Taniwha420

joined 2 years ago
[–] Taniwha420@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I'm willing to bet half those BC stats are actually Albertans driving into the mountains. Significantly more westbound than eastbound fatalities in the Rockies. If you fall asleep at the wheel in Alberta you wake up in the middle of a corn field. If you fall asleep at the wheel in BC you don't wake up.

[–] Taniwha420@lemmy.world -1 points 3 weeks ago

From the article you linked:

"This has traditionally been considered incorrect on the basis that it is equivalent to referring to a judge as being an honourable or an adult man as a mister, both of which are also grammatically improper.[8][9] It is likewise incorrect to form the plural reverends. Some dictionaries,[10] however, do place the noun rather than the adjective as the word's principal form, owing to an increasing use of the word as a noun among people with no religious background or knowledge of traditional styles of ecclesiastical address."

I wouldn't correct someone who dropped this in casual conversation, but I do expect more from a news source that should be employing people with a better grasp on the English language.

[–] Taniwha420@lemmy.world -1 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

This article is a mess.

Firstly, "Reverend" is an adjective, not a title. Sounds like it was a priest, minister, or pastor depending on denomination. It would be like referring to a judge as "an honourable" for an entire article.

Secondly, even if this minister pushed through the paperwork, there is no way it's valid. Both parties have to sign the completed document at the time of the wedding itself, and it typically has to be also signed by witnesses. "Pre-signing" it would indicate it. It's not a legally valid document.

Ironically, marriage documentation is pretty tight about the consent of both parties and witnesses to prevent women from being married off against their will.

[–] Taniwha420@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Checkmate in TWO moves? How? The quickest I know is four.

[–] Taniwha420@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago (1 children)

"tenets" ... I thought you were giving me housing advice.

[–] Taniwha420@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Yeah, a bit of an over reaction. I reread your original comment about sauteing and it was not phrased at all as criticism, but as a suggestion. Don't know what provoked that wall of defensiveness.

[–] Taniwha420@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

Isn't that like an ancestrally appropriate thing for Mongolian rulers? Where did he go? Bagdad? Would have thought they'd be proud of him.

[–] Taniwha420@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

Oh no no no ... The younger generation of Australians DON'T eat Vegemite. Consequently, they're growing weak and unhealthy.

[–] Taniwha420@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (3 children)

No... Not at all. "gae" Vs "gahgged". Gay has a hard A, gagged had a soft A. Plus gagged had a 'gg' sound in the middle, and also a D sound at the end. Actually, the only thing they have in common is starting with a G.

Do they sound the same to you?

[–] Taniwha420@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

IIRC putaine (used by the connector above), salope, merde. Basically calling things sluts and whores and saying shit.

[–] Taniwha420@lemmy.world 30 points 2 months ago (9 children)

... You might be right. He has a weird accent, and if he pronounced the 'a' like an American and swallowed the 'gg' ...

Or maybe that's the secret do defeating the Conservatives? "We can totally make an LNG pipeline to the coast, but ... err ... that would make you all pretty gay."

[–] Taniwha420@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago (6 children)

The French would not say that. They swear, but the religious swears are the domain of the Quebecois. Anyway, surprised the waiter even said, "non." I'm my experience more likely to say they didn't understand you and then ignore you.

view more: next ›