Activity for Moshi
| Type | On... | Excerpt | Status | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Suggested Edit | Post #279047 |
Suggested edit: Tagged as French (more) |
helpful | about 4 years ago |
| Suggested Edit | Post #279046 |
Suggested edit: Tagged (more) |
helpful | about 4 years ago |
| Suggested Edit | Post #279045 |
Suggested edit: Tagged as English (more) |
helpful | about 4 years ago |
| Edit | Post #278942 | Initial revision | — | about 4 years ago |
| Answer | — |
A: What tag hierarchy and ontology should Linguistics use? > So what is the proposed ontology for the Languages & Linguistics site? I foresee a category for each language and then, eventually, subcategories for the rest. Just so we're on the same page, we don't have subcategories. Categories are what are listed here, i.e. Q&A, Resources, and Meta. I assum... (more) |
— | about 4 years ago |
| Edit | Post #278802 |
Post edited: Tables work now :) |
— | about 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #278906 |
@user8078 I can only guess at their methods. Perhaps the structure of the word קנז was the same as the way a profession word was formed (eg. in English, even if you didn't know "hunt" you could still see that "hunt" is a root of "hunter" off the bat). Perhaps there are archaic words with the same roo... (more) |
— | about 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #278906 |
@user8078 I'm not sure what you're asking for. It would be the other way around, קנז is (in theory) derived from an unused root that means hunt. (more) |
— | about 4 years ago |
| Edit | Post #278906 |
Post edited: Removed unnecessary part of quotation |
— | about 4 years ago |
| Edit | Post #278906 | Initial revision | — | about 4 years ago |
| Answer | — |
A: What does "unused root" mean? From ariel.org > What is meant by “unused” root is that though the root of the word has a specific meaning, you will not find that root meaning in literature. Only its derived meanings will be found. (more) |
— | about 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #277080 |
For your example I would suggest it being in Rigorous Science on SciSpec (which is basically our worldbuilding site), since it's much more about the building than about the theory. This is especially because the conlang is likely not going to match any case system in real languages. On the other hand... (more) |
— | about 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #278802 |
@Lundin it's not the source of the -i demonymic suffix though (more) |
— | about 4 years ago |
| Edit | Post #278802 |
Post edited: removed Israelian/Israeli from comparisons, since Israelian is substandard |
— | about 4 years ago |
| Edit | Post #278802 |
Post edited: |
— | about 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #278797 |
@MonicaCellio In that case, the name for the country was formed from the name of the people, Latin "Germania" (land of the Germans) -> "Germany" (more) |
— | about 4 years ago |
| Edit | Post #278802 |
Post edited: Table doesn't work so I reformatted it |
— | about 4 years ago |
| Edit | Post #278802 | Initial revision | — | about 4 years ago |
| Answer | — |
A: Why are there different suffixes for people of different countries in English? tl;dr, English just borrowed other languages' suffixes I shouldn't really come as too much of a surprise to know that the irregularity comes from borrowing endings from multiple different languages at different times. From this article on linglish.net, these are the origins of the primary suffixes... (more) |
— | about 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #278773 |
@Peter not at the moment. Just repost the question there and link here to the other one. (more) |
— | about 4 years ago |
| Edit | Post #278691 | Initial revision | — | about 4 years ago |
| Answer | — |
A: ～ません versus ～ないです After researching a bit more, I found this StackExchange answer. Their answer is very informative, and includes a partial translation of a Japanese research paper (which I'm sadly not at the level of being able to read). It concludes > ～ません and ～ないです are semantically equivalent, but ～ないです is softe... (more) |
— | about 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #278652 |
Also, you picked the wrong form after your edit. ない**の**です would be situational. (it's also not a conjugation in the strict sense but that's tangential) (more) |
— | about 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #278652 |
@Razetime As I said in my original post, ～ないです is ～ない + です, it's not a special form of it's own. (more) |
— | about 4 years ago |
| Edit | Post #278689 | Initial revision | — | about 4 years ago |
| Question | — |
Feature request: Ruby text As a Japanese learner, I think it would be really helpful if posts could contain ruby text. While I would use it mostly for Japanese, it's not something specific to it. I can see it being used for other languages as well, where currently I see people adding romanizations after the text, eg. here. ... (more) |
— | about 4 years ago |
| Edit | Post #277361 |
Post edited: |
— | about 4 years ago |
| Edit | Post #277361 |
Post edited: |
— | about 4 years ago |
| Edit | Post #277361 |
Post edited: tag fix |
— | about 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #278652 |
Also, on Yin's blog, look under "Negative Form". ~ない form is there. (more) |
— | about 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #278652 |
You misquoted the Quora answer (though thanks for the link anyway). That page doesn't say anythI g about ないですbeing explanatory. (のです is what makes it an explanation). (more) |
— | about 4 years ago |
| Edit | Post #278643 | Initial revision | — | about 4 years ago |
| Question | — |
～ません versus ～ないです As far as my knowledge of Japanese goes, there are two ways to form polite negative forms of verbs, the direct conjugation ～ません and the plain negative conjugation ～ない with です added. Take for instance everyone's favorite word, 食べる (eat). This can be conjugated as: Negative, Plain: 食べない Negati... (more) |
— | about 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #278583 |
I'm not sure that classifiers are what the question asker was looking for. While I can't say that I actually know what they're asking (and I know no Thai at all), the way it's phrased makes it sound like they are asking for either a question particle or an interrogative pronoun. (more) |
— | about 4 years ago |
| Edit | Post #278400 | Post edited | — | about 4 years ago |
| Suggested Edit | Post #278400 |
Suggested edit: Changed link to a more readable form (more) |
helpful | about 4 years ago |
| Edit | Post #277374 |
Post edited: Clarified |
— | about 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #278403 |
While the article is really interesting in its own right, I don't think this answers my question. My question was about the origin of the 'masu' form, which the article doesn't touch upon (the verb forms it does touch upon are simply the usual "make the sentence more verbose" form of polite speech, r... (more) |
— | about 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #278403 |
Could you provide some links to that research? I tried searching but only manages to find sites for the usage of keigo, not its history. (more) |
— | about 4 years ago |
| Edit | Post #277339 | Post edited | — | about 4 years ago |
| Edit | Post #277357 | Post edited | — | about 4 years ago |
| Suggested Edit | Post #277357 |
Suggested edit: Added some organizational tags that describe what the post contains (more) |
helpful | about 4 years ago |
| Edit | Post #278156 | Post edited | — | about 4 years ago |
| Suggested Edit | Post #278156 |
Suggested edit: (more) |
helpful | about 4 years ago |
| Edit | Post #278158 |
Post edited: Updated for Monica's clarification |
— | about 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #278158 |
@MonicaCellio Ah, I see. While it might be a "don't do it" as a recommendation, there's no grammar rule against having differing plurality between the primary and subordinate clauses. I've edited my answer. (more) |
— | about 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #278150 |
@msh210 If you're asking that, why not ask about the *petty bourgeois* or *mad dog*? Those are also phrases without a specific idiomatic meaning. (more) |
— | about 4 years ago |
| Edit | Post #278158 | Initial revision | — | about 4 years ago |
| Answer | — |
A: Primary clause uses singular, subordinate co-reference is plural, what verb to use in English? > The general rule I learned is to ignore subordinate clauses when resolving cases like this. The "outer" sentence, which contains the verb, is "The oath he swore (verb) just fluff to him", and so the correct verb is "was". That is correct, "was" is the grammatically correct choice in your example... (more) |
— | about 4 years ago |
| Edit | Post #278105 | Post edited | — | about 4 years ago |