Like with Europe, America share a similar culture. The European culture you could say.

Sorrowless said:
Like with Europe, America share a similar culture. The European culture you could say.

American culture is distinct from most European cultures in a number of ways. The most notable amongst these differences are actually encapsulated in our very own Constitution.

We borrowed bits and pieces from England, to be sure, and we've picked and chosen certain aspects of certain other cultures to incorporate into our own, depending largely on where you are in the USA.

It should be noted, however, that culture is necessarily competitive in nature, not cooperative. Just because we picked bits here and bits there from other cultures to incorporate into our own, does not mean that we allowed those other cultures to somehow subsume our own.

True. The American people are distinct in several ways. But it's also good to know that most people who have immigrated to the US are European.

"Ad blocker interference detected!

Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected."

this must have been an overnight change as this is the first i've ever seen this on any wikia site.

"We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers"

which includes blocking pretty much entire articles from being viewed? that's not a modified experience, that's a freaking censored experience that says "pay us or get off our site!"

Omega (enemy)

and nope, not a simple matter of allowing cookies.

treos said:
"Ad blocker interference detected!

Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected."

this must have been an overnight change as this is the first i've ever seen this on any wikia site.

"We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers"

which includes blocking pretty much entire articles from being viewed? that's not a modified experience, that's a freaking censored experience that says "pay us or get off our site!"

Omega (enemy)

and nope, not a simple matter of allowing cookies.

These are right up there with "Forced login to use this site" that you see on Pinterest, Facebook and other sites, And Youtube channels where the personality rattles on about some deal-of-the-century at the beginning or end of their video after you've just sat through three or four ads that played before the video.

EDIT: If they really want our ad revenue they should make ads worth a damn. Viral ads and "Annoyance ads" (Think P&G ones that unmute and autoplay.. Or transparent GMC ads that take up an entire screen and hide their X button) are the reason a lot of us use adblockers in the first place.

FoxFourOhFour said:
And Youtube channels where the personality rattles on about some deal-of-the-century at the beginning or end of their video after you've just sat through three or four ads that played before the video.

those are annoying as they're actually part of the video and thus can't be blocked like normal ads. thankfully, i don't usually visit any youtube videos like that aside from Suit Yourself but all he does is push those coffee cup designs he comes up with and those are all the way at the end of the video.

treos said:
"Ad blocker interference detected!

Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected."

In other words, "Browser security system that keeps us from serving up MALWARE to your computer at our leisure detected, and that pisses us off because we make money from these MALWARE infested ads and we couldn't care less about whether your computer is still usable or not, so goddamnit either let us infect your computer with MALWARE or gtfo."

InannaEloah said:
In other words, "Browser security system that keeps us from serving up MALWARE to your computer at our leisure detected, and that pisses us off because we make money from these MALWARE infested ads and we couldn't care less about whether your computer is still usable or not, so goddamnit either let us infect your computer with MALWARE or gtfo."

well...yeah, theres that too. it's some combination of dodging the irritation ads always lead to and the security side of things as to why i always block them.

That's why I use UBlock Origin and Privacy Badger to block all that BS on YouTube and other sites.

well, wikia isn't blocking me now but if they've pulled that crap before then theres no way of knowing if or when they might do it again.

well, their site, their rules i suppose but i really don't see how forcing something no one wants on them could be considered a good move. especially if it's something that WILL drive away a good chunk of the userbase. that's money and people being driven away by greed.

edit: then again, people use facebook knowing facebook sells their personal info to ad companies. so some people probably just don't give a f about being regarded as products to be traded and sold.

edit2: was just reading about the spell Ultima on that wiki and saw the following.

tl;dr the spell was ruined because some idiot programmer refused to fix a bug in the program.

i wonder if they fired him over that. i don't blame Sakaguchi for being irritated by this. i'd be pretty irritated too if someone purposely left a part of a game broken, or bugged in this case, like that.

i'd stick to more useful spells in that game after learning about this.

When the ads automatically keep the window scrolled to view them and keep snapping back when you scroll down defeating the purpose of the site (I'm looking at YOU, Wikia).

FoxFourOhFour said:
..."Forced login to use this site" that you see on Pinterest, Facebook and other sites...

It's a bit of a lengthy process to do, but (this is in Firefox, I don't know if you can do this in other browsers or not) you can right click on the login notice on Pinterest and FB and click "inspect element" to bring up a bunch of html at the bottom of the page. When you hover your mouse over a bit of html code it will highlight an area of the page, and when you highlight the login thingy, just right-click again and click "delete node" and then click the little x at the top right corner of the html thingy, and the warning will be gone and you'll be able to browse to your heart's content.

I've only tried this on single pages because I usually find those sites via a Google search and am trying to find a single post or article, and I really don't want to have to make an account on those sites just to read one post every so often. So I don't know what will happen if you navigate to another page on their site.

InannaEloah said:
It's a bit of a lengthy process to do, but (this is in Firefox, I don't know if you can do this in other browsers or not) you can right click on the login notice on Pinterest and FB and click "inspect element" to bring up a bunch of html at the bottom of the page. When you hover your mouse over a bit of html code it will highlight an area of the page, and when you highlight the login thingy, just right-click again and click "delete node" and then click the little x at the top right corner of the html thingy, and the warning will be gone and you'll be able to browse to your heart's content.

I've only tried this on single pages because I usually find those sites via a Google search and am trying to find a single post or article, and I really don't want to have to make an account on those sites just to read one post every so often. So I don't know what will happen if you navigate to another page on their site.

You have to remove it every time. You're only seeing the result. The server-side code is still there. It's why you don't see PHP code when you do that on sites that use PHP.

Pretty sure you can set a custom Ublock filter to remove those annoying login-to-view overlays as you come across them.

Also

treos said:
"Ad blocker interference detected!

Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

If nothing else, noscript removes most of these adblocker blocker pages. It can be annoying to set up if you've never used it before though.

i just remembered something i heard about the other day (ty, AlphaOmegaSin, for this terrible news.)that probably no gamer here will like to hear.

Konami Trademarks Turbografx 16 - New Console or Games? - AlphaOmegaSin

that's right, Konami has laid claim to Turbografx 16. we can all safely expect them to fuck this up and maybe look forward to more stupid pachinko machines (some potentially of the...ero variety...ugh...).

of all game the shitty video game publishers, why can't this one just go bankrupt already? :( they aren't doing ANYTHING good anymore. heck, i doubt they even like video games anymore.

o.O hm? a new Jim Sterling...wait...a new slaughtering grounds game? and it's a VR one? lol i take it we can expect to see digital homicide further destroy their reputation after this video, right?

If they legally own it they can do what the fuck they want with it. We are not forced to buy their stuff. It's not their responsibility for us to be entertained.

Feminism is now trying to subvert the Juggalo subculture.

I might end up finding myself actually defending god-damned Juggalos from feminists.

JUGGALOS.

Feminism makes most of us angry.

Self-proclaimed "spiritual" people who won't give you a straight answer to a simple question.

For example, asking an uber-spiritual person online if there is a word to describe a particular situation that you've encountered recently and if so, what that word is, but then being directed to a book or to a 30-minute long video on Youtube that has absolutely nothing to do with what you asked.

Seriously, why does every "spiritual teacher" I encounter feel this godawful need to be a clone of Yoda? Simple question I ask, simple answer I want. Give bullshit answer to sound smart, do you?

Where do you find these people? I don't think I have met one.

Sorrowless said:
Where do you find these people? I don't think I have met one.

I have.

InannaEloah said:
People who think that the cure for hate is more hate, or who blame long-standing human conditions such as racism on one convenient target whose rise to power is only a symptom, because heaven forbid we should ever acknowledge that human beings are racists... nah, just blame the Guy With The Orange Hair.

/just came back from the whole Jontron fiasco myself what the eff

I people have BIASES, not racism, this has been proven. people should acknowledge them. Genuine "I don't like you 'believe I'm better than you/wish not to affiliate myself because you're X" is never ok and these things are less common in places where it's diverse, people can I should try and transcend this mindset the best they can. You especially shouldn't let these biases completely overtake you as a person. [I don't mean YOU, i mean people in general who just accept their biases and are just like "eh we're all racist so it's ok that I snubbed that person"]

also pretty obvious what I'm angry about jon how could you though

That I can't openly talk about being a furry in public without scrutiny.

treos said:
i just remembered something i heard about the other day (ty, AlphaOmegaSin, for this terrible news.)that probably no gamer here will like to hear.

Konami Trademarks Turbografx 16 - New Console or Games? - AlphaOmegaSin

that's right, Konami has laid claim to Turbografx 16. we can all safely expect them to fuck this up and maybe look forward to more stupid pachinko machines (some potentially of the...ero variety...ugh...).

of all game the shitty video game publishers, why can't this one just go bankrupt already? :( they aren't doing ANYTHING good anymore. heck, i doubt they even like video games anymore.

They at least realized that pachinko wasn't working. That's why they announced the Metal Gear Survival thing (they can't make a real title anymore because Kojima quit). They may yet make something good.

InannaEloah said:
Self-proclaimed "spiritual" people who won't give you a straight answer to a simple question.

For example, asking an uber-spiritual person online if there is a word to describe a particular situation that you've encountered recently and if so, what that word is, but then being directed to a book or to a 30-minute long video on Youtube that has absolutely nothing to do with what you asked.

Seriously, why does every "spiritual teacher" I encounter feel this godawful need to be a clone of Yoda? Simple question I ask, simple answer I want. Give bullshit answer to sound smart, do you?

Just give them my philosophy:
"Only an idiot believes himself a wiseman. A true wiseman knows he's an idiot."

Korematsune said:
That I can't openly talk about being a furry in public without scrutiny.

Same thing but about sex/pleasuring and what not.
I mean it really gets on my nerves that I really can't bring up such a topic without coming off as such boner ya know? It's not even about that, I'm not trying to chat a peep up or anything when I bring it up. I just genuinely like talking about that sorta thing openly. (I might even start studying about it tbh, It 's just really interesting to me =)

Guess that does make me a pretty big perv but as much as a perv as say- Zone-Tan is ya know? Not exactly going out of their way to being a crude as possible but not afraid to speak their mind about it.

Notkastar said:
Same thing but about sex/pleasuring and what not.
I mean it really gets on my nerves that I really can't bring up such a topic without coming off as such boner ya know? It's not even about that, I'm not trying to chat a peep up or anything when I bring it up. I just genuinely like talking about that sorta thing openly. (I might even start studying about it tbh, It 's just really interesting to me =)

Guess that does make me a pretty big perv but as much as a perv as say- Zone-Tan is ya know? Not exactly going out of their way to being a crude as possible but not afraid to speak their mind about it.

There are times and places where/when you can openly talk about it, mostly places without kids. Though even in those times and places, talking about it like the average R34 user does will make you the target of ridicule.

BlueDingo said:
There are times and places where/when you can openly talk about it, mostly places without kids. Though even in those times and places, talking about it like the average R34 user does will make you the target of ridicule.

I know m8, I know ~ ~) and It's fustrating.
Don't get me wrong, I don't just go to places like youtube and just start posting things like:
"Top 10 HOTTEST WAYS TO GET OFF XDDDDDDDD"
No. I keep things civil and only go into the topic if: It's somewhere private, Someone else makes the first move and I can confirm the peeps age. The last thing I wanna be known as is 'That Guy' and tbh I think I've been doing a pretty good job at not being that peep ╹‿╹) No matter how much I wanna talk about it, The comfort of the other peep always comes first.

Though what really makes me frustrated it that i don't have that many outlets outside my doodling and a few close friends. Talking about that sorta thing openly is taboo and generally a bad thing to do since young peeps could be around. But Talking about it openly is something I've been craving to do for a really long time and it sucks that I don't have that many safe outlets for it ya know? (Even 621 is pretty limiting tbh and again outside of art and close peeps ~ w ~) though on the upside ma lewd arts gotten better because of it so *shrug*

Sorrowless said:
Where do you find these people? I don't think I have met one.

Mostly online, in sites that are supposed to be dedicated to helping people spiritually. I think I've known a couple people IRL who were that way but didn't go around proclaiming themselves to be spiritual leaders and teachers, they were just narcissistic assholes who wanted everybody to admire them.

Spiritual teachers that I've met in person tend to give more straightforward answers, probably because you're literally right there in front of them and being a vague self-proclaimed "expert" who never says anything of any real value (or being a rude sonofabitch) isn't as beneficial to them as it would be if they were online and a thousand miles away.

I am angry.

Angry about 2 the Ranting Gryphon being removed from AnthroCon over some SJW having a bitchfit.

Kavellrist said:
I am angry.

Angry about 2 the Ranting Gryphon being removed from AnthroCon over some SJW having a bitchfit.

Details?

BlueDingo said:
Details?

First learned about it from this guy

Kavellrist said:
First learned about it from this guy

I found his description of the furry fandom funny.
On the other hand I get the impression that furries are a quite diverse and open minded group.

here's 2's video on this

Kittens... covered in spikes

Fenrick said:
Kittens... covered in spikes

Speaking of unpetted cats. I wish the personell at Big Cat Rescue would use armor so they could pet the bigger cats. I find it mild abuse when you see how much some of them desire contact.

Sorrowless said:
Speaking of unpetted cats. I wish the personell at Big Cat Rescue would use armor so they could pet the bigger cats. I find it mild abuse when you see how much some of them desire contact.

Yes, Because there's NEVER been a news article or report on animal shelters where the staff HASN'T been mauled by their big cat population for trying to pet them. :P

FoxFourOhFour said:
Yes, Because there's NEVER been a news article or report on animal shelters where the staff HASN'T been mauled by their big cat population for trying to pet them. :P

Hence the armor.

Sorrowless said:
Hence the armor.

If you need armor to pet them, it means they don't want to be petted in the first place.

Furrin_Gok said:
If you need armor to pet them, it means they don't want to be petted in the first place.

this

it's not abusive to avoid an animal that would happily try to sink its teeth into my throat the moment I turn my back to it

They should stick to petting cute little pussy. Big angry pussy is too dangerous.

Fenrick said:
Kittens... covered in spikes

What about lizards and anteaters?

Furrin_Gok said:
If you need armor to pet them, it means they don't want to be petted in the first place.

Wrong. Big cats have instincts. They get territorial around food for instance even if they overall love you. Tigers likes to try and pounce you if you have your back turned.
Then we have sharks that likes to be pet. Doesn't mean you should dive without the armor on.

The TWYS Tagging system sometimes Like... why not tag both?
It makes it easier to find what you want when the vagina's are hidden half of the time.

Tellmeninetails said:
The TWYS Tagging system sometimes Like... why not tag both?
It makes it easier to find what you want when the vagina's are hidden half of the time.

Because if you can't see it, how are you supposed to tag it? That's the point of tagging what you see. So you can find posts where the pussy is visible. It's also a great way for people like me who don't want to see it to blacklist it.

Trust me.
We don't need a free-for-all tagging system like that other popular furry website.

Faux-Pa said:
Because if you can't see it, how are you supposed to tag it? That's the point of tagging what you see. So you can find posts where the pussy is visible. It's also a great way for people like me who don't want to see it to blacklist it.

Or as I sometimes call it, NES logic. If it's not on-screen, it doesn't exist.

when reading through a pool and the pics and description below them are following 2 separate scripts.

i'm reading pool #2746 right now and it's becoming increasingly clear to me that this is like watching an anime series that got a shitty translation where the english subtitles are one language yet the japanese speech and what's happening on-screen is obviously an entirely separate script.

i mean, come on. if your gonna ruin it and completely destroy ANY sense of immersion, find a better way than that.

i should've never started checking those descriptions...

example: this description has absolutely nothing to do with what's happening on this page

compare what's happening in the pic to the description: Harvest doesn't know it, but the cult he lead before he began body surfing continued without him. Over time it turned from a cult into a secret society. It still exists (in a sense) today as a secret club for like-minded ponies of wealth who fancy adventure. It's members often donate to charities, and has had many ponies of note in its numbers at one point or another.

Reading an otherwise professionally written article online only to come across a line talking about "I'm not going to loose my head."

It's one thing when you're on an Internet forum such as the one here, but when it's an article and it's supposed to be professional and all that, the writer not knowing how to properly spell the word "lose" gets to be an eyesore real quick.

InannaEloah said:
Reading an otherwise professionally written article online only to come across a line talking about "I'm not going to loose my head."

Loosing your head is actually possible. Loose as a verb means to release, set free or let go.

InannaEloah said:
It's one thing when you're on an Internet forum such as the one here, but when it's an article and it's supposed to be professional and all that, the writer not knowing how to properly spell the word "lose" gets to be an eyesore real quick.

You'd think journalist, news anchors, etc. would know the english language well enough to not make these mistakes, but I've lost count of the number of times I've seen news reports where they say "an horrific". You never put "an" before a word that starts with a consonant sound.

I always thought loose sounded like the correct spelling for lose.

BlueDingo said:
You'd think journalist, news anchors, etc. would know the english language well enough to not make these mistakes, but I've lost count of the number of times I've seen news reports where they say "an horrific". You never put "an" before a word that starts with a consonant sound.

Actually, I'm not certain but I think that in some cases you actually can use "an" in front of a word that starts with a consonant. I've noticed the same thing with "heinous," which makes me think that if there is such a rule it would have something to do with the letter h as the beginning consonant.

BlueDingo said:
Loosing your head is actually possible. Loose as a verb means to release, set free or let go.

You'd think journalist, news anchors, etc. would know the english language well enough to not make these mistakes, but I've lost count of the number of times I've seen news reports where they say "an horrific". You never put "an" before a word that starts with a consonant sound.

InannaEloah said:
Actually, I'm not certain but I think that in some cases you actually can use "an" in front of a word that starts with a consonant. I've noticed the same thing with "heinous," which makes me think that if there is such a rule it would have something to do with the letter h as the beginning consonant.

This is from English English dialect. Often, the beginning H in a word is silent, leading to it being proper to say, for instance, "an historian" and improper to say "a historian" because it's pronounced "istorian." It's all in the pronunciation of the speaker.

Fenrick said:
This is from English English dialect. Often, the beginning H in a word is silent, leading to it being proper to say, for instance, "an historian" and improper to say "a historian" because it's pronounced "istorian." It's all in the pronunciation of the speaker.

I've noticed that with words like "herb". I pronounce the H, and so do the news reporters, which is what makes it jarring.

InannaEloah said:
Actually, I'm not certain but I think that in some cases you actually can use "an" in front of a word that starts with a consonant. I've noticed the same thing with "heinous," which makes me think that if there is such a rule it would have something to do with the letter h as the beginning consonant.

The deciding factor is whether it starts with a consonant sound or a vowel sound, not a consonant/vowel letter. The same thing happens in reverse with some U words (eg. useless) requiring "a" instead of "an" because it starts with a consonant sound.

Sorrowless said:
I always thought loose sounded like the correct spelling for lose.

and quite is the correct form of quiet? ಠ_ಠ

i will go grammar nazi if needed.

BlueDingo said:
You'd think journalist, news anchors, etc. would know the english language well enough to not make these mistakes, but I've lost count of the number of times I've seen news reports where they say "an horrific". You never put "an" before a word that starts with a consonant sound.

same here. i'm tempted to leave a comment correcting them when i see that happen but really, they should know better to begin with.

BlueDingo said:
The deciding factor is whether it starts with a consonant sound or a vowel sound, not a consonant/vowel letter. The same thing happens in reverse with some U words (eg. useless) requiring "a" instead of "an" because it starts with a consonant sound.

and this is something i noticed a while back too. why is it, people simply cannot say the letter "H" correctly these days? it's like that episode of family guy where stewy is putting an emphasis on the letter "H" in the word "whip".

all my life growing up, pronunciation sounded similar to saying the word "ache" only with a "tch" sound. nowadays people everywhere are pronouncing it as "hay-tch" which sounds really weird. you don't say "haytch-ello" do you? so why the f are you saying the letter wrong? and it's just that one letter that magically had it's pronunciation changed too.

i could understand it if it was a language barrier thing like how japanese has no "L" (get a native japanese speaker who knows no english to say "lalalalala". i bet you they'd pronounce it as "rararara" due to the no "L" thing.) but it isn't.

unless it's some obscure language almost no one uses, i don't know of any where "H" would be pronounced that way natively.

treos said:
same here. i'm tempted to leave a comment correcting them when i see that happen but really, they should know better to begin with.

I'm tempted to post comments in full slang (kinda like comment #3092052 but much worse, and maybe change "you" to "ye" for good measure) and see how many grammar nazis try to correct me.

BlueDingo said:
I'm tempted to post comments in full slang (kinda like comment #3092052 but much worse, and maybe change "you" to "ye" for good measure) and see how many grammar nazis try to correct me.

the only thing i'm unsure of in that comment is "billy tea". i dunno what kind of tea or slang that might be.

o_O could always give the old, obscure, shakespearian english you see used in dragon's dogma a try. that particular form of old english can lead to a LOT of dirty jokes if used correctly. in fact, i'm fairly certain there was a good number of jokes in the game.

come to think of it, i think they tried to sneak some into FFXV's combat banter.

"Noctis, did you just touch-"

Noctis: "You saw nothing."

"Right, nothing... >.>"

and that one comes up a LOT in that game.

man, game devs put a ton of dirty jokes and innuendo in video games. i still remember that one near the beginning of dragon quest builders. (devs, isn't that a little early for that kind of joke? or maybe that was the point all along.)

treos said:
the only thing i'm unsure of in that comment is "billy tea". i dunno what kind of tea or slang that might be.

Billy tea is tea made in a billy can. That and damper are mostly made over a campfire.

treos said:
man, game devs put a ton of dirty jokes and innuendo in video games. i still remember that one near the beginning of dragon quest builders. (devs, isn't that a little early for that kind of joke? or maybe that was the point all along.)

Banjo-Kazooie. 'Nuff said.

BlueDingo said:

The deciding factor is whether it starts with a consonant sound or a vowel sound, not a consonant/vowel letter. The same thing happens in reverse with some U words (eg. useless) requiring "a" instead of "an" because it starts with a consonant sound.

Fun fact: Korean does this with a lot more words than English. However, instead of having the preceding word changed based upon this, it is the following word that is changed.

For instance, for "is," you have i-e-yo vs ye-yo (이에요 vs 예요) for preceding words ending in consonants and vowels, respectively. In English, the second example would still mean separating the two with a consonant sound since it's a Y.
What's also interesting is that they consider the W and Y sounds to be vowels in all instances, whereas we pretty much play fast and loose with when they count as consonants or vowels.

What's nice about Korean is they usually don't fucking lie to you about whether a letter is a consonant or a vowel in general. There are some exceptions, but even the exceptions tend to follow a consistent pattern.

what I'm trying to say is that English makes me angry in that regard. For every rule there are more exceptions than there are things that follow it

BlueDingo said:
I'm tempted to post comments in full slang (kinda like comment #3092052 but much worse, and maybe change "you" to "ye" for good measure) and see how many grammar nazis try to correct me.

Actually, I believe that few of those "grammar nazis" are really trying to help. Personaly, I hate when everyone notices that I am doing something wrong, but says absolutely nothing; if a good samaritan gave me a criticism, would be considerably easier to fix the problem.

treos said:
and quite is the correct form of quiet? ಠ_ಠ

i will go grammar nazi if needed.

You don't think lose looks like it would sound like "louse"?

O16 said:
Actually, I believe that few of those "grammar nazis" are really trying to help. Personaly, I hate when everyone notices that I am doing something wrong, but says absolutely nothing; if a good samaritan gave me a criticism, would be considerably easier to fix the problem.

I think the same! There are certain spellings I never bothered to learn and instead went for what felt right so I know I make grammatical errors sometimes. And I never get corrected.

BlueDingo said:
I've noticed that with words like "herb". I pronounce the H, and so do the news reporters, which is what makes it jarring.

The deciding factor is whether it starts with a consonant sound or a vowel sound, not a consonant/vowel letter. The same thing happens in reverse with some U words (eg. useless) requiring "a" instead of "an" because it starts with a consonant sound.

I'm aware of how the rule works, but I'm also talking about people who pronounce "Heinous" with the H at the beginning, just like the people where you live pronouncing the H in "Herb."

The fact of the matter is that at the end of the day it isn't they who are in the wrong, but rather sticklers like you and me, because language changes over time. Remember the vowels? A, E, I, O, U, and sometimes Y? Well, I was taught in the first grade back in 1976 that the vowels were A, E, I, O, U, and sometimes Y AND SOMETIMES W. I was never taught that past the first or second grade, but I distinctly remembering it being told to me by teachers in my early elementary school years. I also remember being taught that "Ain't" isn't a word, yet now it's in the dictionary. Yes, it's jarring, but it's still the way language works.

Sorrowless said:
You don't think lose looks like it would sound like "louse"?

We should spell lose as "looze" from now on. Let's see people fuck that up.

InannaEloah said:
The fact of the matter is that at the end of the day it isn't they who are in the wrong, but rather sticklers like you and me, because language changes over time. Remember the vowels? A, E, I, O, U, and sometimes Y? Well, I was taught in the first grade back in 1976 that the vowels were A, E, I, O, U, and sometimes Y AND SOMETIMES W. I was never taught that past the first or second grade, but I distinctly remembering it being told to me by teachers in my early elementary school years. I also remember being taught that "Ain't" isn't a word, yet now it's in the dictionary. Yes, it's jarring, but it's still the way language works..

I've never heard of W being called a vowel before but I'm guessing it's because of "ow" words like cow and down. Funny thing is we also have "ou" for the same sound (eg. noun, announce, snout) so most "ow" words could be written with "ou" without changing the pronunciation.

I know language changes over time and I welcome beneficial changes, but not all changes are for the better. I'd rather hold onto the things that work just fine and do something about the things that cause issues, which is why I don't really like english words of french origin. Most of them don't look the way they sound and little to no effort was made to correct this (seriously, how many people would guess that "toilette" is pronounced "twuh-let"?). I actually mispronounce a few of them on purpose to differentiate them from other english words (eg. cache and cash sound the same so I pronounce the former as "k-ae-sh" instead).

"Ain't" has been an english word since the 1700's. The problem is people started using it to mean "are not" and "is not" when it's supposed to mean "am not".

BlueDingo said:
I've never heard of W being called a vowel before but I'm guessing it's because of "ow" words like cow and down. Funny thing is we also have "ou" for the same sound (eg. noun, announce, snout) so most "ow" words could be written with "ou" without changing the pronunciation.

Like I said earlier, it always is in Korean. Makes sense to me. It uses the same part of the vocal chords as any vowel. Any W at the start of a syllable could really be replaced with a fast "u–oh" sound.

BlueDingo said:

I know language changes over time and I welcome beneficial changes, but not all changes are for the better. I'd rather hold onto the things that work just fine and do something about the things that cause issues, which is why I don't really like english words of french origin. Most of them don't look the way they sound and little to no effort was made to correct this. I actually mispronounce a few of them on purpose to differentiate them from other english words (eg. cache and cash sound the same so I pronounce the former as "k-ae-sh" instead).

One of the most annoying examples of this is people using "literally" for "figuratively." A lot of people have done it jokingly for a lot longer than most people think but we're at the point it's impossible to tell when that is now. This usage has taken a perfectly good word and made it useless, since it can easily just be assumed to be a redundant form of "figuratively."

Fenrick said:
One of the most annoying examples of this is people using "literally" for "figuratively." A lot of people have done it jokingly for a lot longer than most people think but we're at the point it's impossible to tell when that is now. This usage has taken a perfectly good word and made it useless, since it can easily just be assumed to be a redundant form of "figuratively."

Too fuckin' right. Literally was meant to help clarify what someone said, now it does the complete opposite.

Related.

BlueDingo said:
Too fuckin' right. Literally was meant to help clarify what someone said, now it does the complete opposite.

Related.

When even the dictionary is now messed up with it, to the point that it actually has the phrase "not literally" in the definition of "literally", despite the requirement of a definition to not include the word in its own definition.

BlueDingo said:
I actually mispronounce a few of them on purpose to differentiate them from other english words (eg. cache and cash sound the same so I pronounce the former as "k-ae-sh" instead).

I usually pronounce "Cache" as "Cash-AY" for pretty much the same reason.

InannaEloah said:
I usually pronounce "Cache" as "Cash-AY" for pretty much the same reason.

I often do that too, and I often use archaic terms (usually swear words, exception being bastard and I don't use bitch) and pronunciations that's really out of place.

Siral_Exan said:
I often do that too, and I often use archaic terms (usually swear words, exception being bastard and I don't use bitch) and pronunciations that's really out of place.

Wherefore not taketh it one step further and wend full Spakespearean on those folk?

Getting another neutral record for stupid shit that could've been solved in the DMs.
I mean, that's what I do, and it works out fine. I haven't had to report anyone in over 3 months.

Faux-Pa said:
Getting another neutral record for stupid shit that could've been solved in the DMs.
I mean, that's what I do, and it works out fine. I haven't had to report anyone in over 3 months.

Nobody is obligated to send dmails over offenses.

ow/oh

quite/quiet

hay-tch/ay-tch

loose/lose

pardon my rudeness but... english motherfuckers, DO. YOU. SPEAK. IT?

the rest of this world may be going to shit but can the spoken language at least be maintained and kept normal? it's as if illiteracy is becoming the norm and literacy is being strangled to death very VERY slowly.

treos said:
hay-tch/ay-tch

That's a regional variation. See also zee/zed.

treos said:
pardon my rudeness but... english motherfuckers, DO. YOU. SPEAK. IT?

They are speaking english. They're just no very good at it.

treos said:
the rest of this world may be going to shit but can the spoken language at least be maintained and kept normal? it's as if illiteracy is becoming the norm and literacy is being strangled to death very VERY slowly.

There are parts of the english language that can be improved to reduce illiteracy problems. Things like standardizing the way sounds are written (using "ou" instead of "ow", "sh" instead of "ch", "f" instead of "ph", etc.), respelling foreign words to fit that standardization (eg. "shef" instead of "chef"), removing silent letters, and killing words like "amazeballs" as soon as possible would go a long way.

Most people can't spell "phlegm" or "quiche" the first time they hear them and can't pronounce them the first time they see them. If they were spelled "flem" and "keesh" respectively, it would be a lot easier.

English is a weird hybrid of a language.

BlueDingo said:

Most people can't spell "phlegm" or "quiche" the first time they hear them and can't pronounce them the first time they see them. If they were spelled "flem" and "keesh" respectively, it would be a lot easier.

Quiche is a borrow-word from French anyway. Of course it doesn't really play by English phonetic rules, it's a goddamn French word. Phlegm I'm less knowledgeable about, but my guess is that it is also a borrow-word from a non-English tongue of some type.

English is very notorious for breaking its own rules... but the biggest reason it does this is because, being an extremely flexible language and one that likes to mug other languages in dark alleys for their words, it is in near-constant flux and is constantly bringing aboard non-English words as it deems convenient. These non-English words play by non-English rules.

In spite of all this, Russian is actually far worse about having a substantial set of rules and then proceeding to ignore and/or contradict those rules willy-nilly. Russian is a very difficult language to learn, as a consequence, from my understanding. (By contrast, the romance languages, of which Spanish is one, play by their rules fairly consistently with a few exceptions and are also the easiest ones for a non-native speaker to pick up.)

BlueDingo said:
Wherefore not taketh it one step further and wend full Spakespearean on those folk?

Yes! Someone actually used "Wherefore" correctly!

BlueDingo said:
Wherefore not taketh it one step further and wend full Spakespearean on those folk?

wow, that looks and sounds so...different from modern speech. what does wend mean? and that form of speech seems to rely a lot on context such as "wherefore" substituting "why" in that sentence.

o.O wend = go when used that way?

treos said:
wow, that looks and sounds so...different from modern speech. what does wend mean? and that form of speech seems to rely a lot on context such as "wherefore" substituting "why" in that sentence.

o.O wend = go when used that way?

Wherefore always means why. It's the opposite of Therefore.