Recent Posts
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 31, 2024, 11:39:17 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

Filter Options Collapse
        


Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10

 1 
 on: Today at 11:38:47 PM 
Started by TDAS04 - Last post by Red Velvet
NH in Portuguese is not that different from the Ñ in Spanish imo.

R can sound like different things. As the first letter of a word it usually sounds like what an Anglo person understands as a non-mute H, like in the word “Hard”. The name “Rita” would be pronounced as “Hita”; “Rafael” sounds like “Hafael”. The R is strong and necessarily comes from the throat and not from the mouth/tongue like Anglos sound. It’s not a rule though, but it’s what’s most common.

In the middle of a word it can honestly sound like different things depending on the region. The word “Porta” for instance, here in Rio de Janeiro the R in the middle also comes from the throat but in many regions people talk this R with their tongue instead - it’s something I associate a lot with São Paulo, especially interior regions with what we call caipira accent (“hick accent”).

LH in Portuguese is kinda like the Spanish LL, sound-wise.

Brazilian regional accents were very impacted by the different immigration trends each place received. Rio de Janeiro accent main stereotype nationally is that we usually turn the S into X very often. “Gostoso” in Rio sounds more like “Goixtoso”. Not by coincidence, it is a way of pronouncing it inherited by the Portuguese (which established the capital in Rio, a city that received strong Portuguese influence), who are known for doing the exact same thing turning the S into X even harsher than people in Rio: “Fascista” in European Portuguese sounds more like “Faxista”.

Even the way in Rio we pronounce the R in the middle of words that I mentioned (stronger and coming from the throat” is associated to French influence, how French pronounce their Rs. The French had lots of cultural influence in Western Europe, so when the Royal family arrived in the Rio capital to settle, that way if speaking also came and regionally defined how Rio citizens speak.

Meanwhile, the “hick accent” São Paulo speaks their Rs comes from the fact there were more interactions between Colonizers and Indigenous people in these interior areas not in the litoral of the country and they were also more isolated. Indigenous people weren’t able to pronounce the same hard-R from the elites, so they spoke differently and it “caught on” regionally.




Those are some curiosities about how people in Rio speak but each other region in Brazil has their accent traced to the immigrant influences they received more strongly.

This video talks about some other regional influences (for Portuguese speakers only) and it’s fascinating to realize how all these different global influences from everywhere reflect on the diversity on how Brazilians speak differently from region to region:



 2 
 on: Today at 11:36:26 PM 
Started by WV222 - Last post by President Punxsutawney Phil
Magnanimousness is important. We are still one country.
Let's not forget the Golden Rule, everyone.

I promise to treat Donald Trump the same way I would want and expect to be treated were I to constantly make racist, sexist, and other hateful remarks; constantly perpetrate fraud in my business dealings; sexually assault women and brag about it; try to ban Muslims from entering the country; separate immigrant parents from their children as a sadistic deterrent; seek to subvert a democratic election; lead a mob to attack Congress; repeatedly lie to the FBI and many others; etc. I would probably face social rejection and prison time if I did those things and I would like to think I’d be humble enough to accept that, so I think Donald Trump should as well. But I wasn’t born with a silver spoon in my mouth to a racist father, and I have on occasion faced consequences for my behavior. Maybe if those things weren’t true I’d be twisted and broken just like him.
Bold of you to assume the focus of my post is Donald Trump.
I'm talking more about how people in both parties ought to deal with each other generally.
What do you think my position is regarding all this, seriously? Be blunt.

 3 
 on: Today at 11:31:27 PM 
Started by WV222 - Last post by Sbane
Truly I do not understand the "if they can come for Trump, they can come for you" line. Nobody has ever doubted that they can come for average Americans if they want to.

As CCR famously said: "when the band plays "Hail to the Chief," they point the cannon at you."

We know they can come for us. They always have, whether it was the 1877 railroad strike, the Battle of Blair Mountain, COINTRLPRO, or yes, both the George Floyd protests and January 6th. If anyone in the US doubts that they live under the authority of the federal government be it legitimately or capriciously, and that that government will act to reinforce that control, they are either extremely naive or extremely stupid.

What they never do is turn the canons around and go after the commander-in-chief. For the first time ever, the most powerful people are having to reckon with the consequences of the US not being authoritarian, but having the president be on the same level where the rest of us have always been. That's why yesterday was so special and why everyone who is not one of the six living US presidents should be celebrating it as one of the ultimate achievements of our democratic-republican system.

If Trump were being prosecuted for let's say, molesting an underage girl on Epstein Island, you would not see the kind of backlash we are seeing. People are rightfully angry at this verdict because anyone who isn't a democrat partisan can see how obviously political the whole charade is. If you are going to break a 250-year precedent of never prosecuting former presidents, it better be over something pretty damn serious. This trash out of Manhattan does not even come close to meeting that standard.

And I mention the Epstein scandal because there is sufficient evidence that Trump did in fact sexually abuse an underage girl being trafficked by that POS, at least enough to warrant an investigation. And this actually would be a case that would legitimately destroy Trump politically. Everyone agrees child molestation is a horrific crime worthy of punishment, you have a clear victim who was physically harmed, and solid evidence and credible witnesses (unlike say E Jean Carroll). I do wonder why Dems have never tried going after Trump over that?

Hopefully Trump will be convicted for his crimes on January 6th and what he tried to do in Georgia. He should spend the rest of his life in prison for those crimes against the United States of America.

 4 
 on: Today at 11:29:37 PM 
Started by WV222 - Last post by H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY
Magnanimousness is important. We are still one country.
Let's not forget the Golden Rule, everyone.

I promise to treat Donald Trump the same way I would want and expect to be treated were I to constantly make racist, sexist, and other hateful remarks; constantly perpetrate fraud in my business dealings; sexually assault women and brag about it; try to ban Muslims from entering the country; separate immigrant parents from their children as a sadistic deterrent; seek to subvert a democratic election; lead a mob to attack Congress; repeatedly lie to the FBI and many others; etc. I would probably face social rejection and prison time if I did those things and I would like to think I’d be humble enough to accept that, so I think Donald Trump should as well. But I wasn’t born with a silver spoon in my mouth to a racist father, and I have on occasion faced consequences for my behavior. Maybe if those things weren’t true I’d be twisted and broken just like him.

 5 
 on: Today at 11:28:05 PM 
Started by jojoju1998 - Last post by jojoju1998
And Francis has done another -ism, this time a remark about how women be gossiping. For an eighty-seven-year-old frankly-more-cishet-seeming-than-most-popes Peronist living and working in Italy to say something unkind about women off the cuff is about as surprising as for him to say something unkind about gay people, but two serious gaffes of this kind coming in quick succession is obviously pretty unusual for this man in particular.

I'm going to start considering the possibility of cognitive decline. As Al said about another living legend of Latin American public life:


If you mean seriously (as I do in this case), then ones that display clear signs of the sort of mental deterioration associated with various forms of dementia. Strange and disturbing statements that have some relation to the sorts of things the person in question might once have said are a better indication that getting names wrong and terminology confused: the false positive rate on the latter would be absurdly high. In terms of people still in leadership positions, the classic case would be Urho Kekkonen.

I hope I'm wrong about this, and in any case Francis has enough planned for late this year—trips; documents; the synod—that we can probably assume he's not mere days or weeks from death, but I think this is a possibility worth taking into account in addition to his obviously declining physical health.

People can disagree with pope Benedict XVI, and he was a conservative, but that man was razor sharp until his death, and he was known for being extrmeley careful with his language.

 6 
 on: Today at 11:24:38 PM 
Started by WV222 - Last post by emailking
lolwut:



I read this as him mocking those calling for a pardon. I see various sites are citing it and assuming he means it though.

 7 
 on: Today at 11:22:25 PM 
Started by Blue3 - Last post by Schiff for Senate
Edwards.

Bipartisanship, actual feel-good opposite-party friendship, relationships, even mutual understanding, is now dead - if it existed even in 2004 (not that it did even then, not to the extent Obama said).

Otoh class differences are still alive and well.

 8 
 on: Today at 11:17:07 PM 
Started by WV222 - Last post by H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY
I get really frustrated with this forum from time to time (and really, the American political media landscape in general) because it really encapsulates American decadence. Secularism has undermined the values that hold our society together. People on both the left and the right have forgotten what it means to use power responsibly and to treat everyone with respect. And now we’re approaching a point where people are calling for taking power by means of revolution- without considering the consequences of making violence a socially acceptable of political expression. God help us.

I really don’t get what your issues with American society and politics have to do with this forum. I don’t think the people on this forum have made violence a socially acceptable form of political expression, unless you mean to say that the carceral system is inherently violent because it puts restraint on human behavior, such that one cannot freely commit crimes without consequence. I don’t think the people who hold views in line with the forum consensus are calling for taking power by means of revolution in a democratic society. I would imagine that a Burkean conservative would have respect for the institutions, processes, and rulings of the judiciary, and furthermore that (insofar as this is important for social cohesion, which I dispute) the actions of Trump has been found guilty are contrary to the tenets of most world religions. So it’s not clear to me what your problem is with this forum or the left in general, in this context.

 9 
 on: Today at 11:16:15 PM 
Started by Benjamin Frank 2.0 - Last post by Benjamin Frank 2.0
Ritchie Valens - Come On Let's Go


 10 
 on: Today at 11:13:03 PM 
Started by Benjamin Frank 2.0 - Last post by Benjamin Frank 2.0
Whatever you make of this, note that 5 of the 7 justices were appointed by Democratic governors (and in a process where the governor meaningfully influences the outcome), 3 by current governor Laura Kelly and 2 by former governor Kathleen Sebelius.  In this case, 2 of the Kelly appointees joined with the 2 Republican appointees on the court in a 4/3 ruling.  The Kelly and Sebelius appointees are generally known as liberals.  For example, in 2019, they made a ruling that was a state level equivalent of Roe v. Wade, reading an implicit right to abortion into the state constitution.  It was 6/1, with one of the Republicans joining.  They then declined to overturn that ruling 5/1 in 2023.  One Dem appointed justice was recused from the 2nd case.

Yeah this is exactly what I was thinking as well - which makes me think perhaps there's more nuance to the case than what is expressed in the headline here.


You can read the article.

Switching the onus of proof (or whatever the technical legal term is here)  is very significant.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.03 seconds with 10 queries.