>>148 did they only have like 3 forenames in medieval hungary? i can't even tell what's happening, half the people are named ladislaus and the other half are named ulrich
Today is 11 September.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1275_British_earthquake
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_characters_of_Empress_Wu
(some spice towards the bottom of the article...)
>>216 this article is very vague for a wiki article, I guess due to how obscure the topic is.
>To illustrate, imagine seeing someone say this:
>"Tree's leaves are turning pretty colors. I think Tree looks nice today."
>Feel that pain? This is what some Wikipedia users feel when people use "Wiki" to refer to "Wikipedia".
I agree with the sentiment and also get irritated too easily by dullards misusing language, but that's a crap example, because that sentence makes me really happy. I also think Tree looks nice today.
actually, I meant as a wiki article in general, not a wikipedia article. wikipedia is not the only wiki, though it does tend to be the most active
>>221
This is retarded, have they never heard anybody say "the tree" when referring to a tree in their yard? People have a thing called context clues, and it is perfectly permissible in English to call a specific thing by its general type when context is obvious. Also fuck wiki users.
>>228
Just "Tree". Omitting definite article is not permissible in English.
>>229 In a world full of possibilities like this one, anything is permissible! Grammar and phonotactics are social constructs, at least in English - but some languages do have central authorities. Some people name their trees, maybe he called his one Tree.
>>231
English is descriptive, but until more people than Russian ESLs start omitting "the" then it's not really part of the language. Feel free to start trying though. Reminds me of the time I wanted to get a dog and call it Cat, and a cat and call it Dog, and a fish and call it Tarantula, and finally an empty terrarium.
.png){kind=link}
