The vast majority of the 100 most common words in English are still inherited Germanic words.

English shares a common Germanic ancestor with German. German and English are sisters.

A tactic used when the person speaking has been recognized to speak according to the rules of the legislature. I don’t really see why that’s relevant here though?

No, see, it should be allowed when we agree with the people making the disruption. Otherwise absolutely not!

Even just 29 all getting run over is a ways less likely than a single car causing a chain reaction and causing the same amount of damage.

This is such a ridiculous claim that it’s not even worth responding to.

Show me. I doubt that’s more likely than sending an innocent rider to jail.

From your other responses in this thread, it doesn’t surprise me at all that you think that.

You completely ignore my 108-word argument to the contrary.

You’ve been ignoring everything I’ve said this entire conversation, which I’ve already pointed out multiple times in this thread.

It’s clear that your biases aren’t going to allow you to see clearly in this situation, so I think I’m going to cut my losses here and disengage.

Have a good one, and be sure to stop at red lights.

Nobody said they couldn’t. The comment I was responding to said that studies show that it’s safer for bikes to not come to a full stop at red lights, and I correctly pointed out that that’s completely false.

Edit: you yourself wrote a comment saying basically the exact same thing I did - why the heck are you trying to nitpick me here?

The problem with your argument here is that you’re ignoring the fact that those 100 squishy cyclists running red lights can all get hit by cars, potentially resulting in way more than broken bones, and possibly sending the innocent drivers to jail for vehicular manslaughter.

For the third time, a large number of cyclists running red lights is demonstrably more dangerous than a small number of motorists running red lights, and the court summons is more than warranted.

Edit: Also, holy shit, if you’re right, and the number of cyclists who run red lights compared to motorists is actually 36:1, then YES send them all to court. Jesus!

Your source says that bikes should still come to a full stop at red lights though?

To repeat what I said in my original comment, the sheer number of cyclists running red lights poses a serious threat to motorists. It’s inevitable that some of those idiots running the lights are going to get hit, and the motorists are going to have to deal with the consequences of the cyclists’ stupidity.

Since cyclists running red lights is a widespread, deeply-ingrained problem in North America, and one that’s much more frequent than cars running red lights, the harsher punishment is completely justified.

To break it down a simply as possible for you: yes, one car running a red light poses more danger than one cyclist running a red light, but one hundred cyclists running a red light poses an order of magnitude more danger than one car running a red light.

And for that reason, I fully support sending the cyclists to court, and only giving the motorists a ticket.

They could, but if it’s anything like the sheer epidemic of bikes running red lights here, I absolutely think it makes sense to send a message to curb the dangerous behavior.

Then again, if it’s actually just an excuse to harass and possibly detain immigrants as mentioned in another comment, then as usual the cops can go fuck themselves.

deleted by creator

Good. As someone who is all for biking and public transit infrastructure, the number of idiot cyclists running red lights in my town is entirely unacceptable, and far outnumbers the cars I see running lights. They’re going to get themselves killed, and get some innocent driver thrown in prison for their own stupid mistakes in the process.

Cyclists have an incredibly dangerous, toxic culture when it comes to ignoring traffic laws (in the US at least), and it’s really satisfying seeing them actually face the consequences of their actions for once.

The one on All about a week ago was better.

More than a quarter of the independent studies still found neutral outcomes though.

So it’s just Zoomer-speak (“Chat, I farted”) instead?

They did use Y-cruncher.

Edit: Some other fun tidbits: most of that 2.2 petabytes of storage wasn’t actually used to store the 300 trillion digits itself - that number of digits fits in like 170 terabytes (which LTT is thinking of making available as a download, lol) - it’s actually used as pseudo-ram during the actual calculation.

I wanted to just post the video, which has a lot more information (though not the kind of info you’re looking for), but I didn’t know if an LTT video was an “official” enough source for this community.

I suppose this was probably the first time that all of the digits of pi up to 300 trillion were calculated, even if the 300 trillionth specifically was already known.

I legitimately got top left wrong first time I looked at this.

True, but as usual, that’s offset elsewhere in the grammar (and a binary or ternary noun class system doesn’t really introduce that much complexity).

English still has number distinctions with multiple irregular patterns (and plural/collective distinctions like “fish/fish/fishes”), and even lesser recognized animacy distinctions that must take up some space in the grammar too (“my face” is fine, but “the face of mine” is odd, while “the clock’s face” and “the face of the clock” are both fine).

One example of such a process is subregular patterns getting extended instead of always levelling toward the most productive constructions.

In many southern dialects, for example, even though the productive past tense is the “-ed” past (just like it is in all modern varieties of English), and so we normally would expect to get regularization like “cleave/clove/cloven” > “cleave/cleaved/cleaved”, we instead in these dialects get irregular examples like “bring/brought/brought” being regularized not to expected productive “bring/bringed/bringed”, but rather “bring/brang/brung” on the pattern of “sing/sang/sung”, “drink/drank/drunk”, etc.

Extending subregularities like this can cause irregular patterns to persist and grow stronger over time.

I suppose that technically this isn’t introducing a new irregularity so much as it is helping an older one persist, but it’s a similar process.

Other recent innovations include things like Canadian and northern US English “I’m done my homework”, northern positive anymore (“Anymore, I go to the store on Fridays”), and prepositional “because” (“I can’t come tonight, because homework”).

Again, this isn’t exactly the development of new irregular morphology (word-building rules) specifically, but these are analogous processes elsewhere in the grammar.

It’s also worth mentioning that English is becoming more and more of an isolating language over time (a language with less morphology/word-building processes), and so we’d expect irregular morphology specifically to become less common in these systems over time.

That was kinda rambly, and way more than you asked for - I hope it made some sort of sense.