RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register


Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2007,23:53   


What specific issue you are questioning? The idea she understanding is not. I swam near mantra ray in east coast of United states but koan bear I yet have to see. The fruiting bodies the fungi for to have become that way because either accident or benefit. All questions I have answers.

You have had to change your first question like this:

What specific issue are you questioning?

I would make such order of words. Slavonic languages are synthetic languages and it means that subject, verb and object do not have fixed place in the sentence. You can change their position without changing the meaning of the sentence. It is something you cannot do in English/German which are analytical languages - changing position of subject and object will change the meaning of the sentence. "The reverend ridiculed darwinists" has different meaning as "Darwinists ridiculed the reverend". In our language
"Duchovny sa vysmieval darwinistom" or "Darwinistom sa vysmieval duchovny" has the same meaning  because of suffix "-om" "darwinist-om". By this suffix I know that the first word in the sentence is an object. We have often hidden subject. You say "He was there" and I say "Bol tam". Because of the hidden subject I can very easily make a mistake like in introductionary sentence. If national socialist darwinist like Arden Chatfield  would start to ridicule synthetic languages as "undedeveloped" he should have to consider that Greek and Latin are syntetic languages too.


The idea she understanding is not.

I wouldn't make such a mistake. Obviously you are missing an important point that in Slavonic languages there are some differences between sentences depending on who said them. Woman use different suffixes as man. That's why our languages were called by one prominent linguist as "erotic languages". From the written sentence "I came home tired" I don't know if woman or man wrote it. But I say "Pris-iel som domov unaven-y" (notice also missing subject I - Ja)  and a woman say "Pris-la som domov unaven-a". You see there are two different suffixes. If national darwinist like Arden Chatfield would start to ridicule Slavonic languages as "ancient" ones you should have notice him that according a hypothesis a language using many suffixes prove the contrary that the language is "new".



If you check my grammar I will have no problem with it. To be frankly it would be more instructive as many stupid responses here.


I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin



Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic
