bone-lazy -- czech this out: http://www.kidsseek.co.uk/d.php?word=bone-lazy (c) так что садись, waxwing, три.Originally Posted by waxwing
as for kazi vs. khazi - I was going to spell it khazi but changed me mind.
(kazi - 14,700 google hits, khazi - 2,090 google hits - draw your own conclusions Mr Pathetic Spellchecker)
Show yourself - destroy our fears - release your mask
Just ask any gynecologist about this. It's much safer for health to give birth the 1st child before 30.Not true.
Gib immer 100% bei der Arbeit: 12% am Montag, 23% am Dienstag, 40% am Mittwoch, 20% am Donnerstag, 5% am Freitag ...
You're paranoid VM, I was trying to help you refine your wonderful command of the language ..
Your link on 'bone lazy' is very weird: at the top it says 'definitions of the word bone-lazy' and then lists definitions of 'bone' and 'lazy' but none of 'bone-lazy' or 'bone lazy' ..
I don't believe in 'bone lazy', I've only ever heard bone idle, but go ahead and prove me wrong, I'll learn something. That link was just silly.
About khazi, it's not so easy to get a definitive answer, as I suspected. Well not in 5 minutesI'd love to know the etymology though; I always vaguely suspected it was Indian, but maybe not.
Море удачи и дачу у моря
I have asked - my friend is a gynecologist. Here's what he said. It's not about age at all, only stupid people would say so. It's about the fitness of the woman's organism. Consider this: many centuries ago people's life expectancy was much lower, 30 year olds were considered to be very very old, like today's 80 year olds. For those people the optimal child bearing age was, say, 14 - 17. Today people live longer and healthier lives - and consequently the optimal child bearing age is later in life than it used to be. Now, where does this "30 years old" come from? It comes from the fact that many women in our society will have worn out their organisms with booze and fags by the age of approximately 30. However, and this is very important, so pay attention, there's nothing special about the figure of 30 itself - if they smoked and drank more than they do
it'd be a different figure, say 21 or something. Theoretically a 40 year old woman can be healthier than a 20 year old one and it is perfectly possible for the mechanisms in her body which are responsible for the alas inevitable decrease in her organism's ability to conceive and bear a child not to kick in yet - a 20 year old one may well have set those mechanisms in motion while a 40 year old one hasn't. Now, that's in theory, but in practice we have a society where only a handful of people choose not to poison themselves with nicotine and alcahol - naturally the majority of women are uncapable of producing offspring by the time they hit 30. I repeat, there's nothing special about the number 30, it's all about the fitness of the woman's organism. If most people continue to knock it back like f@cking goldfish and smoke like f@cking chimneys gynicologists will be screaming a different figure, much less than today. However, those women who do look after themselves (drink a lot of mineral water, eat tons of veg and fruit and stuff like sushi, etc) can and do have healthy babies well into their 30s. Alas the majority in this country belongs to the social layer I call "bogstandard peasants" and it won't be long before this riff-raff is incapable of having children at all. However, I personally know many women in their late thirties and forties who look better than the majority of 20 year olds and who successfully had children in their early thirties.
Show yourself - destroy our fears - release your mask
waxwing
Here you go Mr Doubting Moustafa:
...Any political reporter who is so bone-lazy that he simply reproduces Alistair Campbell'spress releases unedited should resign and take up childminding...The Irish were mocked as "bone lazy boggers"...Even bone-lazy kids will love these excavation kits...Is this recognised by the teaching profession, or are the kids
who try to bunk-off just considered bone lazy?(this one's from http://www3.shropshire-cc.gov.uk/etexts/E000312.htm)'I don't hate thee,' said Tim uneasily, 'but I do love fighting; I'd liever thee'd fight than come another mile. Don't thee come any farther, I've been bone lazy all day, and thee's been at work. And I say, Stevie, I'll help thee with the potatoes to-morrow, to make up for this bout.'
Just google around. You're pathetic.
Regarding khazi vs. kazi neither is correct, should be khasi, but it doesn't really matter.
Show yourself - destroy our fears - release your mask
"Bone idle" is far more common. I've heard "bone lazy" once or twice, but it doesn't sound right (to me) and I've always just dismissed the writer as illiterate, or just plain bone idle.
Heard? The writer? You mean like what in bukes? And do they come with nice jackets, those bukes?
Still the idiom exists (google around and see for thissen) - therefore it's один нул в мою пойза! OK, I have a penchent for rare idioms (read 'elite') but ye hannae got nane, which is worse.
Show yourself - destroy our fears - release your mask
VM wrote:
"...many centuries ago people's life expectancy was much lower, 30 year olds were considered to be very very old, like today's 80 year olds. "
The reason that life expectancy was so much lower in times past was because of the extremely high infant mortality rates. Hundreds of years ago, it was not considered very unusual for people to live into their eighties. It was much less common, of course, but it was far from unheard of.
Thirty-year-olds were not considered to be like today's 80 year olds. Yesterday's 80 year olds were considered to be like today's 80 year olds.
By the way, the age that is, statistically speaking, the best age for a woman to give birth is at the age of 26. At this age, mothers' and babies' mortality rates are lowest.
If you take home a wounded and starving dog, nurse him back to health, and give him a home, the chances are excellent that, in the future, this dog will not bite you. This is the principal difference between dogs and men.-Paraphrase of Mark Twain
And why was that the case, have you ever wondered? Because people were generally rather unhealthy.
Depending on how many hundred of years we go back. Everything is relative.Hundreds of years ago, it was not considered very unusual for people to live into their eighties. It was much less common, of course, but it was far from unheard of.
They were. Believe me, I happen to know. In the meantime, re-read what I wrote above.Thirty-year-olds were not considered to be like today's 80 year olds.
Depends on the country. In some countries the quality of life is still pretty much mediaeval and different rules apply. And again we go back to the general state of people's health and how it changes with age - in different societies it's different. I'll give you an example to illustrate my point - while in Holland a 20 something y.o. woman with false teeth is a rare but not a freak occurance, in Russia it's totally unheard of. A 30 y.o. woman from Holland with false teeth is sadly becoming the norm, but in Russia it's still unheard of. Naturally a Dutch woman will not want to put off having babies until she's 30 for she risks scaring them to death (and here's a high infant mortality rate for you).By the way, the age that is, statistically speaking, the best age for a woman to give birth is at the age of 26. At this age, mothers' and babies' mortality rates are lowest.
Show yourself - destroy our fears - release your mask
Thankyou Janice, you are right. I become so tired of even the most learned historians distortion of the life expectancy rate of past peoples.
Let me be a free man, free to travel, free to stop, free to work, free to trade where I choose, free to choose my own teachers, free to follow the religion of my fathers, free to talk, think and act for myself. - Chief Joseph, Nez Perce
Well slap me with a Big Mac but I could have sworn that when two people agree to get married, are planning a wedding and reception, are looking for a home and buying the stuff to put in it and live there together after the wedding, that they are "engaged" to be married. Russians don't have the same cutural traditions as Americans (or Chinese, or Mexicans, or Arabs)and don't call it by the same name, but the process and outcome still result in marriage.
The incidence for birth of a trisomy 21 infant in a 20 year old woman is 1/1600. The incidence increases with each year of maternal age and is 1/370 at the maternal age of 35 years. The incidences of trisomy 13 and trisomy 18 also increase with maternal age.
The optimal physical age for a woman to give birth is in her 20's. Maternal and infant morbidity and mortality increase after that. Variables such as an unhealthy maternal life style, substance abuse, and pre-existing conditions (family history, current health problems, etc) can increase the health risks to mother and fetus but a healthy mom and a healthy lifestyle do not decrease the risks due to maternal age.
Infertility is also a real problem for women who wish to get pregnant after 30. Living the VM lifestyle (doing it like bunnies all through your 20's)causes repeated (usually silent) infections of the female reproductive organs that results in scarring and infertility.(and the big lie is that condoms will protect you). Incurable sexually transmitted infections such as herpes, HPV, and hepatitis C can also seriously increase the morbidity and mortality for mom and baby.
Toto, I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore.
VM wrote:
"They were. Believe me, I happen to know. In the meantime, re-read what I wrote above."
Ok. I've re-read what you wrote above. Am I to believe you merely because you so emphatically state, "I happen to know." ?
At the risk of making myself the target of some withering diatribe by you, I must say that I remain unimpressed.
You really 'know' only if one of these is true:
A). You have a working Time Machine, or:
B).You are several hundred years old.
Unless one is true then, no, you do NOT know.
If you take home a wounded and starving dog, nurse him back to health, and give him a home, the chances are excellent that, in the future, this dog will not bite you. This is the principal difference between dogs and men.-Paraphrase of Mark Twain
A toadstool is more intellegent than you. Obviously you don't know what scientific analysis is and you've never heard of radioactive dating and other ways scientists use to determine a) the age of the fossil/remains, etc, b) when the organism died and c) its diet, d) state of health, etc. Go back to school, child and next time do your homework.
Show yourself - destroy our fears - release your mask
So brace yourself a good hard slap with a Big Mac across your chevy chase. Therem take it! It's not the same thing AT ALL.
I'm sorry, but you're not a particularly bright individual if you can't distinguish between age as such and the fact that certain processes tend to start/finish at/by a certain age in the majority of people from a particular country/social group, etc. You should be aware of the fact that people age differently depending on such factors as a) cultural baggage, b) way of life, c) quality of life, d) quality of medical service, e) ....The optimal physical age for a woman to give birth is in her 20's. Maternal and infant morbidity and mortality increase after that. Variables such as an unhealthy maternal life style, substance abuse, and pre-existing conditions (family history, current health problems, etc) can increase the health risks to mother and fetus but a healthy mom and a healthy lifestyle do not decrease the risks due to maternal age.
Infertility is also a real problem for women who wish to get pregnant after 30. Living the VM lifestyle (doing it like bunnies all through your 20's)causes repeated (usually silent) infections of the female reproductive organs that results in scarring and infertility.(and the big lie is that condoms will protect you). Incurable sexually transmitted infections such as herpes, HPV, and hepatitis C can also seriously increase the morbidity and mortality for mom and baby.
Nowadays there's a tendency among progressive people to lead a very active and healthy lifestyle and those problems hit them much later in life. In fact those problem hit them when they should hit them according to their organism's constitution - it's not in your late twenties that it's normal from the point of view of mother nature for you to develop those conditions, but much much later in life, however, because most people are PEASANTS and don't give a sh*t about their own bodies, they tend to prematurely kickstart those processes by drinking copious amounts of alcahol and smoking like f*cking chimneys and never, I repeat, never ever working out (most people's idea of working out is to scratch their @rse a coupla times while watching a stupid mind-numbing gameshow). Indeed it turns out that by their mid twenties their bodies are a f*cking wreck. And in comes our JB and screams about women having problems with childbirth at that age. It's not because those problems hit women at that age, it's because they lead a lifestyle that deplores their bodies and accelerates all distructive processes in their organisms and for a sizeable majority of those peasants at this point in time and history (as seen projected unto a particular cultural/social backdrop) it JUST HAPPENS to be mid twenties-early thirties. THOSE PROCESSES ARE NOT PROGRAMMED BY NATURE FOR A CERTAIN AGE, THEY ARE TRIGGERED BY THE OVERALL FITNESSES OF THE ORGANISM, and just because it takes your typical peasant 20-something years to bring her organism to the point when those processes are accelerated doesn't mean that 20-something is the nature's way - it's mearly the riff-raff's choice.
As for silent infections and all that BS - you do not get infections from people who wash their backsides, you only get them from filthy animals which, in fact, most of those peasants indeed are. But I'm not bothered about peasants pissing barbed wire - progressive people shag only progressive birds and those don't sleep with bogstandard riff-raff.
And as I said before I KNOW LOADS OF WOMEN WHO GAVE BIRTH WHEN THEY WERE OVER 30 AND DIDN'T HAVE ANY PROBLEMS WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING CONCEPTION). True, those were active mums who preferred carrot juice to beer but that's the kind of people we're talking about - progressive elite vs. bogstandard riff-raff.
Anyway, that's what a professor of gynecology and his many colleagues all over the world think. I'm afraid, JB, your backward opinions describe you as a redneck midwife forever stuck in the stoneage of quack medical theories.
Show yourself - destroy our fears - release your mask
A quote from that fellow who really knows how to argue, yet always does it with high intellectual air and graceful gentlemanliness:
--"A toadstool is more intellegent than you. Obviously you don't know what scientific analysis is and you've never heard of radioactive dating and other ways scientists use to determine a) the age of the fossil/remains, etc, b) when the organism died and c) its diet, d) state of health, etc. Go back to school, child and next time do your homework."--
What do.... “radioactive dating and other ways scientists use to determine a) the age of the fossil/remains, etc, b) when the organism died and c) its diet, d) state of health, etc” have to do with the point you are attempting to argue?
Remember, your point: "30 year olds were considered to be very very old, like today's 80 year olds." Nothing is a surer sign that you have no idea how to further your argument concerning this question than your resorting to the insults you hurled at me. A toadstool may be more intelligent than me, but I know when I have the winning side: when my opponent can be no more than vicious.
If you take home a wounded and starving dog, nurse him back to health, and give him a home, the chances are excellent that, in the future, this dog will not bite you. This is the principal difference between dogs and men.-Paraphrase of Mark Twain
VM, you are either trying real hard to sound stupid, or you really are stupid. Only the very young and very uneducated would believe "The VM Guide to Obstetrics". Knowing "loads of women who gave birth when they were over 30" is a joke right? Why don't you type that up and send it into Lancet. I bet they can't wait to publish it !
As for your professor of gynecology, buy him a copy of William's Obstetrics (required reading for 1st year medical students).
And you and your progressive birds should never worry about taking a trip down to the polyclinic for any of those silly STD tests. Because only peasants get AIDS and all those other poor people diseases.
Toto, I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore.
To be fair, the vast majority of the posts by VendingMachine are interesting, informative and based on reasonable argument. I don’t think that the entity VM is paranoid waxwing, it's just somebody who in the real world would get it's lights punched out. But friendliness is not VM’s thing: standing of course behind the apparent anonymity of the Internet.
I'm sorry I missed appointment by you to the role of 'Mr Pathetic Spellchecker' VM (waxwing beat me to it) - nevertheless here are some points for discussion: -
Usually the expression in English is, ‘put your / his / her / their / my foot in it again’. Looks weird with put a foot in it…’
‘To anyone who has ever been to Russia and bothered to learn about our culture that statement would sound ridiculous. Briefly 'Should' is used to indicate obligation ('I should go') or used in a polite form ('I should like to go but I can't').
she tidied up...
Similar mistake again - Past tense and past participle 'paid' or 'payed' - To let out (a line) by slackening. I think VM meant, 'I paid with her credit card'.
Normally, in English, one would say - is ‘bone idle’ or ‘a lazy bones’. Bone lazy exists, quite a few hits on Google. The misuse of ‘payed’ is frequent – many hits on Google.
Did VM mean to write ‘I know not a single woman who gave birth after 30 and had problems and I know a lot who gave birth to their first child in their early thirties and it was OK'?
'I know not a single woman' - is that an unmarried woman or 'I do not know any woman'?
'alcohol' - I haven't corrected typos but the VM machine made this mistake more than once.
'merely'
I think the use of 'should' here is absolutely normal, and it's the sense of obligation. In other words, you should feel ashamed of yourself if you don't know this (having been to Russia and learned about the culture).‘To anyone who has ever been to Russia and bothered to learn about our culture that statement would sound ridiculous. Briefly 'Should' is used to indicate obligation ('I should go') or used in a polite form ('I should like to go but I can't').
I'm not trying to vouch for this sentence as exemplary English, but that seems like an unnecessary correction. He's just contrasting the fact that he has no acquaintances who meet the first criterion but he has some that meet the second. There are already two 'and's in the sentenceDid VM mean to write ‘I know not a single woman who gave birth after 30 and had problems and I know a lot who gave birth to their first child in their early thirties and it was OK'?
Of course he means the latter. I think that's OK too (if unusual). But I'm not 100% sure about it.
Море удачи и дачу у моря
VM's original sounds a bit strange in the rhythm of the text but I agree, I was being too picky. Personally I would have said, 'ought to' because of the various meanings of 'should'.
I know not a single woman who gave birth after 30 and had problems but I know a lot who gave birth to their first child in their early thirties and it was OKI'm not trying to vouch for this sentence as exemplary English, but that seems like an unnecessary correction. He's just contrasting the fact that he has no acquaintances who meet the first criterion but he has some that meet the second. There are already two 'and's in the sentenceDid VM mean to write ‘I know not a single woman who gave birth after 30 and had problems and I know a lot who gave birth to their first child in their early thirties and it was OK'?
'I know of no woman who gave birth after 30 and had problems', is the same as, 'All the woman I know who gave birth after 30 had no problems'? If so, 'but' should be 'and'
AND
I know a lot who gave birth to their first child in their early thirties and it was OK.
I don't think I have the logic wrong. I'll find out any moment no doubt. But means (inter alia) 'in contrast' and 'and' means (etc etc) 'in addition to.....'
Well, OK, imagine that VM knows 100 women (just imagine):
Perhaps he knows that 8 of them had children after 30 and had no problems. About the other 92 he has no special information (he may not even know if they're mothers).
Then this statement:
is perfectly reasonable, if lazily expressed. I say 'lazily' because it doesn't distinguish between knowing a woman who fits/doesn't fit the criterion, and knowing that a woman fits/doesn't fit the criterion.
In any case, this kind of logic slippage is perfectly normal in everyday discussion. People often put it like "I don't know of a single woman who.."
"I don't know [of] any women who prefer broccoli to chocolate" <-- it's quite possible that the speaker does know such a woman, but is unaware of her unusual preference.
I hope I have not dragged us even farther away from the point....
Море удачи и дачу у моря
Posting Permissions
Russian Lessons | Russian Tests and Quizzes | Russian Vocabulary |
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote