Imeimei

RSS
Sep 1

azetgrisu:

dedalvs the carpets of my travels. First is the hotel, rest are from the MTCC

Sep 1

lylaha:

Lil Egyptian Gods by Silverfox5213

IM SOBBING ABT THESE

Sep 1

WHEN ONE IS EXPECTING

imyourdestinymotherfucker:

Today, I bought this book (for my sister, lets clarify that now ‘cause the only way I’m going anywhere near sperm is if I fall into a vat of it):

image

BUT WAIT

THIS:

image

IS:

image

SOME:

image

OF THE BRILLIANT:

image

STUFF IT HAS IN IT:

image

Sep 1

o-eheu:

-Beniaminus

(Image Source)

Sep 1
animalstalkinginallcaps:

THAT’S RIGHT. TAKE IT ALL IN. I HAVEN’T BEEN HITTING THE BOWFLEX ALL WINTER FOR NOTHING, YOU KNOW.
OGLE IT. OGLE MY BODACIOUS BODY.

animalstalkinginallcaps:

THAT’S RIGHT. TAKE IT ALL IN. I HAVEN’T BEEN HITTING THE BOWFLEX ALL WINTER FOR NOTHING, YOU KNOW.

OGLE IT. OGLE MY BODACIOUS BODY.

Sep 1
captcreate:

If the Sun can find sunglasses that fit it, why can’t I find some that fit my large melon head?

captcreate:

If the Sun can find sunglasses that fit it, why can’t I find some that fit my large melon head?

(Source: kulakarkasi)

Sep 1

A Conlanger's Thesaurus

This is a useful tool for conlangers who are looking to craft a lexicon and don’t want to simply relexify their own language.

(Source: best-of-memes)

In Dothraki, 'qoy qoyi' means 'blood of my blood' what would be the English equivalent of that because in an episode one of the Dothraki woman called a man 'qoy qoyi' and online it says that it is 'the style of address between Khal and bloodrider.'

Qoy means “blood” in Dothraki. By adding the suffix -i, you form qoyi, which means “of blood” or “of the blood”. So literally it means “Blood of the blood”. What’s left off is one more word, anhoon, which means “of mine”. The word is left off because it’s understood, and when such possession is understood, it need not be expressed. The full expression, then, would be Qoy qoyi anhoon, which literally means “Blood of the blood from me”.

So that’s literally what it means. As to how it’s used, it depends on the source. In the books, it is, indeed, used by a khal with his bloodriders. A khal names a bloodrider because he agrees that he is “the blood of his blood”. But, of course, literally the expression could simply mean that two people are related. It’s a stronger statement when the two aren’t related, because, in effect, what one is saying is that the bond between the two is so strong it’s as if they were related. But one could say to someone one is actually related to. In that case, it’s just a simple statement of the biological bond the two share.

Consequently, Dany could say to qoy qoyi to Drogo, or vice versa, since a marriage bond is as strong as lineage, but a father could say it to a son; a brother to a sister, etc.

Hope that answers your question! Thanks for the ask. :)

Oh God, that ice cream post you just posted traumatized me. My professor spent an hour and a half lecturing us that ice cream is a concept and does not actually exist.

If your professor said specifically that ice cream doesn’t exist, but not anything else, then it stands to reason that, in fact, ice cream is the only thing that exists, and it’s something we should all aspire to.

In all honesty, though, if your professor was throwing shade at ice cream, it’s time for you to look for a new class. Ain’t no one got time for that. Be better served going and eating some ice cream.

Okay, I’ll play!

I’ve been tagged by itsnicolemunoz

(I’ve done this one before (twice), so I guess I’ll have to choose ten new facts.)

Write 10 facts about yourself and pass on to 10 followers.

  1. I was once arrested at Disneyland for panhandling. I was asking for a quarter to call home (cell phones were not commonplace yet). It was, if I remember right, 1995.
  2. I cannot stand the feeling of most surface, but, more than anything else, cardboard is the worst thing in the world.
  3. I’m a huge fan of Northern Exposure.
  4. I once went bungee jumping. My dream is to go skydiving. thisallegra has promised me to take me on my 40th birthday.
  5. As a young child, I was both madly in love with and insanely jealous of Tiffany Brissette.
  6. The first CD I ever owned was Shaq Diesel. The first CDs I bought with my own money were Soundgarden’s Superunknown and Bon Jovi’s Crossroads (a greatest hits album).
  7. I’m going to make this claim: I am the first person in the history of the world to visit, for the very first time—and in this order—London, Ontario and then London, England in a two month span.
  8. I won a radio call-in contest for tickets to an advance screening of the movie Strange Days, which was being shown at the Chinese Theater in Hollywood. That’s the first time I’d ever been there. The second was for the third season premiere party for HBO’s Game of Thrones.
  9. I am currently reading lbardugo's Ruin and Rising. I recommend it.
  10. I hold my high school’s all time record for pull-ups, because they stopped doing pull-ups (and, consequently, keeping track of the record) the year I graduated. I did 24.

The ten followers I am tagging are: thisallegra azetgrisu musingsofaraven christophoronomicon zomborgs lbardugo gainesm sanguinaria armyangel1986 n1kk117

Hi! Re: conlangs having linguistic value, I'm getting different perspectives from different sites. Right now it seems to be a battle pinning down what people actually mean with the term "constructed language". Just out of curiosity, what's your perspective?

There’s an obvious—and quite fruitful—dissertation waiting to be done on conlangers and what their understanding of language is. It should be interesting to the field of linguistics (not every subfield, but certain subfields) what conlangers do when they create a language, because it will reveal what humans understand language to be—what facets they  believe to be mutable, and which they don’t. First time conlangers are especially interesting, as it’s a very clear representation of what a human thinks a language can do. Many conlangs will be quite varied in how they do subject-verb agreement, number marking systems, pronoun inventories, etc., but few if any first-time conlangs, at least, do anything different with subordination (i.e. different from their L1). That’s interesting. Ordinarily, linguists think of speakers as not having a refined understanding of their own grammar—and, in general, this is usually true: most speakers are not consciously aware of what they’re doing with the language they use. Conlangers, however, do have a conscious understanding of certain parts of grammar. I think it should be inherently interesting to linguists to survey conlangers and figure out which parts are likely to be different, and which parts remain invisible, as this could reveal something interesting about humans and language generally—specifically, what we think of it, how we interact with it, and what assumptions we make about it.

That’s one major area of study that I think is worth looking into. Other questions, e.g. how much a human brain can actually handle when it comes to learning specific features, specific syntactic structures, etc., seem like they could benefit from the use of conlangs, but to me, at least, the questions are far less interesting, as I think the answers are unimportant. That’s just my 2¢, though.

Okay, il play!

itsnicolemunoz:

I’ve been tagged by azetgrisu

Write 10 facts about yourself and pass on to 10 followers.

1. I am currently reading “Just Kids” by: Patti Smith
2. The song I’ve been listening to the most lately is “Better Days” by: Graham Nash
3. “A young doctors notebook” is a great mini series and…

therealhamster:

no really i need to know

therealhamster:

no really i need to know

This album is better than its reputation.

This album is better than its reputation.