustering and vowel ellision.
Fun traits and general stuff:
- SVO word order
- Verbs, adverbs, nouns and adjectives are all distinct lexical classes
- Weird, weird phonology, see the link above for an (outdated) version of it.
- Rich derivational morphology
- In contrast: minimal inflectional morphology, with very little affixation.
- However, there's a large number of clitics, including Pronominal clitics, Demonstrative clitics, Deictic clitics, Aspectual clitics, Expletive clitics, Ezafe clitics, etc.
- A simple, but weird verb system (covered here)
ShΓΊyh draws inspiration from Klallam (phonetics), Shabaraki (clitics), Standard Average European (overall syntactic and grammatical structure), and lastly Nen (verb system).
Verbs in general
There are roughly speaking three types of verbs in ShΓΊyh: Intransitives "b-"-verbs, Intransitive Stative Positionals, and Transitives.
Transitive verbs make up the vast, vast majority of verbs. Most verbs which would be intransitive in other languages (like "to run", "to sleep") are in ShΓΊyh morphologically transitive. How does that make sense, you ask? Well, in ShΓΊyh, there's an INTRANSITIVE suffix /-(Ι)Ιa/, which detransitivizes transitive verbs. Verbs like "sleep" and "run", which are logically intransitive always take this suffix. Think of it like the language having a rule that you can't say "I ran". Instead you have to say "I ran (myself)"
Verbs in ShΓΊyh all have a rather limited morphology.
All verbs distinguish Imperfect and Perfect, although exactly how this distinction is made d
... keep reading on reddit β‘The doctor says it terminal.
The nurse asked the rabbit, βwhat is your blood type?β
βI am probably a type Oβ said the rabbit.
Alot of great jokes get posted here! However just because you have a joke, doesn't mean it's a dad joke.
THIS IS NOT ABOUT NSFW, THIS IS ABOUT LONG JOKES, BLONDE JOKES, SEXUAL JOKES, KNOCK KNOCK JOKES, POLITICAL JOKES, ETC BEING POSTED IN A DAD JOKE SUB
Try telling these sexual jokes that get posted here, to your kid and see how your spouse likes it.. if that goes well, Try telling one of your friends kid about your sex life being like Coca cola, first it was normal, than light and now zero , and see if the parents are OK with you telling their kid the "dad joke"
I'm not even referencing the NSFW, I'm saying Dad jokes are corny, and sometimes painful, not sexual
So check out r/jokes for all types of jokes
r/unclejokes for dirty jokes
r/3amjokes for real weird and alot of OC
r/cleandadjokes If your really sick of seeing not dad jokes in r/dadjokes
Punchline !
Edit: this is not a post about NSFW , This is about jokes, knock knock jokes, blonde jokes, political jokes etc being posted in a dad joke sub
Edit 2: don't touch the thermostat
Do your worst!
How the hell am I suppose to know when itβs raining in Sweden?
Mathematical puns makes me number
The following is a compact version of my personal theory system for approaching cut-up.
Doubtless this is a little weird for this sub, but things have been quiet here since I last posted, and perhaps someone will be interested.
This is a copypaste of my own post on r/cut_up with the relevant details changed; I apologise if there are any remaining loose ends.
Obviously, for people who are not already into this shit, the main questions will be "what am I looking at?" and "Is this an Emperor's New Clothes phenomenon like other abstract art, whose proponents are either paranoids or posturing as connoisseurs while pretending not to see that it's worthless?" Part of the point of this guide is to counter the general obscurantist perception of the medium. I direct anyone preoccupied with such questions to the sections on "Coherence" and "Subjectivity/Objectivity". Mild cut-up can come quite close to regular writing, and comic value can be extracted from even fairly incoherent text. That said, it will not be for everyone, and I welcome your scorn.
The Essay:
***I have bolded abundantly; whenever I have used a glossed term. If any of the terms which aren't defined here aren't intelligible by context, I am happy to elaborate.***...
Anyway:
Differences in Approach: The most salient factor is probably how hands-on you like to get with the text. The user who generates most of the content on this r/cut_up tends to manipulate text at the macro level using software, producing content somewhere between prose and visual art. Conversely, I like to manipulate text by writing or typing with a machine, on a very micro level, in the course of which I'll copy the text multiple times, get very familiar with small, buried associations and make micro-level changes. Generally I incorporate a shitload of reading and rereading into the writing process. Both approaches are very valid, and I would not be able to produce the kind of visual content I mentioned above using my approach. I have also dabbled in the visual approach elsewhere. The second most salient factor is probably the priority given to coherence, which I discuss below. Other factors like source-selection, number of sources etc. don't require that much explanation, so I won't go into them here. You can probably form a fair idea of how to approach these yourself.
A note on the definition and spirit of 'cut-up': The term "cut-up" can refer both to the specific technique of ph
... keep reading on reddit β‘We told her she can lean on us for support. Although, we are going to have to change her driver's license, her height is going down by a foot. I don't want to go too far out on a limb here but it better not be a hack job.
Ants donβt even have the concept fathers, let alone a good dad joke. Keep r/ants out of my r/dadjokes.
But no, seriously. I understand rule 7 is great to have intelligent discussion, but sometimes it feels like 1 in 10 posts here is someone getting upset about the jokes on this sub. Let the mods deal with it, they regulate the sub.
They were cooked in Greece.
Hi all, I'm trying to write a speech for a linguist's wedding, and I think I've written something nice and meaningful about syntactic ambiguity - but I need one or two examples of romantic syntactically ambiguous sentences. So far the only one I've been able to think of is "he loves you more than anyone else" which can mean 'he loves you more than he loves anyone else' or also 'he loves you more than anyone else loves you'. If anyone has some suggestions of sentences, or some strategies for coming up with more it would be greatly appreciated - I'm a bit stuck!
