#dc comics#dc#batman#tim drake#dick grayson#dc fanart#bruce wayne#batfamily#batfam
seen from Germany
seen from Germany
seen from Brazil
seen from United Kingdom
seen from Germany
seen from TĂźrkiye
seen from Malaysia
seen from Canada
seen from Malaysia
seen from TĂźrkiye
seen from China
seen from China
seen from China
seen from India
seen from South Korea
seen from China
seen from Brazil
seen from Israel
seen from United States
seen from United States
Sailors Mouth - Star Trek
Yay!! You opened requests, I love your writing and was wondering if you could write a Kirk x reader where the reader new on the enterprise and she enters with AC/DC playing in the background and speaks to Kirk with a full on sailor's mouth? Thanks again
AN: I kinda switched your request around a little. I thought it worked better this way
Warnings: Language obviously. POTTY MOUTH READER
Words: 533
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch ⢠No registration required ⢠HD streaming
Idea: a trigger system and a tripartite system. In transitive sentences there is one trigger for patient and agent, so: "hug-trig I-dir you-pat" OR "hug-trig I-ag you-dir" BUT intransitive sentences use only agent and patient case which are "presumed" to be the direct case and show volition. A single verb has different meanings depending on transitivity so transitively "hug-trig I-dir" is I hug BUT in "hug-trig dir-I" (I am hugged), the direct case is prefix. What are your thoughts? Possible?
Anything is possible. You just did it right there: Itâs possible. Is it natural? Probably not. That only matters if youâre creating a naturalistic language. I personally donât find it particularly interesting, because (a) trigger systems donât exist, and (b) the conlanging community went through a trigger language phase way back when. Thatâs just me, though.
It really is important, though, in creating a language to distinguish between whatâs natural and whatâs possible, because let me tell you, one of those is a subset of the other.
Think of it this way. How many 1-20 character strings can you type on a qwerty keyboard? Some gigantic number. How many of those are licit English words? Some very large but still necessarily smaller number. So if you look at the following:
-3icnpioelwi
8838383dk
plates
89-c24493cniad
pc283
All of those fall under the category â1-20 character strings you can type on a qwerty keyboardâ. Only one of them falls under the category of âEnglish wordsâ.
Your ask basically sounds like, âCan I type 83hf38 on a qwerty keyboard?â I mean, the answer is obviously yes. Were the ask, âIs 83hf38 a plausible English word?â the answer is obviously no. It feels like, though, you asked the first question, but meant the secondâyet if the answer were no, you wouldâve understood that to mean ânot possible everâ.
So just to be really, really clear: In a constructed language, what is natural is different from what is possible. Everything that is natural is possible; NOT everything thatâs possible is natural.
Furthermore, naturalistic conlangs are one type of conlang. They are not the best type of conlang, anymore than, say, naturalist painting is the best type of art. There is no best type of conlang. Itâs just a matter of what the conlanger wants to do, and how well they do what theyâre trying to do.
Also, this response here isnât just in response to your ask. I get these types of questions a lot, where I feel like an answer of âyesâ is bad and an answer of ânoâ is bad, and itâs because of how the question was asked, and because of the assumptions that underlie the question. I really do not want to give the impression that naturalistic conlangs are the best type of conlang. There are lots of other types of conlangs that can be made, and you can tackle a lot more interesting things if youâre not boxed in by naturalism. A naturalistic conlang is never going to push the boundaries of what humans could potentially do with language, simply because natural languages never do. Theyâre far, far too limited for the potential our brains possess.
Whoever you are, telling people that "time heals all wounds" stop it! It's not condusive to any situation and is a candy Coated ass way of telling someone to get over it.
