#adjectives examples
Explore tagged Tumblr posts
Text
1 note
·
View note
Text
youtube
#spoken_english #تعلم #learn_english #تعلم_الانجليزية كيف اتعلم انجليزي - الصفات فى اللغة الانجليزية - الصفات بالانجليزي وضدها الصفات فى اللغة الانجليزية هى قسم مهم جدا من أقسام الكلام فى اللغة الإنجليزية حيث أن استخدام الصفات بالانجليزي وضدها يأتى فى المرتبة الثانية بعد الفعل من ناحية الإستخدام. و لهذا اخترت لكم أهم الصفات فى اللغة الانجليزية على الإطلاق و المطلوب منك عزيزى المتعلم أن تحفظ هذه الصفات عن ظهم قلب نطقا وكتابة و كذلك أن تتعرف على الصفات بالانجليزي وضدها
لو عجبك الفيديو اعمل مشاركة من اللينك ده كيف اتعلم انجليزي - الصفات فى اللغة الانجليزية - الصفات بالانجليزي وضدها https://youtu.be/x7gfkydHh4k
ليصلك كل جديد اشترك بالقناه http://bit.ly/2HQGd4q
يمكنك الاستفادة من الدروس التالية كيف اتعلم انجليزي - الصفات فى اللغة الانجليزية - الصفات بالانجليزي وضدها https://youtu.be/x7gfkydHh4k
تدريب اللغة الانجليزية - تعلم اللغة الانجليزية بطلاقة للمبتدئين - تحدث الانجليزية بطلاقة https://youtu.be/-YKWz6Rm1aQ
كيف اتعلم انجليزي - اخبار الطقس - درجة الحرارة غدا https://youtu.be/VZA5JLMgiZg
تعليم انجليزي - المشاعر باللغة الانجليزية - كيفية التعبير عن المشاعر https://youtu.be/W0G2ZJ1vyi4
دورات اللغة الانجليزية - تعبير عن الاسرة - الاهل https://youtu.be/A0spa90P5Tc
دورات اللغة الانجليزية - المشاعر باللغة الانجليزية - كيف تكتب احساس بالانجليزي https://youtu.be/zEjxoSPSo9k #مواقع_تعليم_انجليزي #برامج_تعليم_انجليزي #تعلم_اللغة_الانجليزية #تعلم #spoken_english #english_speaking_course_online #spoken_english_in_telugu #نهي_طلبة , Noha Tolba
#كيف اتعلم انجليزي#وصف الاشخاص بالانجليزي#adjectives examples#what is an adjective#الصفات فى اللغة الانجليزية#وصف الاشخاص#How to learn English#جمل فيها صفات بالانجليزي#Noha Tolba#استخدام الصفات فى اللغة الانجليزية#تعلم اللغة الانجليزية بسهولة#adjective words#صفات بالانجليزي في جمل#noun verb adjective#جمل صفات بالانجليزي#descriptive adjectives list#تعلم اللغة الانجليزية من البداية#الصفات بالانجليزي وضدها#تعلم اللغة الانجليزية من الصفر#Youtube
0 notes
Text
i finished the grammar book i was reading. now what do i do with my life
#look. i didn't think i was going to read this 250 page pdf cover to cover. but i did. and it DID take over my brain#what's sexier than an ambiguity in a construction for comparison of adjectives!#what's more delicious than discovering i probably misinterpreted a particular sentence particle#because all along it was actually a slightly different sentence particle that sounds the same except for its tone#and i'm still very bad at recognizing tones with more than 50% confidence!#*#i'm not kidding when i tell you i feel like i just finished a really engaging immersive novel#easily the goofiest response i've ever had to what's just a long summary of grammar rules and examples. even for me this is new
15 notes
·
View notes
Note
Nothing you say will change the undeniable fact that Israel has killed more than 1% of the civilian population of Gaza through indiscriminate bombing since the start of this war
this is why Hamas only reports total people killed, and doesn't separate out civilians and combatants. because it knows that you'll assume they were all civilians, despite zero reason to assume that. nobody else does it that way. every single country on earth reports civilians and combatants separately, because killing civilians is a war crime.
Part of the reason that this is really good propaganda is that if someone responds by clarifying that it was only ____ civilians, they will sound like they're minimizing, which will lead to immediately dismissing their point.
Hamas is honestly masterful at propaganda.
Which sucks.
Anyway, if you want Undeniable Facts or at least Numbers: there are 2.3M people in Gaza, of which 30,000-40,000 are Hamas military. An unknown number are Hamas leaders, cybersecurity, military academy staff, etc. None of that really makes a dent in a number like 2,300,000, though. As of the beginning of December, more than 5,000 of the 15k+ it had then killed were Hamas members, for a civilian:combatant casualty ratio of almost 2:1.
Meaning that it had killed almost 10,000 civilians. Which also sucks.
For the curious, here are the ratios of civilian:combatant deaths you get with the numbers here for various wars:
Mexican Revolution 1:1
WWI close to 1:1
WWII between 3:2 and 2:1
Korean War about 2:1
Vietnam War 2:1 at highest estimate, 1:1 at lowest
Russia-Afghanistan War between 5.6:1 and 20:1
Israel-Lebanon War 6:1
Both Chechen Wars 7.6:1
NATO in Yugoslavia most likely 4:1
Afghanistan War 0.4:1 (or if you treat the civilians as the basis for comparison, it's 1:2.5)
Iraq War 1:2 thru 2015, then 4.5:1
U.S. Drone attacks in Pakistan 1:5
Second Intifada between 1:1 and 2:1, with 59% of Palestinian and 69% of Israeli deaths being civilians
2008 Gaza War 3:2
2014 Gaza War between 1:1 and 3:1
Ukraine: 1:6 as of end of 2022 - surprisingly, this is the lowest ratio of any of the wars I've looked at
Israel-Hamas war as of beginning of December: 2:1. (15600 total, more than 5000 combatants.)
As of Dec 19, Israel has killed 19,667 people in Gaza. Let's see if we can get an actual number for how many of those are civilians.
I can't find an up-to-date number for combatants. It was 5,000+ on the 6th, and 7,000+ by the 10th,
It's been primarily fighting in Hamas strongholds that aren't SUPPOSED to have any civilians in them. Given that it killed three hostages, that's obviously not guaranteed. But that's why the number went up so fast.
As of the 19th, Israel has killed 4,000 people in about two weeks. At least half of those are combatants. But it's also wildly unlikely that it's only killed civilians since the 10th. Guessing that half of those deaths were combatants seems reasonable; it should be more, based on all the info we have.
That means that Israel may have killed 11,667 civilians, of maybe 2.27M civilians in Gaza. And killed 8,000 Hamas members, of maybe 30,000. (700 have also surrendered, last I checked.)
To be fair, separating out the combatant deaths doesn't do a lot to change what percent of civilians have been killed, because 2.3M is such a big number.
It's 0.6% with them, 0.5% without them. (Not 1%, fortunately.)
But it's always worth noting that Hamas is a lying group of liars that lied about having raped civilians en masse, lied about having killed civilians en masse, lied about wanting to specifically fight Israel and not Jews in the rest of the world, and is even happier to mislead people than it is to lie outright.
By contrast, it's about 30% of Hamas, between Israel killing its members being killed, and them surrendering.
I don't particularly like the number of terrorists killed either, tbh. Despite how enthusiastically some people misinterpreted what I said, I don't like it when anybody gets killed.
#it really bothers me that people minimize the absolute goddamn horrors of every genocide by calling this a genocide#genocide is not an adjective you use to show that you're REALLY REALLY EXTRA against the killing#you can be REALLY REALLY EXTRA AGAINST WAR without minimizing the genocidal rapes and the mass mutilation and all the rest#I have driven past rivers that were filled with blood during the California Genocide ffs#this is not about anon#anon didn't say anything about genocide#it's just making me think about how many groups had 60%-90% of their people wiped out in the most brutal ways possible#the kind of stuff that resembles what Hamas did but not what is happening to Hamas#i am going to stop thinking about examples of what Hamas did and not list them here in the tags#bc it is bad for everyone's mental health#mine included#this does not mean i will not post about it one of these days tho#wall of words
14 notes
·
View notes
Text
#😵💫😵💫😵💫#pale ponytailed lila#but you see in that example that she herself is the rubric#or the rubric is 'adjectives describing lila' in which case the 'notable lack of elaboration' / those two items being the sum list becomes#so eerie and pitiful#and each item having 'no relation' is equally eerie: it doesn't add up to anything - it conveys nothing essential (or things that are#essential only by some strange specification/highlights the impossibility of describing her more fundamental traits) - and it doesn't form#any kind of portrait#ending with 'irretrievable' in 'pale pregnant beloved irretrievable' is accurate. or at least - the list itself can't retrieve her#it doesn't conjure her up#Benjamin Sammons#the catalogue#you don't know my attributes
4 notes
·
View notes
Text
learning about Japanese grammar has weirdly helped me understand parts of English grammar. for example: anything can be an adjective if you're not a coward
#; shenanigans#langblr#japanese langblr#learning japanese#“hat-wearing” is an adjective for example#which like. duh. but idt i ever thought of it as one#hours later edit: and smth like “who-sang”#as in “the person who sang”#“who sang” is an adjective describing the person if you're not a COWARD
7 notes
·
View notes
Note
I just started learning Thai so I’m interested. What is the difference between jing and jingjing? On your tags about favorite Thai words
oh! so in Thai, repeating an adjective turns it into an adverb.
in this case, jing is an adjective that means true or real or honest, and jingjing is an adverb that means really, trully, honestly. they're just my favourite Thai words because I like the way they sound lol.
my other favourite is ning, which doesn't have a perfect English translation but that you might recognise from My Engineer. it means cool as in (a person who is) cold, distant, or aloof, or alternatively calm and self-controlled. it's often used sarcastically when describing other people. ningning is an adverb that means something like carefully or calmly - you hear people saying "ningning!" to tell someone to calm down or take more care. kind of like "chill out!" in English lol. I like these because their English translations are so interesting! and because of RamKing and ai'Ning, obviously.
#oooh thank u i love talking about language!#also just to cover all bases -#an adjective is a descriptive word that describes nouns (nouns are things - including people places and concepts)#and an adverb describes verbs (which are 'doing words' that show the action in a sentence)#for example. 'she is careful'. careful is an adjective describing the 'she' in this sentence.#'she walked carefully'. carefully is an adverb describing how the action of walking took place.#adverbs in english usually end in -ly so that helps with identifying them#sorry if this is incredibly obvious#linguistics is one of those things that's been a special interest for so long that i genuinely have no baseline for what is common knowledg#darcey.txt#ask#darcey.lang#linguistics posting
4 notes
·
View notes
Text
weird but i guess ultimately predictable that people keep using the sexy fallout ghoul as evidence that people (mainly women) will lust after men "regardless of appearance" when actually mainly what that proves is that looking hot is so much more complex than society (advertising) would lead you to believe
i realise i'm not the best benchmark of what people find attractive (because i'm turned on by aerial photos of highways) but i think the ghoul is reasonably attractive and i literally have nothing to judge him on other than appearance
It's not that women automatically see past the physical, it's just that you don't necessarily need to have a nose to be physically attractive
#fallout#you have no idea how hard it was for me to not get discoursey about this#(it wasn't that hard)#because BOY do i have some opinions about this#but i cleaved to my original purpose and WOW 'cleave' IS A FUN WORD HUH#it has two opposite meanings. and there's two adjective forms of 'cleave'#but both of them apply to the same meaning#'cleft' and 'cloven' both mean split#because 'cleft' is more closely associated with the noun ig?#there isn't an adjective for something that has been cleaved together#i can't be cloven to my ideals#unless i can?????????#anyway here are some other things i thought of using as examples of stuff im turned on by:#concrete. teeth. overpasses. veins and other bodily tubes. crustacean body horror that i'm doing my best to forget about.
2 notes
·
View notes
Text
Temerarious
[ tem-uh-rer-ee-uhs ]
Adjective
1. Recklessly daring; rash and fearless in a way that may be considered foolish.
2. Marked by or resulting from unthinking boldness.
Synonyms (def. 1)
Audacious
Daring
Foolhardy
Reckless
Adventurous
Origin
Early 17th century; from Latin "temerarius;" from "temere," meaning by chance.
Example
His temerarious attempt to climb the mountain without proper gear was met with concern from fellow hikers.
Related Forms
Temerariously (adv.), Temerariousness (noun)
#word of the day#daily weird word#weird adjectives#do you think the word should be italisized or bolded in the example? plz respond🛰️#temerarious
6 notes
·
View notes
Text
1 note
·
View note
Text
believe it or not but assigning morality to phones/phonemes isn’t the haha quirky little joke you think it is!
#like that has uh. a History!#elli rambles#there are definitely some Posts in the linguistics tag sometimes.#it definitely isn’t the most egregious example I’ve seen/heard and the op probably didn’t mean anything by it but. hm!#haha funny alignment chart. now quick tell me what you think about foreign languages. or the sapir-whorf hypothesis perhaps.#ok to take off my Silly Mask for a moment: what I’m getting at with those understatements is that assigning morality/any qualities really to#language has a bigoted—& more specifically: usually racist—history. language has often been used as a tool & justification for oppression.#take a look at the languages currently & historically deemed ‘pretty’ or ‘civilised’. compare that with the ones deemed ‘ugly’ or ‘barbaric’#who speaks them? exactly which features make them ‘worthy’ of those adjectives? is it only phonetics? if so: in what way exactly?#is the categorisation of sounds of speech as having certain inherent qualities truly objective—or do they happen to align with certain#cultural or personal biases? what purpose does this categorisation serve?#are a people deemed ‘barbaric’ because the language they speak is inherently & objectively barbaric—or is it perhaps the other way around?#could this type of view of a language possibly be used to justify the subjugation of its speakers under the guise of ‘civilising’ them?#Perhaps?#which is obviously not to say phonetic features are the only ones used to assign certain qualities to languages! but it was what the post#I’m referencing was about so#anyway sorry I went off on a tangent. I just feel quite strongly about this#languageposting
6 notes
·
View notes
Text
I think a lot about rereading popular books that I chose to hate because I feel like now I will be able to understand what made them so popular. But also I didn't like them in the first place
#whenever I find ppl who have read lots of books like I did they are all the popular books of the time that I decided to be contrary about#and they are like “yeah that book was good” and i'm just like “mhm yeah”#I think I am right about more recent ones but I feel like I'm wrong about ones that are practically classics now#example of the former: klara and the sun#example of the latter: donna tartt 💀 fully prepared to be wrong about that#im not as sure about some of those popular thicc books in recent years like the priory of the orange tree...reading that book was a chore#im willing to believe its actually a good book but I also read that when my standards for books were highly pedantic#because I didnt know how to think more deeply about what I was reading or appreciate the craft#that was me when I read tsh and the goldfinch too#sorry to whoever is reading my tags and feeling offended#loquacious#<-these tags are really that adjective
2 notes
·
View notes
Text
girl help i have literally been studying english for years and i've just learned the actual rules of compound adjective hyphenation how the fuck did i survive this long
#this all started with me checking the spelling for ramrod-straight and then realising i have no idea if i should hyphenate it or not#and i tried to think of other compound adjectives but i could not conceptualise a rule out of those examples so i had to look it up#and apparently because english makes no fucking sense it is entirely dependent on cotext#(i am exaggerating it actually was pretty clear. this is definitely one of the more rational rules of english grammar)
4 notes
·
View notes
Text
language knowledge in english is both very interesting and also really really stupid, i've found
#'stupid' no im just petty about it being weird. but on the other hand its stupid#adverbs of degree are very confusing with their descriptions for one. what do you mean they Modify instead of describe adjectives#or other adverbs.#how does really modify pretty for example. simply it is really pretty#clearly i am right. (<-he is not)#🌙rambling
2 notes
·
View notes
Text
Y’all r forgetting the most important feature of winged humanoids: wings r connected to pecs. Meaning double tits
#eddie munson#kas!eddie#specifically#confession I hate putting ! after adjectives#shut up shut up just let me put spaces like normal#maybe I’ll draw a diagram later idk I have several ocs to use as examples
3 notes
·
View notes
Text
hyperfocus on language and using the “correct” phrasing/words is not great and can often be harmful to activist causes yeah yeah but like. i don’t love when that swings to the other direction of like, mocking people for being uncomfortable with certain terms
#this isn’t really about like. slur discourse or the word queer btw#although i think it does relate to my general feelings about it#but this is about...#im thinking about the post i just saw about the AP styleguide saying not to use ‘the [adjective]’ to describe people#and like sure it’s funny that they used ‘the French’ as an example#but#language. can in fact. be dehumanizing. and that shouldn’t be Thee activist priority but it’s not a bad thing to want to avoid#especially in the context of a style guide for writing. like yes in fact That is the place where that conversation makes More sense#ALSO. the post wasn’t saying to use person first language. idk what else AP says about that but that wasn’t that post#it wasn’t talking about ‘disabled people’ vs ‘people with disabilities’ it was talking about not saying ‘the disabled’#which maybe you don’t care about either! and that’s fine obviously but it’s just. a different issue. just to clarify#also also i think the inclusion of ‘the French’ was intentional to emphasize that this isn’t just in relation to marginalization but rather#a standard for any group of people#but that’s just my read im getting off topic
6 notes
·
View notes