Live data from Hacker News

Identify Any Language Written in the Roman Alphabet at a Glance

theweek.com

71–80 of 95 posts

Re: Identify Any Language Written in the Roman Alphabet at a Glance

#71
post #5

Additional bonus: Korean uses lots of basic angles, squares, and lines and many Hangul have "three parts" eg. 한국어의 It's a beautifully simple writing system. You can go quite a long comment chain in Japanese without seeing の. I always tell people "look for lots of simple characters that can be written with only 2 or 3 lines mixed in between a bunch of really complex characters". 来週は学校に行きません For those who don't know Ja…

来週は学校に行きません This sentence makes no sense.

There is nothing wrong with that sentence.

Re: Identify Any Language Written in the Roman Alphabet at a Glance

#72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What problem do you have with it?

来週は学校に行きません roughly translates as "Next week, I won't go for school." The correct usage is 来週は学校*へ*行きません "Next week, I won't go to school."

Entirely false. に is perfectly valid here.

Re: Identify Any Language Written in the Roman Alphabet at a Glance

#73
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi, I'm a gainfully employed translator of Japanese and linguist. Short answer: the sentence is fine as it stands, although your alternative is equally grammatical (if less idiomatic - "学校へ行かない" gets about 1/4 of the ghits of "学校に行かない" by my count, and personally I'd never use へ). Long answer: Japanese draws a distinction between verbs of A→B movement (e.g. 行く to go; 引っ越す to move house; 移動する to move/change location)…

Japanese N1 and JETRO biz japanese here. Yeah sure, in vernacular construct, which explains more Google results.

Just stop. You're embarrassing yourself.

Re: Identify Any Language Written in the Roman Alphabet at a Glance

#74
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What problem do you have with it?

It's nonsensical and an actual error for one. ;) If you search for "来週は学校に行きません" on Google this thread is the only result.

It is neither nonsensical nor an error.

Re: Identify Any Language Written in the Roman Alphabet at a Glance

#75
post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No diacritics An understandably naïve view of things whose errancy could easily be corrected through your coöperative perusal of The New Yorker.

Wouldn't it be cöoperative?

It wouldn't be. The goal is to separate the second o from the first, not to separate the o from the c:

The diaeresis indicates that a vowel should be pronounced apart from the letter that precedes it [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diaeresis_%28diacritic%29#Diae...

Re: Identify Any Language Written in the Roman Alphabet at a Glance

#78
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No diacritics, and generous use of apostrophes.

> No diacritics An understandably naïve view of things whose errancy could easily be corrected through your coöperative perusal of The New Yorker.

To be fair, the original question was how to recognise English text, not how to recognise the archaic microcosm of English text that resides between the covers of The New Yorker.

Re: Identify Any Language Written in the Roman Alphabet at a Glance

#79
post #61
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No diacritics, and generous use of apostrophes.

That guideline would likely classify Xhosa as English. See https://xh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iphepha_Elingundoqo , which has no diacritics and three apostrophes.

Throw in "Mid-word capitals are (almost completely) absent in English".

Re: Identify Any Language Written in the Roman Alphabet at a Glance

#80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On a meta level I find that just a little troubling. It sounds to me like "Crap, I agreed with this until I noticed it was an opinion from a tribe I don't identify with - so I can't agree with it". Maybe theweek.com is some uniquely evil thing I haven't heard about?

"Upvote" means something different than "agree"; one of the things it means is "I endorse people visiting this". I can imagine quite a few sources that I wouldn't want to direct traffic to even if they published something where I agree with the sentiment.

The idea of voting for a link for any reason other than its quality is completely anti ethical to a karmic voting system like the one used here.
Post reply on HN