Thread: a word that should not be visible?

Originally Posted by Lampada

Старый анекдот по теме:
- Мама, что такое ж..а?
- Вовочка, такого слова нет.
- Как это может быть? Ж..а есть, а слова нету.

Жара ?

ЖАБА!

Originally Posted by Leof

ЖАБА!

as in Star Wars?

YES! He looks very жаба-like actually!
Perhaps the word was жена?
I can't guess right - I even can't imagine what did Lampada talk about.

Are you people serious or you're just having fun? I wouldn't spoil anything for you. Both guesses about the word are wrong.

:P

Originally Posted by Ramil

Are you people serious or you're just having fun? I wouldn't spoil anything for you. Both guesses about the word are wrong.

Это они умничают. Ха-ха. Притворяются, что не заметили моё "по теме". И не надо их поддерживать.

Originally Posted by Leof

YES! He looks very жаба-like actually!
Perhaps the word was жена?
I can't guess right - I even can't imagine what did Lampada talk about.

жира нету у жены

Originally Posted by Бармалей

Originally Posted by Vadim84

If somebody "ищет приключений на свою задницу" they are being foolhardy. For instance, this can be said about virtually every character Bruce Willis has played, particularly in Die Hard trilogy, or just about any Hollywood-type-tough-guy-superhero

P.S. Sorry for mangling the English language in my last sentence, I'm not sure how it sounds to a native English speaker - maybe witty, maybe silly

First, as for the content of what you're saying, is that really the case? Those are silly movies, but the people in the real-world create absurd situations. The characters THEMSELVES are following perfectly logical courses of action -- stopping the bad guys, saving the world, etc. I don't know for sure, but the way I took ищет приключений на свою задницу is more like "looking for trouble you don't need," or "if it ain't broken, don't fix it." Someone who, for example, takes apart their watch, when it works fine, just for the sake of doing so I'd say ищет приключений на свою задницу. Basically, doing something stupid and inadvisable just for the sake of doing so.

As for you sentence, it was perfectly understandable.

Barmaley, your perception of the discussed Russian phrase ("looking for trouble you don't need") is almost correct but it needs just a little correction. It really should be:
"looking for trouble you don't need (in the eyes of the speaker)"
So when I speak about Hollywood's Willises and such I consider saving the world as an illogical thing and don't think they are following perfectly logical courses of action What the heck, let the world go to hell!
I think Leof was wrong when he said "means neutral or negative". As I see it, the phrase almost always shows the negative evaluation by the speaker.
Other than that you are right. It's definitely PUTTING themself there b/c they're looking for adventure/trouble/etc (but in the speaker's opinion because the subject of the action may think he is looking for something else, not adventure/trouble) and not FINDING themself in a unusual or risky situation

Originally Posted by Бармалей

Actually, you're wrong. Proper English prohibits using "their" -- it's just a misconception.

But read this:
Question: I often find that I need a singular pronoun to refer to an individual whose sex is unknown. In past years, I would have used "he" and never have given it a second thought. Today, that obviously will not do. . . .

Answer: Problems can arise when an indefinite pronoun (or a noun) is replaced with a singular personal pronoun, such as he or she. When they refer to homogeneous groups, singular personal pronouns are fine: None of the brothers thought himself better than the others.

But do not use singular personal pronouns to describe members of groups that are or could be heterogeneous: "Every secretary should help her boss keep his calendar up to date" will get you into hot water! Job descriptions, policies, regulations--any writing intended for both men and women must use inclusive language. Three simple techniques will help you revise:

1. Avoid third-person pronouns where possible.
2. Use plural pronouns (they, their) and plural verbs for most constructions;
3. experiment with "we" or "you."
4. Match indefinite pronouns with the plural pronouns "they" and "their." This choice has historical legitimacy, is acceptable for all informal writing and — if used consistently — for formal writing as well (though some will raise their eyebrows). You can also use the pronoun pairs "he or she," and "his or her," though I find them awkward.

Take a look at the usage discussion in the American Heritage Dictionary, 3rd Edition, under "he."

It's from http://www.protrainco.com/

well I can assure you it is possitive in the eyes of hot blonde zluts

Ж0ПА

0ПА!!!!!!!!!
is it related to the song of diskoteka avaria?

Originally Posted by Lampada

Originally Posted by Ramil

Are you people serious or you're just having fun? I wouldn't spoil anything for you. Both guesses about the word are wrong.

Это они умничают. Ха-ха. Притворяются, что не заметили моё "по теме". И не надо их поддерживать.

Слово = zhопааааааа. Как глагол "zhопаааавать," прилагательное "zhопаааавный," и Наречие "zhопаааавно."

Originally Posted by Vadim84

Originally Posted by Бармалей

Actually, you're wrong. Proper English prohibits using "their" -- it's just a misconception.

But read this:.......

Uhm, every bit of text you posted actually SUPPORTS me. It's just saying that where you can, make the OVERALL sentence plural to avoid using he/she in the first place. It's NOT saying you can use their in combination with SINGULAR subject. It suggests that you do this:
"All people have a right to their safety." (Plural subject matched with plural possessive pronoun -- you can safely mean both men and women while being grammatically incorrect).
and NOT this:
"A human has a right to his safety." (Grammatically fine, may be politically incorrect though)
"A human has a right to their safety." (Totally wrong. If you use this, your English teacher will flog you.)

Originally Posted by Vadim84

Barmaley, your perception of the discussed Russian phrase ("looking for trouble you don't need") is almost correct but it needs just a little correction. It really should be:
"looking for trouble you don't need (in the eyes of the speaker)"
So when I speak about Hollywood's Willises and such I consider saving the world as an illogical thing and don't think they are following perfectly logical courses of action What the heck, let the world go to hell!
I think Leof was wrong when he said "means neutral or negative". As I see it, the phrase almost always shows the negative evaluation by the speaker.
Other than that you are right. It's definitely PUTTING themself there b/c they're looking for adventure/trouble/etc (but in the speaker's opinion because the subject of the action may think he is looking for something else, not adventure/trouble) and not FINDING themself in a unusual or risky situation

Первый пункт: Согласен.
Второй пункт: Согласен.
Третей пункт: Согласен.

[quote=Бармалей]

Originally Posted by Vadim84

Originally Posted by "Бармалей":ummiz1g6

Actually, you're wrong. Proper English prohibits using "their" -- it's just a misconception.

But read this:.......

Uhm, every bit of text you posted actually SUPPORTS me. It's just saying that where you can, make the OVERALL sentence plural to avoid using he/she in the first place. It's NOT saying you can use their in combination with SINGULAR subject. It suggests that you do this:
"All people have a right to their safety." (Plural subject matched with plural possessive pronoun -- you can safely mean both men and women while being grammatically incorrect).
and NOT this:
"A human has a right to his safety." (Grammatically fine, may be politically incorrect though)
"A human has a right to their safety." (Totally wrong. If you use this, your English teacher will flog you.)[/quote:ummiz1g6]
Hm, but how will you explain this quote from my English dictionary. It's an explanation of one of the meanings of the word "someone":
If you say that a person is someone or somebody in a particular kind of work or in a particular place, you mean that they are considered to be important in that kind of work or in that place.
A SINGULAR subject (the word "person") + they, huh?

I think Leof was wrong when he said "means neutral or negative". As I see it, the phrase almost always shows the negative evaluation by the speaker.

It's a contradiction.
Using your words almost always IS NOT THE SAME with never.
So if it's almost always negative, in other cases it can be..what? POSITIVE?

So was I wrong at that? I obviously was not.

Originally Posted by Бармалей

Originally Posted by Vadim84

Barmaley, your perception of the discussed Russian phrase ("looking for trouble you don't need") is almost correct but it needs just a little correction. It really should be:
"looking for trouble you don't need (in the eyes of the speaker)"
So when I speak about Hollywood's Willises and such I consider saving the world as an illogical thing and don't think they are following perfectly logical courses of action What the heck, let the world go to hell!
I think Leof was wrong when he said "means neutral or negative". As I see it, the phrase almost always shows the negative evaluation by the speaker.
Other than that you are right. It's definitely PUTTING themself there b/c they're looking for adventure/trouble/etc (but in the speaker's opinion because the subject of the action may think he is looking for something else, not adventure/trouble) and not FINDING themself in a unusual or risky situation

Первый пункт: Согласен.
Второй пункт: Согласен.
Третей пункт: Согласен.

Третий

Glad to see you are being so "agreeable" finally

Originally Posted by Leof

I think Leof was wrong when he said "means neutral or negative". As I see it, the phrase almost always shows the negative evaluation by the speaker.

It's a contradiction.
Using your words almost always IS NOT THE SAME with never.
So if it's almost always negative, in other cases it can be..what? POSITIVE?

So was I wrong at that? I obviously was not.

Okay, you caught me I should've formulated my phrase better. You weren't wrong, I just elaborated on the subject.