even the first guy starts off with a faint th[ə] before it('s as if it) 'kicks in' that he doesn't know what comes next?

not ubiquitous, youtu.be/87Dbgfm860M

wait okay something that surprised me when i went to check this was this "th[i] -- th[i] -- th[i] um" (!!) from youglish, youtu.be/L0YJawSqbms

woah wait...

i think i meant 'about the dp*' (assuming dp's are real idk we were taught them)

questions for youglish possibly (thank god they transcribe fillers, just checked):

1. ofc, when is it "th[ə] uh" vs "th[i] uh"
2. what about the occurrence of "<some controlled preceding words> the uh X" vs "<same words> uh, the X"

(peacefully for now ignoring other fillers, um/er/erm/...)

this maybe says something about syntax that i'm too haven't-opened-carnie-since-finishing-undergrad-and-not-thinking-about-syntax-anymore to figure out (…like you can know that what you're about to say needs to be definite even without knowing the actual word, which says ??? about the constituent…?)

is there any corpus study on this or something

do not like how the fact that i say "thee, uhh..." (for "the, uhh...") suggests i know i'm about to say uhh at least half a word before i say it

reine-claude is the source of a lot of languages' names for the fruit so that part isn't even out there, it just needs a magical french–arabic intermediary that took the whole phrase "de la reine claude" and affricated the d for… some reason 🥲

(+ maybe ar > ottoman > ar for some of the variants?)

i still have faith this one will somehow miraculously turn out in my favor

screenshot of dictionary entry: s-ṭ-ʿ sitʿe, pkyistaʿa (v/t) touch; to possess (devil)': alok, mall-ižtát š-šaya ta savu, pittístaʿa [G]kumpí[G] u pitiru kullon ‘these days, with the modern inventions, you just press a button and everything turns’; [G]amma[G] pkyifrax (< frḥ) m-[G]morós[G], l-umm má-pittístaʿa ʿaléx u pkyimsiku yapatu ‘when a child falls very ill, the mother doesn't touch him; his father holds him'; OA saṭaʿa (a) ‘lay hold of’: saṭaʿtu š-šayʾ ‘I laid hold of the thing with the palm of my hand ...’ (Lane 1358); ~ Alep ṣəṭeʿ (a) ‘toucher, porter la main sur (qqn ou qqe)’ (Barth 435) ~ Pal Ar lā tisṭaʿnī ‘berühre mich nicht!'’ (Kampff 1936:32). satʿ (vn) touching, sense of touch, fingerprint; ~ Alep ṣaṭəʿ vn of ṣəṭeʿ (Barth 435). mastúʿu, f -a, pl -ín (pp) ‘touched’: mastúʿu mniš-šetán ‘possessed by the devil.’

crackshots that have not panned out:

• me and some others thought luʔʔuz "med. seabass" was cognate to lox, turns out it's from greek lykos (still ie!)
• i was convinced of saṭaʕ "to touch" < اسطاع until i learned from alexander borg that no there was literally just an arabic saṭaʕa "to grasp" lol

there's probably no way to verify it going all the way back to استنكف but hooray that my intuition for how to bridge the gap was on point

example quoted

this also helps validate my parents' form "sengef" and in turn suggests that our (southern) form iiq vn was like bint jbeil's in the left pic, tCiCCiC

(altho zrarieh nearer our village had tCəCCoC as on the right, dunno why, maybe just pausal alternations that fossilized varyingly)

i had the idea on the left forever ago and today is the first time ive realized that i can literally just search for the proposed *تسنكف

and WHAT DO YOU KNOW it literally exists

theyre updating this page to be all about your specific style youre so fucked

dude. dude wake up. they trained the next chatgpt release on you and now your writing style is all over the internet and everyone is picking apart every aspect of your voice and grammar and conventions they hate you SO BAD

#typistsky... #typesettersky... [puts another coin in] #publishersky...

americans afflicted with canadianness, i raise you... actually no, you raise "i"

Santa Fe Trail Ruts near Dodge City, Kansas; ruts are faintly visible across a somewhat dried grassland with trees in the distance

A steep incline with ruts and a vertical sign reading OREGON TRAIL; this one is taken in Oregon

Today I learned from a Kansan that there are many locations on the Oregon Trail and offshoots where you can still see the wagon ruts formed by thousands of wagons heading west across the aptly named Great Plains.

www.nps.gov/thingstodo/v...

www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/follo...

the wikipedia diagram that explains the hebrew prophetic perfect tense except with the text swapped out so that the timeline has niṯpāʿēl followed later on by yintifaʕʕal, and there's a red arrow sweeping from the former all the way to the end of the timeline before looping back to yintifaʕʕal. the red arrow is captioned "hebrew influenced by najdi arabic as if past event"

• and the book was printed at the now-defunct catholic press/imprimerie catholique in beirut, but i don't know if the original papers all were as well

i figure that the last bullet in the prev post means that at the time it was common knowledge how such works could be reproduced?

to make the context clearer:

• book in the screenshot is a 1974 collection of older papers
• the oldest one (1946) looks different than the rest of the book
• foreword says that paper was reproduced photographically, explaining the diff appearance, but it doesn't say how they reproduced the others

(half-a-second-later facepalm) in fact they can't have been 100% unchanged, and it also can't be that they reused already-poured(?) forms, since as it says in that exact screenshot they were able to fix the pagerefs in those later papers that were reproduced by some means other than photogrpahy

in 1974 they just didn't have the forms(?) for this 1946 paper anymore but for whatever reason they did for all the later ones? (does that even make sense considering that it assumes they would've been able to reprint the papers 100% unchanged when compiling them into the new medium of a book?)

also, in a 1974 collection of older papers, why would the oldest one (1946) have to have been reproduced photographically & what about the rest? did printing technology change after 1946 (do i have to read about the history of the catholic press in beirut to know?) or is the implication rather that/

finally oh my god

a banger is a song that... goes hard... that doesn't help

("post a banger, not in english") this one is possibly misattributed in the title youtu.be/_-F3Q37nmrE

thanks!! i'm trying to digitize some stuff and i was about to add probably-unfair footnotes like "<author> mixed up etc etc" because i knew nothing about the publishing process