DankOfAmerica
- 0 Posts
- 93 Comments
What’s the name of someone speaking a foreign language?
Why?? What’s the difference, and why would they care?
No. They use Krung Thep, which is short for Krung Thep Maha Nakhon.
I have not, but now I am interested. Any idea where I could hear the difference between the correct Japanese way and the butchered American way?
Supposedly, the English took it from the Dutch. The English king gave it to his brother who was the Duke of York and renamed it in his honor.
I think it’s interesting that some countries have entirely different names depending on the language. Here is one for example:
- English - Germany
- Spanish - Alemania
- Finnish - Saksa
- Polish - Niemcy
- German - Deutschland
There are many others, but they are more so variations of the same name, so I didn’t include them. The ones I listed are completely different.
I heard that the different names originated from the names of the Germanic tribes that interacted most with the respective peoples and resulting language. For example, what would be English-speakers would interact mostly with Germanic tribes, whereas would be Spanish-speakers would interactact mostly with Alemanni tribes. However, Perplexity says that the English name comes from the Roman name for the area, while the Spanish name comes from the name of the tribe. If only Crunk the Historian could investigate this and find an ultimate answer.
Consider that the artist probably, at the direction of the subject, made some alterations (aka photoshopped) to the painting in order for the portrait to come out how they wanted to appear. It’s possible that the subject looked even worse.
Los Anyeles
That makes me feel upset.
London
This drove the point home for me. If a Spanish-speaker says “London”, it just sounds completely wrong. For those wondering, it’s pronounced “Londres” in Spanish.
Someone should make a silly comic about it
But they are speaking the local language, so they’re learning to say it the correct way. Why would they insist on saying it wrong when they are learning to say everything else correctly?
¡Pues hombre, vallase para la porra! ¡Imbecil!
Una torta de patatas
4·1 day agoUnity drives clicks. We are in the age of unification. Nothing is “us vs them” and no one is ever fighting. It’s so refreshing.
Gotcha! Now you’re part of the problem. It’s your fault!!
your loved ones
Bold of you to assume I have loved ones. My estate is getting split in half between two charities.
7·2 days agoand corn isn’t street food
I disagree. Corn in Mexico definitely works as a street food. Also, I just realized this, but I wonder why corn didn’t pick up as street food in Chicago and Indianapolis.
I’ve heard that series is the most real representation of the the Marine Corps and combat environments in general. It’s morbidly hilarious.
That’s sad to hear. It seems he had a knack for reporting on hypocrisy and irony. I find that to be rare and much needed.
Combat Jack
The Red Army along with the Western Allies defeated the Nazis. It is true that the Red Army a magnitude more of losses and were responsible for 3/4 of Nazis killed in battle, so they objectively lost more of their own and took more Nazi lives. However, that is not the only factor that won the war. The Red Army received a considerable amount of military equipment from the West. Additionally, one can argue that the Red Army lost so many lives in part to their military strategy in which deserters and dissenters where killed. Shoot. Their leader was Stalin. Often times, Red Army soldiers would be ordered to rush a Nazi position knowing it would be certain death, but if they disobeyed, they would be killed by other Red Army soldiers. Plus, the Western allies, especially the UK, the USA, and Canada fought the Nazis on another front, forcing the Nazis to split their military units, equipment, and supplies. The Americans also were the main force fighting against the Japanese Empire, which reduced the strain on the Soviet Union allowing it to focus more on the Nazis eastern front, though technically, that has nothing to do with the war between the Nazis and the Red Army. And in the beginning, it was the UK that took the brunt of the Nazi war machine. Civilians in London were taking shelter in the subway during Nazi bombing missions. I would also like to give a shout out to the French resistance that terrorized Nazi occupation.
The Red Army definitely took the heaviest human toll against the Nazis. Estimates for Red Army losses vary immensely since they were so high and the war was so chaotic. Their losses were so much, that some of the ranges of casualty estimates I have seen on Wikipedia are as large as the rest of the lives lost by everyone else. According to a quick search on Perplexity, the Red Army loss ~8.7 million soldiers, while the rest of the allies lost ~1 million. So if there is an estimate that the Red Army suffered between 8.2 & 9.2 million, the range would be as wide as the losses of Allied military forces. Furthermore, many major battles were on Soviet ground, so they also suffered immense civilian casualties. Perplexity gives an estimate of 13.7 million Soviet civilian deaths. That’s over twice the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust which was a systematic genocide carried out to be as efficient as possible by a people known for efficiency.
Despite all of that, the Soviet Union did not defeat the Nazis on their own. They had considerable and decisive help from Western allies, both in battle and supplies. The Soviets took the brunt of the losses, and without WWII, the world would be an unrecognizable political landscape in which communism may have been more popular or prominent, whether you would prefer that or not. However, it is disingenuous to say the Red Army defeated the Nazis on their own.