#complex nouns

[strangestcase]

toki pona is a ploy to get ppl to talk like cavemen in the name of self-realization. <- this is why I like it btw

[mustang-sal]

The Deeper Meanings of Name Cloaks. Unless...?

I would find it so funny if we randomly meet a wizard with a name cloak of a proper noun that doesn't have another meaning (i.e. isn't already a word in English).

Sonder may be the closest we've gotten so far. It's a recently-coined word (at least in English) so potentially might not count yet as a word with a meaning outside of just being a name for this story (though I would not put it past Brennan to have heard of this word and use it for its other meaning).

Anyway, I'm hanging out for the day we meet a new character and

"What up, you can call me the Wizard Stephanie."

[musical-chick-13]

I'm the LAST person to suggest that you have to preface every single comment you make about a character/fictional relationship/etc. you like with a reminder that you Know™ it's pRoBLeMaTiC, but I DO question what the point of acting genuinely for real like there were no problems is.

[baked--baker]

Drunkenly mutually trauma dumping with an equally drunk acquaintance you met though a friend's friend at a party one year ago and you literally only see each other at parties and get togethers and stuff and 70% of the times you are both quite drunk and now you drunkenly stumbled across them at another party and you both start catching up and you both went through Some Shit TM but now you both are recovering and there's this cathartic moment when you both exclaim "OMG YOU HAVE BEEN THROUGH THIS *RANDOM SAD AF THING* TOO OMG SAME" and then you hug and say stuff "omg I'm so proud of you and I'm happy you are here and even know we don't know each other that well I'm glad you are in my life" yeah that stuff is like free therapy man.

[therevengeoffrankenstein]

like i literally am obsessed with maybe the perfect old man for me specifically to be obsessed with. like it's so perfect and aligns so well ! it's a miracle, a coincidence, a blessing, a phenomenon. it's almost like there's a reason i like him so much or something!

[dexaroth]

probably never gonna read warrior cats out of laziness but the naming process is so simple yet effective. just things you can find in nature I think. kind of sad that they took advantage of that bc thats like just a step away from naming a guy Opal or Cloud so of I were to name a character something like leafstone it'd be almost certainly assumed to be a warrior cat

[bugsinthebayou]

if my name is not a lesser-used name i will die

[psychosomaticdeicide]

The only bad thing about LibreOffice Writer is that it does not have a grammar checking system like Microsoft Office Word, meaning I Am the Grammar Check when my sibling is writing an essay.

But also I am the wall getting spaghetti thrown at it.

And the thesaurus.

And the time reminder.

And the shortcut key reminders.

[deliasamed]

Subordinate Clauses

Understanding Subordinate Clauses and Their Varieties

A complex sentence, by definition, consists of one independent (main) clause and at least one dependent (subordinate) clause. A subordinate clause, also known as a dependent clause, is a group of words that has both a subject and a verb but cannot stand alone as a complete sentence. It relies on a main clause (independent clause) to provide a complete thought. Subordinate clauses can be categorized into three main types based on their grammatical function within a sentence: noun clauses, adverb clauses, and adjective clauses. Each type serves a different purpose and modifies or complements the main clause in distinct ways.     Noun Clauses: A noun clause is a group of words that functions as a noun within a sentence. It can serve as the subject, object, or complement of the main clause. Example: What she said is important(subject). I don't know what to do (object). The fact that he succeeded is amazing (complement).     Adverb Clauses: An adverb clause is a group of words that functions as an adverb within a sentence. It typically provides information about the time, place, manner, reason, condition, or degree of the action in the main clause. Example: While I was studying, my friends were playing outside (time). She sings as if she were an angel (manner). Because it was raining, we stayed indoors (reason).     Adjective Clauses (Relative Clauses): An adjective clause is a group of words that functions as an adjective within a sentence. It provides additional information about a noun or pronoun in the main clause. Example: The book that I borrowed from the library is fascinating (modifying the noun book). The person who helped me is my neighbor (modifying the noun).             Finite Subordinate clauses: A main clause, or independent clause, is finite. In grammar, a finite clause is one that has a subject and a finite verb. A finite verb is a verb that is inflected for person and tense and typically indicates a completed action or state.   A subordinate clause can also be finite. A finite subordinate clause is a group of words that contains a subject and a finite verb but cannot stand alone as a complete sentence. The finite verb in a subordinate clause is inflected for person and tense, just like in a main clause.       Here are examples of finite subordinate clauses:   Adverbial Finite Subordinate Clause (Time): After the rain stopped, we went for a walk.     Adjectival Finite Subordinate Clause (Relative Clause): The woman who lives next door is a doctor.     Nominal Finite Subordinate Clause (Subject): What you said surprised everyone.     Adverbial Finite Subordinate Clause (Reason): Because she studied hard, she passed the exam.     Adjectival Finite Subordinate Clause (Conditional): If you finish your homework, you can go out.     Nominal Finite Subordinate Clause (Direct Object): I believe that honesty is the best policy.             Non-Finite Subordinate clauses: Subordinate clauses, nevertheless, can be Non-finite. Non-finite subordinate clauses are characterized by the absence of a finite verb. A finite verb is a verb that is inflected for person and tense and is typically found in main clauses, marking agreement with the subject and providing information about when the action occurs. Non-finite verbs, on the other hand, lack this inflection for person and tense. Let's explore why the verb in non-finite subordinate clauses is referred to as such:   No Marking of Agreement and Tense: In non-finite subordinate clauses, the verb remains in its base or root form (infinitive, gerund, or participle) and does not change to reflect the person or number of the subject. It does not carry information about when the action takes place. For example: She wants to visit the museum. (Infinitive, non-finite) She visits the museum. (Finite)     Cannot Be Modal Auxiliary: Non-finite verbs cannot function as modal auxiliary verbs. Modal auxiliary verbs (such as can, could, will, would) are used with the base form of a main verb to express modality, possibility, necessity, etc. Non-finite verbs do not have the same modal properties. For example: She can visit the museum. (Finite) She wants to visit the museum. (Non-finite)     Subject Is Not in Subject Case: In non-finite subordinate clauses, the subject of the clause, if present, is often in the objective case or implied, and it does not affect the form of the non-finite verb. For example: I saw him running in the park. (Objective case) She heard them singing in the choir. (Implied subject )                    Nonfinite Subordinate clauses Types : There are several types of nonfinite subordinate clauses, including infinitives, gerunds, participles, and verbless clauses.   Infinitives: Infinitive clauses often function as nouns, adjectives, or adverbs within a sentence, serve as the direct object of the verb.   She brought a gift for him to open. They worked hard for the team to succeed. They gathered resources to build a shelter. She bought ingredients to bake a cake. They helped him leave. (bare Infinitive)         Participles: Participial clauses function as adjectives, providing additional information about a noun.   The children, playing in the park, laughed joyfully. The stormy weather, frightening the animals, forced them into hiding. The story, written by a famous author, captivated the readers. The exhausted hiker reached the summit, guided by an experienced mountaineer.         Gerunds: Gerund clauses function as nouns, often serving as subjects, objects, or objects of prepositions. Gerund clauses, being a type of non-finite subordinate clause, can sometimes have the subject omitted, especially when it is the same as the subject of the main clause. Here are examples: He's not very good at remembering names. She wrote an essay about exploring ancient civilizations. I was surprised at finding my lost keys. I was surprised at learning about the sudden change in plans. They asked him about joining the upcoming project team.         Verbless Clauses: Verbless clauses, as the name suggests, lack a finite verb. Instead, they often start with a present or past participle, an infinitive, or a prepositional phrase. These clauses can function as adverbials, providing information about time, manner, or condition.   Examples: Born in Paris, she developed a love for art. Without hesitation, he jumped into the water. His passion for painting evident, he spent hours in the studio. With a smile on her face, she accepted the award.                   Subordinate Clauses Complex Sentences Compound Sentences Imperative Sentences Subject Pronoun/ “One” and “They” as subject meaning About Phonetics Read the full article

[literaryvein-reblogs]

Writing Notes: Children's Dialogue

Language is extremely complex, yet children already know most of the grammar of their native language(s) before they are 5 years old.

BABBLING

Babbling begins at about 6 months and is considered the earliest stage of language acquisition

By 1 year babbles are composed only of the phonemes used in the language(s) they hear

Deaf babies babble with their hands like hearing babies babble using sounds

FIRST WORDS

After the age of one, children figure out that sounds are related to meanings and start to produce their first words

Usually children go through a holophrastic stage, where their one-word utterances may convey more meaning

Example: "Up" is used to indicate something in the sky or to mean “pick me up”

Most common first words (among the first 10 words uttered in many languages): “mommy,” “daddy,” “woof woof,” “no,” “bye,” “hi,” “yes,” “vroom,” “ball” and “banana”

WORD MEANINGS

When learning words, children often overextend a word’s meaning

Example: Using the word dog to refer to any furry, four-legged animal (overextensions tend to be based on shape, size, or texture, but never color)

They may also underextend a word’s meaning

Example: Using the word dog to refer only to the family pet, as if dog were a proper noun

The Whole Object Principle: When a child learns a new word, (s)he is likely to interpret the word to refer to a whole object rather than one of its parts

SYNTAX

At about two years of age, children start to put words together to form two-word utterances

The intonation contour extends over the two words as a unit, and the two-word utterances can convey a range of meanings:

Example: "mommy sock" = subject + object or possessive

NOTE: Chronological age is NOT a good measure of linguistic development due to individual differences, so instead linguists use the child’s mean length of utterance (MLU) to measure development

The telegraphic stage describes a phase when children tend to omit function morphemes such as articles, subject pronouns, auxiliaries, and verbal inflection

Examples: "He play little tune" or "Andrew want that"

Between 2;6 and 3;6 a language explosion occurs and children undergo rapid development

By the age of 3, most children consistently use function morphemes and can produce complex syntactic structures:

Examples: "He was stuck and I got him out" / "It’s too early for us to eat"

After 3;6 children can produce wh-questions, and relative pronouns

Sometime after 4;0 children have acquired most of the adult syntactic competence

PRAGMATICS

Deixis: Children often have problems with the shifting reference of pronouns

Children may refer to themselves as "you"

Problems with the context-dependent nature of deictic words: Children often assume the hearer knows who s/he is talking about

AUXILIARIES

In the telegraphic stage, children often omit auxiliaries from their speech but can form questions (with rising intonation) and negative sentences

Examples: "I ride train?" / "I not like this book"

As children acquire auxiliaries in questions and negative sentences, they generally use them correctly

SIGNED LANGUAGES

Deaf babies acquire sign language in the same way that hearing babies acquire spoken language: babbling, holophrastic stage, telegraphic stage

When deaf babies are not exposed to sign language, they will create their own signs, complete with systematic rules

IMITATION, REINFORCEMENT, ANALOGY

Children do imitate the speech heard around them to a certain extent, but language acquisition goes beyond imitation

Children produce utterances that they never hear from adults around them, such as "holded" or "tooths"

Children cannot imitate adults fully while acquiring grammar

Example:

Adult: "Where can I put them?" Child: "Where I can put them?"

Children who develop the ability to speak later in their childhood can understand the language spoken around them even if they cannot imitate it

NOTE: Children May Resist Correction

Example: Cazden (1972) (observation attributed to Jean Berko Gleason) – My teacher holded the baby rabbits and we patted them. – Did you say your teacher held the baby rabbits? – Yes. – What did you say she did? – She holded the baby rabbits and we patted them. – Did you say she held them tightly? – No, she holded them loosely.

Another theory asserts that children hear a sentence and then use it as a model to form other sentences by analogy

But while analogy may work in some situations, certainly not in all situations:

– I painted a red barn. – I painted a barn red. – I saw a red barn. – I saw a barn red.

Children never make mistakes of this kind based on analogy which shows that they understand structure dependency at a very young age

BIRTH ORDER

Children’s birth order may affect their speech.

Firstborns often speak earlier than later-born children, most likely because they get more one-on-one attention from parents.

They favor different words than their siblings. 

Whereas firstborns gabble on about animals and favorite colors, the rest of the pack cut to the chase with “brother,” “sister,” “hate” and such treats as “candy,” “popsicles” and “donuts.” 

The social dynamics of siblings, it would appear, prime their vocabularies for a reality different than the firstborns’ idyllic world of sheep, owls, the green of the earth and the blue of the sky.

MOTHER'S LEVEL OF EDUCATION

Children may adopt vocabulary quite differently depending on their mother’s level of education.

In American English, among the words disproportionately favored by the children of mothers who have not completed secondary education are: “so,” “walker,” “gum,” “candy,” “each,” “could,” “wish,” “but,” “penny” and “be” (ordered starting with the highest frequency).

The words favored by the children of mothers in the “college and above” category are: “sheep,” “giraffe,” “cockadoodledoo,” “quack quack,” the babysitter’s name, “gentle,” “owl,” “zebra,” “play dough” and “mittens.” 

BOYS / GIRLS

One area of remarkable consistency across language groups is the degree to which the language of children is gendered.

The words more likely to be used by American girls than by boys are: “dress,” “vagina,” “tights,” “doll,” “necklace,” “pretty,” “underpants,” “purse,” “girl” and “sweater.”

Whereas those favored by boys are “penis,” “vroom,” “tractor,” “truck,” “hammer,” “bat,” “dump,” “firetruck,” “police” and “motorcycle.”

Tips for Writing Children's Dialogue (compiled from various sources cited below):

Milestones - The dialogue you write should be consistent with the child's developmental milestones for their age. Of course, other factors should be considered such as if the child has any speech or intellectual difficulties. Also note that developmental milestones are not set in stone and each child is unique in their own way.

Too "Cutesy" - If your child characters are going to be cute, they must be cute naturally through the force of their personality, not because the entire purpose of their existence is to be adorable.

Too Wise - It’s true kids have the benefit of seeing some situations a little more objectively than adults. But when they start calmly and unwittingly spouting all the answers, the results often seem more clichéd and convenient than impressive or ironic.

Unintelligent - Don’t confuse a child’s lack of experience with lack of intelligence. 

Baby Talk - Don’t make a habit of letting them misuse words. Children are more intelligent than most people think.

Unique Individuals - Adults often tend to lump all children into a single category: cute, small, loud, and occasionally annoying. Look beyond the stereotype.

Personal Goals - The single ingredient that transforms someone from a static character to a dynamic character is a goal. It can be easy to forget kids also have goals. Kids are arguably even more defined by their goals than are adults. Kids want something every waking minute. Their entire existence is wrapped up in wanting something and figuring out how to get it.

Don't Forget your Character IS a Child - Most of the pitfalls in how to write child characters have to do with making them too simplistic and childish. But don’t fall into the opposite trap either: don’t create child characters who are essentially adults in little bodies.

Your Personal Observation - To write dialogue that truly sounds like it could come from a child, start by being an attentive listener. Spend time around children and observe how they interact with their peers and adults. You can also study other pieces of media that show/write about children's behaviour (e.g., documentaries, films, TV shows, even other written works like novels and scripts).

Context - The context in which children speak is crucial to creating realistic dialogue. Consider their environment, who they're speaking to, and what's happening around them. Dialogue can change drastically depending on whether a child is talking to a friend, a parent, or a teacher. Additionally, children's language can be influenced by their cultural background, family dynamics, and personal experiences. Make sure the context informs the dialogue, lending credibility to your characters' voices.

Sources and other related articles: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Writing Notes: On Children ⚜ Childhood Bilingualism More: Writing Notes & References

[utilitycaster]

a brief guide to types of fantasy names

I put some syllables together and they sounded nice

I put some syllables together and I can't say they sounded nice per se but they do sound vaguely like they come from Arthuriana so close enough

reasonably common real-world name but a letter or two is changed or added

extremely apt real-world character descriptor but a letter is changed (you know who you are)

two reasonably common real-world names smashed together in some kind of fantasy name particle accelerator

this means something meaningful in a foreign language (real-world)

this means something meaningful in a foreign language (elaborate conlang, self-created)

this means something meaningful in a foreign language (hey Siri, how do you say Fateful in Quenya? Set alarm for D&D Session Zero for 45 minutes from now.)

real-world names, but exclusively ones that are no longer in common usage, frequently either from the ancient Mediterranean region or else medieval European names

"this is Linda and she fights dragons. fuck you."

referred to only by a series of complex and mysterious titles

rigid naming convention across the board, but within that any one of the above is possible

some kind of pun or overly long memeified joke

I don't know what data set the fantasy name generator runs off of and I'm too afraid to ask but not too afraid to reap the benefits

acronym that I never replaced

Literally just a noun

[kara-akaane]

Vode An is actually really interesting cause it was written before mando’a as a language was developed so when Karen Travis first developed mando’a, she used that song as a basis.

So the song like is mando’a, really the first use of mando’a, but it’s also kinda not as the grammar rules and wider language didn’t exist yet. From what I’ve picked up, I think this was some what retconned as songs just not caring about grammar as much in favor of sounding better

In the song it looks like you’re right, they use motir as a noun meaning ‘enemies/those standing before us’. Specifically, the line is “motir ca’tra nau tracinya” or “those standing before us lite the nightsky aflame” with nau being lite, tracinya being flame/aflame, and ca’tra being nightsky which leaves motir to mean “those standing before us” (tho the us could just be implied as pronouns are sometimes dropped in mando’a). Cause “those standing before us” is the subject and subjects have to have nouns, that leaves motir as having to act as a noun in this case.

Both mandocreator and mandoa.org define motir like you would a verb as ‘to stand’ which threw me off when I was translating and im not 100% sure if verbs can/ when they can be treated as nouns in non-sung mando’a. It might just be something that was cut out in later versions of the language but again, I’m not sure.

But also, especially with Disney really only using mando’a for like background noise at most, mando’a is really a fun fan run conlang so you can kinda do whatever lol

If it were me, I’d have translated ‘may the enemies standing before/blocking us know the burning wrath of the blade and die’ as “vercopao aru’e ibac ara’novo mhi kar’tayli a’den hettyc be te kal bal ash’amur” but word order is a bitch and I’m not 100% confident in the wording of that first clause, so I’d probably have simplified the sentence to “vercopao cuun aru’e kar’tayli a’den hettyc be te kal bal ash’amur”

Medieval fantasy AU

(My goodness, I got a bit carried away. Actually spent an hour trying to learn mando’a grammar.)

Transcription: Vercopaö aru’e cuun motir kar’taylir a’den hettyc be te kal bal ash’amur

[freemusicdonut]

#avoidplastics #FollowTrafficRules #ourbestqualityproduct #ontimematerialdispatch #bestproducts #goodwillenginnering #DrugFreeSociety #GuideElements Guide elements absorb transverse forces that occur and prevent contact between the piston rod and cylinder cover and between the piston and cylinder barrel in hydraulic and pneumatic cylinders. As nouns, the difference between disadvantage and advantage is that disadvantage is a weakness or undesirable characteristic; a con while the advantage is any condition, circumstance, opportunity, or means, particularly favorable to success, or any desired end. The major advantage of using a priority queue is that you will be able to quickly access the highest priority item with a time complexity of just O(1). The only disadvantage of using Priority Queues are that the enqueue and dequeue operations are slow and have a time complexity

[deathofacupid]

intellectual | peter parker

summary: you overhear something you weren't supposed to, but it shouldn't have been said in the first place. in result, you can't help but wonder if peter wants something different.

warnings: implied smut, mentions of sex, insecurity, use of y/n

pairing: bimbo!reader x frat!peter

word count: 3.0k+ words (my longest fic yet-)

a/n: in no way is use of "bimbo" meant to be a patriarchal stereotype. please do not take it offensively, this is a work of fiction.

M.LIST | RULES/REQUESTING | ABOUT ME

peter was totally smitten by you. really, he was. after all he's been through, it was kind of nice having someone who adores him as much as he does, even if you are... a tad bit dim-witted.

while he grew up surrounded by death, trauma, and more, you were raised sheltered, hidden away from all the bad things. and even though peter's been through some shit, he finds it to hold you so gently, like the pretty thing you are, as if you were stained glass; fragile, but so beautiful.

when he's holding you, all his soft, brown eyes can focus on are how your soft, manicured hands wrap around his rough, calloused ones. you're always careful not to hurt him with your acrylics.

even though you can be slow at times, it's almost impossible not to admire the way your clothes always hug your curves, glossed lips pulled into a pretty pout.

peter could have just about any girl he wanted on campus, but he didn't want any of them.

he wanted you, and only you.

maybe it's because you were different, and no, not in dim-witted nature. but because of how soft you were. you didn't know, and even if you did, understand the horrors he wittnessed out there everyday.

you were protected by a little (very pink) bubble that you lived in, so when he came home to you, it felt as if he was in a different world altogether. you were so damn good at distracting peter, and you didn't even know it.

you were in your own dorm room, watching a silly rom-com while peter was with his friends, he told you not to wait up for him, given that he would be up 'til the early hours of the morning. but you decided that peter and his goodnight kisses were slightly more important than your beauty sleep.

slightly.

you furrowed your neatly shaped eyebrows at something that one of the characters said, tilting your head.

ram-i-fic-a-tion? you thought, humming. pulling out your phone, you googled the word.

noun plural noun: ramifications

a consequence of an action or event, especially when complex or unwelcome. "any change is bound to have legal ramifications"

"legal ram-i-fic-a-tions?" you wondered aloud.

you skimmed the rest of the definitions, still confused. surely peter wouldn't mind if you gave him a quick ring? so you went ahead in did that, letting the sound echo in the room.

when he didn't pick up, you frowned.

"ummm..." you trailed off, calling one of his friends, spencer, instead. you weren't a stranger to him, but more of a mutual. after all, your roommate was dating him. actually, you'd ask alyssa, your roomie, but she wasn't here.

much to your happiness, spencer did pick up. "hiii, spence."

"y/n?" he said, slurring slightly.

"what does, like, ram-i-fic-a-tion mean?" you asked, careful to enunciate.

spencer was aware of... how your brain worked, and he wasn't a jerk about it (unlike some people). he was one of peter's closer friends, so you felt comfortable around him.

"ramification? oh, uh, it's like a consequence."

you frowned dumbly, "to what?"

"to an action. if you don't study for the final, you might not do well. that's a consequence to your action. a ramification."

"oh. oh! okay. thank you!"

he didn't disconnect right away, and you could hear one of his frat brothers, you were unsure who, talking. and of course, you strained your ears to listen.

"it doesn't get annoying or anything?"

you heard peter's voice come next, and instantly perked up. "what?"

"dude, be so for real. she's hot, but like, as dumb as a third grader. do you have to talk to her like that too?" he laughed.

oof, you thought, sucks to be whoever it was they were talking about.

"sometimes. she's good in bed, though."

wait. he was talking about you. your jaw dropped. i mean, you were stupid, but not this stupid. so this is what "saturday night with the boys" was all about?

you heard collective laughing. you did stupid things sometimes, but never had the mental compacity to be embarrased by them. this, though? this was different.

you trusted peter.

he was the only person who never, ever, spoke to or about you like that. in fact, it was one of the reasons you'd grown to like him so much. because he was patient, he was kind, and never did he once judge you.

well, that's what you thought.

but you were dumb enough to think that just because he never spoke about it to you, he never spoke about it all.

you immediately disconnected the call, dropping your phone. trying to focus back on the movie, you nibbled on a piece of popcorn.

but you just couldn't get over it. did it bother him?

all the questions? the dim-witted stupidity? all the pink?

reluctantly, you glanced the hot pink bowl that held your snack.

you didn't mean to be so... like that. you were just being yourself. did peter not like you being yourself? no, no, of course not. if he didn't, then why would he be with you?

a little voice in the back of your head rang out; "because you're good in bed."

maybe it wouldn't hurt to try and raise your iq?

you turned off the tv, hot pink popcorn bowl forgotten. alyssa wouldn't mind if you borrowed something, right?

you opened her room door, walking over to her bookself. wrinkling up your nose, you scanned her shelf. how could someone like reading so much?

it was so... gross.

oh, well. maybe peter was into intellectuals. and you had better become before he left you for someone like that.

your eyes paused at a book titled "the hobbit".

"what's a... hobbit?" you asked, not to anyone in particular. you skipped it, looking at her other ones.

"'twisted love', 'the fault in our stars'... what'd the stars do?" picking up the book, you read the back. "huh," you remarked, putting it back.

instead, you grabbed a couple self-help books, struggling to hold them with your acrylic nails, which, of course, were bright pink... accentuated with big charms; bows and hearts.

you went back over to your room, dumping them on your bed. checking your nails again, you drummed them against your palm to make sure they were intact.

you started reading the first one, curling up in a blanket, but you kept getting distracted. every five seconds, you look up to make sure your lashes were still in place, or that your skin wasn't to shiny, or that your hair was still perfect. and to be honest, you didn't really understand any of it.

like, who actually had the patience to read through all of it? how could a book cure all your crap?

and why would you read a book to feel better, when you could go to a spa, or a shopping spree.

credit cards were invented for a reason.

but you powered through, at the very least, you skimmed the words. there was no way you could read it word for word. but you wanted to try... for peter.

you wanted him to stick around, to love you, but not superficially. not for sex.

you stayed up until 1:30 (mostly reading, and you still didn't understand how people did this for fun), but didn't call peter. you'd talk to him tomorrow, maybe. first, you needed to get your facts straight. eventually, you got ready for bed.

this included showering, taking off your makeup, putting your hair in rollers, and your fifteen-step skincare routine.

you may have been half asleep, but you'd never skip a step.

peter came over around noon monday, when neither of you had classes. "jeez, babe," he groaned, you in his lap, "i've got so much to do. seriously, i'm never gonna get it done."

you twirled your hair, appearing nonchalant, "your mindset is either your best friend, or worst enemy."

you kept your eyes trained on your phone, waiting for peter to respond. looking up, you saw him blink. "uh... yeah. that was- that was very... un-y/n-like."

to be honest, you didn't even know what the saying meant. you just memorized it from your book. "was it dumb?"

"no, it was smart," peter replied, kissing your hairline.

"i'm normally dumb?" you asked, tearing up. lips pouted, voice moist, you made eye contact with him. you knew you were a little slow, but dumb? really?

"no! that's not what i meant. it just sounded- well, i- cause you never say stuff like that. you're my smart, pretty girl."

"oh, okay," you said, your nails tracing the curve of his back. you pecked him on the lips, but he brought you back for a longer kiss.

you giggled as he flipped your positions, peter on top.

"can i show you just how pretty you are?"

he didn't have to ask twice.

you were in the dining hall, sitting with some of your friends, mixed with some of peter's.

they were talking as you picked at your salad, leaning into peter.

"ugh," sarah, you kind-of friend started, "my boss gave me a premotion."

"what the fuck are you complaining about?" alyssa scoffed.

"because! it means that i have to do more...! like, i'll have to get up earlier. i dunno if i'll take it. it's cooler than the one i have now, but but it's not as comforting."

you spoke up, completely confident, "commit to change. either embrace the challenge of pursuing your destiny or shy way and live in regret."

collective "oohs" and "damns" were heard around the table, and you reveled in it.

"okay, girl, you go."

"parker, when did your girlfriend get a braincell upgrade?" you looked at peter, waiting for him to shoot something back, but he didn't. you frowned slightly, going back to the salad.

it went on like that, you would pipe in and offer self-help advice (not really knowing what it meant) hoping for peter's attention. sometimes you got it, and sometimes you didn't.

it was fine, you wanted him to notice you. after all, you weren't reading for fun. you were doing it for him, so... just, like, notice already.

you'd been focusing so much on the self-help books, your nails had grown out, leaving space between your nail bed and acrylics. deciding to take some time away from the books and all their un-understandable wisdom, you wanted to paint your nails.

nothing to big, but more simple. you were finding it hard to turn the page with the large charms on the acrylics you normally had to.

you found some 100% acetone in your bathroom, so you soaked your nails, waiting for the acrylics to come off. once they got loose enough, they came off easily.

you did some prepping, then picked out two different shades of pink. you were about to start when you heard two long knocks, then two short ones.

(it was peter's special knock, so you'd always know when it was him.)

"come in!" you called out, and you saw a head of fluffy brown hair peek in.

"hey," he said, slipping in your room.

"hi, petey!"

he came up from behind you, hugging your waist. "whatcha doing?"

you opened a bottle of nail paint, "painting my nails."

"cute colors," he kissed your cheek, and you leaned in.

"right? pink is so pretty," you gushed.

"what are these?" peter asked, and you looked over curious as to what he was talking about.

"oh, just, like, lyss' books."

"yeah, but why're they in here?" he read the back of one, raising a brow.

you continued painting your nails, trying to appear chill. "i was reading them."

he seemed to do a double-take, and you frowned, "what?"

"nothing- nothing, i just..."

"i know how to read," you said, shoulders sagging. "i'm smarter than a third-grader," you didn't catch the slip-up, but he did.

that caught him off guard there, "what?"

"what?" looking up, you finally met his eyes.

"you said you- well, yeah, i know. you just don't-" he paused, "self-help books didn't seem like your thing is all. oh, is that why've you been saying all that?"

"saying what?"

"all the-" he didn't want to hurt your feelings, but if he was right, he already had. "the, um, advice?" he stammered. peter didn't trip over his words often, and you knew that.

you were sure that he knew that you knew, but you weren't sure if he knew for sure.

you shrugged, "doesn't it sound smart?"

"no, yeah, it does." he's treading very carefully. it was quiet for a brief moment; "did you hear?"

"hear what?"

"the... the comment i made?"

"oh, that one about me being stupid, but good in bed?" you said it so casually, as if it didn't bother you at all.

but it did. he knew it did.

he sighed, "i'm really sorry, baby."

"for what?"

"for saying that."

"no, you're sorry you got caught. you wouldn't have said it if you didn't mean it."

"i didn't- i was drunk," peter tried again.

"drunk words are sober thoughts," something else you read, you aren't sure where.

he was starting to get really nervous. he didn't know what was going through your head, normally he had a good idea, but it wasn't anything like this. it didn't seem like you hated him, but he wasn't about to take advantage.

"no, i-"

"it's okay. i'm working on it," you said, trying to make him feel better. as if you were the one who'd messed up, not peter. the idea itself was insane to him, and it only made him feel worse.

"angel," peter started, "this is not your fault. please don't make it your fault. i'm the one who messed up, and what i said was not okay. it was a stupid, drunk joke, and i shouldn't said it."

you blew on your nails, blinking back your tears. mascara, the good stuff, was expensive. you looked up, shocked to see tears in his eyes. you don't think you've ever seen him cry before. well, maybe once, when you watched "titanic" with him.

peter wasn't one to get emotional, he still denied ever crying over that movie.

"it's okay," you repeated again. you were dumb, you knew that. it really wasn't his fault, you shouldn't have pushed him to feel like that.

"but it's not. and i know you know that, please tell me what i can do to make it better."

"but-"

"no, it's not," he said sternly, "and i cannot stress that enough. i'm really sorry, baby."

you capped the polish, you didn't know what to say. it wasn't your fault? okay, fine.

maybe he was right.

"i got really upset," you admitted.

"i know, baby," the tears are falling, he quickly wipes them away.

"did you really mean it?"

"no, no, no, of course not. i absolutely love you the way you are, and you shouldn't have to change yourself for anyone- especially not for me."

"so you don't think i'm only good for sex?"

"baby, no, baby, no!" baby, he used that word for affection; when he was guilty, trying to prove something to you... in this case, how sorry he was. "you are good for so many other things," he paused, "okay, that didn't sound great."

he took a deep breath, taking your freshly painted hands in yours, "don't mess up the polish," you warned, even though you were tearing up.

peter smiled slightly, that meant you weren't too upset, right? that he hadn't fucked everything up by great means?

"i haven't ever met someone like you, who loves me the same back. and i don't mean generally, but romantically. lots of people can't put up with me," he started, "but you do, and jesus, baby, i'm so greatful for that- and you," peter added.

"you are the bright pink light of my life. you're so different from other girls i've been with, you see me. you don't look at me, you see me. like, okay, maybe you aren't the greatest at math, but you don't have to be a s.t.e.m. genius to be smart."

peter was getting raw, he was getting vunerable. "i don't know how to use a curling iron for the life of me, i don't know the difference between mascara and eyeliner. well, i do, but i didn't before you."

you looked at him, opening your mouth to speak. you wanted to tell him he'd lost you somewhere along the line, but figured it was important for him to get this out.

"you've got a different mindset than me, and i love that. you're the biggest feminist i've ever met, and wait until you meet may. i think it's interesting that your entire personality doesn't revolve around your degrees and resumes, because, god, people like that are annoying. most of all, you're confidence is amazing. i never had anything like that in high school."

you knew that he was a nerd, kept his head down, shoulders sagging. "i just... i'm sorry. i don't know why i said it. i'm a huge insecure jerk that thinks he can get away with crap by projecting it onto his lovely, amazing, wonderful girlfriend. you're my favorite person, and i can't help but think you'll leave me one day. i thought that if i acted like i didn't care... i don't know. i- i don't... i'm sorry."

you took moment, that's the longest he's ever spoken to you, but he wasn't done, apparently.

"also, i don't care about sex. i mean, it's nice and whatever, but what's the point of it if i don't have you. what i'm trying to say is, i'd pick you over that any day, okay? it doesn't matter to me. i'm not with you for that."

"thank you," you said, it seemed appropriate. basically, he just compliented you a whole lot, and it worked; you seem to have a thing for praising. "and i forgive you. also, i hated those stupid books, and if they weren't, like, alyssa's, i'd burn them."

you shuddered, "i can't believe i read them."

"really?" peter asked, hopeful. you kissed away a stray tear, looking into his wet eyes. "we're okay?"

"we're so okay," you paused, "but you have to watch bridgerton with me."

he groaned, "fine." (you knew he liked it, he just wouldn't ever admit to it.)

"wait, so just checking, you aren't into, like, intellectuals or whatever?"

"i'm into you," he said, "whether or not you idenify as one."

taglist: @whatsupstark @ell0ra-br3kk3r @idli-dosa @susvale @kdbsr-h @littlemsbumblebee @sflame15-blog @twinsunkithies @chocolateshepherddreamclod

[dedalvs]

it's fascinating to me how endlessly complicated High Valyrian seems to be when you answer questions about it. Is there any language in the world more or less at the same level of complexity?

It depends how you're thinking of complexity. All the languages of the world are equally complex. They have to be, because they all need to perform the same function, and they're all used by the same human brains living inside the same humans living human lives. I think English speakers (and hypothesize that, by extension, the same would be true of Chinese speakers, Hawaiian speakers, Vietnamese speakers, Swedish speakers) look at certain other languages and think of them as more complex in the meta sense because they are more morphologically complex.

By this, I mean in English, for a noun you need to know its singular and plural form—that's it. For a verb, you need to know its -s form, its -ed form, its -ing form, and, very rarely, its -en form. There is some irregularity in form for almost all of these (-ing appears to always be regular), but there aren't more forms, outside of "to be", which has a unique first person singular form.

And...that's it, really. We have adjectival comparison, I guess, but even that can be traded out for an expression (aside from "better" which can't be replaced easily by "more good", most comparatives can be replaced—e.g. you can say something is "more red" than something else even though you can also say it's "redder" than something else). There aren't many word form changes in English a user has to learn in order to be able to use those words in a sentence. The same is true of those languages I listed in the parenthetical phrase above.

Compare that to Spanish, where there are more word form changes for verbs in the present tense (indicative and subjunctive) than in the entirety of English. And that's just one tense for verbs! There's loads more that needs to be memorized; many more word form changes you need to know to be able to use words effectively in a sentence. And there are irregularities on top of that!

Is it the case, therefore, that Spanish is more complex than English?

Certainly, Spanish is more morphologically complex, but does that mean you can express more in Spanish than you can in English? Certainly not! So then what does it mean when we say Spanish is more morphologically complex than English? What's the upshot? What does it mean for the language user?

Perhaps it would help if we compare some Spanish verbs and their English translations:

hablabas "you were talking"

hablé "I spoke"

hable "you would speak"

The precise translation of these verbs will depend on context, but this is a fine example. These are all single words of Spanish. They're different forms that must be memorized, but they're single words. The English requires at least two words for each concept.

So which is more complex? On the one hand, you have fewer words but more forms. On the other, more words, and more words = bigger.

And that, essentially, is the crux of it.

Any time you have complexity baked into single words morphologically in one language, you'll find complexity in the form of multiword expressions in a less morphologically complex language. The meanings are always there(*), but they're expressed in different ways.

As English speakers, we're used to having to express things in multiword expressions, and a speaker of a given language will find their own language to be simple just because. We extend that to think of languages like ours as simpler than those that are different. But, in truth, it's six of one, half dozen of another. Furthermore, there's just as much complexity in languages with less morphological complexity. Consider the following expressions in American English:

I walked to the store. ✅

I walked to a store. ✅

I walked to store. ❌

That's pretty standard. English has articles and you need to use them, right?

I ate the dinner. ✅

I ate a dinner. ✅

I ate dinner. ✅

All those are okay. They don't mean the same thing—and, indeed, the first two have much more restricted contexts—but they're all okay. That's a little weird, isn't it?

Not as weird as this:

I made it by the hand. ❌

I made it by a hand. ❌

I made it by hand. ✅

The first two aren't just weird: they're yikes-a-doodle-do wrong. You might try to brush it aside and say that it's just an expression, and, sure, it is, but ask yourself this: how'd that expression come about in the first place? This one is actually from Shakespeare (Romeo and Juliet) and still works the same way in American English:

You kiss by the book. ✅

You kiss by a book. ❌

You kiss by book. ❌

And just for funsies:

He won by the nose. ❌

He won by a nose. ✅

He won by nose. ❌

You might think the way these shake has to do with what they stand for—that the semantics of the noun in question condition whether or not you can use articles—but consider the first one "store" and compare it to this one:

I walked to the Barnes & Noble. ✅

I walked to a Barnes & Noble. ✅

I walked to Barnes & Noble. ✅

Barnes & Noble is a store, but refer to it by title, and suddenly it's all okay.

Now, if your native language is English, ask yourself: when and how did you learn all of this? Did someone sit you down and tell you where to use which articles and where not to? I'm sure there was some level of instruction you got in elementary school (whether it was accurate or not), but how much of a difference do you think that made? Did you just not use articles before then? And even now, could you explain this? Do you even think about it? Or do you just do it—flawlelssly and effortlessly? Adult learners of English will tell you learning this stuff is a nightmare. Throw in phrasal verbs (pick up vs. pick out vs. pick on vs. pick up on vs. plain old pick) and suddenly English doesn't look too simple anymore.

Bringing this back to your question, when you look at High Valyrian, is there a natural language with an equal amount of morphological complexity? Sure. Maybe something like Latin. But understand that any language will be as complex—not more, not less: as. The only difference with High Valyrian, actually, is its vocabulary isn't as large (give me a couple decades), and it doesn't have nearly as many users as any natural languages. It's also being kept artificially small, in that the language is built up to fit a fictional reality, rather than being expanded to handle anything, the way modern languages are. But pick up any language and it will be equally complex.

(*) From above, it is not always the case that the same "meanings" will be in the equivalent translation of a given sentence. A good example is gender. If you say El río es largo in Spanish it means "The river is long" in English. Like, exactly that. There is no question that these two phrases are functionally equivalent. HOWEVER there is more information in the Spanish sentence. The words el, río and largo are all masculine gender. What does that mean? Nothing more than that they're not feminine. If you hear el in Spanish there are a limited number of words that can legally follow it. When you hear largo, you know that what it refers to has to be in the same class. The function of this is simply to enrich the signal. If you only hear "is large" in English from the previous sentence, you have no idea what noun is large. If you hear es largo in Spanish, you also don't know—but whatever that thing is, you know it has to be masculine. That means that if a Spanish speaker has to guess what es largo they were trivially have a better shot at guessing correctly than an English speaker guessing what "is large" (e.g. if an English speaker has a one in a million shot, a Spanish speaker has a one in 500,000 shot, because roughly half the nouns of Spanish are masculine and half feminine). This means, technically, there's more information in the Spanish sentence than the English sentence, and that information is not represented at all in the English sentence, and is, essentially, unrecoverable. But that "information" is more morphological in nature than semantic.

[multiselves]

Coining Post!! 🔗👥 Multiself / Multiselves !!

Definition ::

Multiself is an umbrella term for any singlet/singlet adjacent being that experiences multiple identities/selves. The term also applies to individual sysmates that share the experience, provided the sysmate/s in question identify as multiself independently from the rest of the collective.

Mulitself beings may or may not "switch" between selves, though multiself is explicitly separate from the plurality spectrum and does not describe multiple consciousnesses/distinct people. However it's important to note that SOME parasian/plurallet experiences may fall under the multiself umbrella

• You can identify as both transplural/transmedian and multiself at the same time, in the same way that you can identify as a both a boy and a girl at the same time. Trans identity is very complex, and often paradoxical in nature

• Generally switches are amnesia free and voluntary, but this is definitely more of a guideline than a hard and fast rule. (I myself have light amnesia, and experience "switches" more as kinshifts rather than a conscious choice.)

• Multiself is inherently tied to transid, in the sense that selves have their own distinct sets of transids. Though notably, the amount in which the selves differentiate depends on the individual. On one end of the spectrum, one's selves may be extremely different in name, appearance, age, race, gender etc. On the other end of the spectrum, one's selves may be entirely identical except for each selves trans/trispersonality ids

Language ::

(Note: this is general language for the umbrella term, and may not be applicable to more specific labels that fall underneath it)

Shift (verb): The experience of changing selves

"I'm shifting into Mallory"

Form (verb): The experience of forming new selves

"I formed Riley yesterday"

Mindset (noun): The term used to describe which self you currently identify as

"I'm in Monty and Jamie's mindset right now"

Primary self (noun): The self you most commonly identify as

"I'm in Darce's mindset most often, they're my primary self"

Selves are not separate consciousnesses, though we/us language is also acceptable if you feel more comfortable using it. If you wish to refer to all your selves at once, but want to avoid being mistaken for a system, you could simply say "my selves", or "my cluster"

Flag colours ::

Those that choose to have multiselves: dark pink

Those that do not choose to have multiselves: light pink

Those that experience their selves as being "alter egos" for the main self: grey

Those that are at their core consciousness, experiencing selves that are all equally them: white

Those that have fluid selves, in any sense: lilac

Those that have static selves: light blue

Distinction from plurality: dark blue

Why was this coined?

This label was a reaction to segreID. At first glance the two terms seem very similar, but there are some key differences such as my far laxer approach to including those that identify with some form of plurality. This label is not meant to act as a recoin, nor is it meant to "out-inclusive" the segreID coiner, vampi-rq.

I wanted to create a less specific term that would include me, and anyone else that shared the majority of my experiences

While there is conflict between me and vampi-rq, I still have a lot of appreciation and respect their term and how it was intended to be used. The multiself label is personal to me, and it was born out of respect for the segreID definition rather than in spite of it. SegreID exists to describe a much more specific experience, and it's one that simply doesn't apply to me, which I'm fine with

All thumbs are fingers, but not all fingers are thumbs

While by definition segreID does happen to fall under the multiself umbrella, that does not mean that 100% of the things described here apply to it. Vampi-rq has been explicit about what is and is not segreID. I encourage you to do your research and pick the appropriate label for what you're experiencing. The multiself label is intentionally very vague and nonspecific