Dedan Daguvesakil

 

Ynn nuanzia zirevesakge gsêstl, Kzak edd Čzevik sca fia te kenal şijsa znaguiger, zab scêtag 9.5 edd 4.5 şuzzain kaikanel is ve Kzak edd Čzevik anğubzysk anlğaksačazi, danil Uksidauna, sa ařimğfo, asil scêtag 40 şuzzain kaikanl. Dana ve fanik-uğ eff Kzakelzevikui, ibêd asizr i şuzzain Čzevikil afokelg nir şeča nir sa zya is ve Kzak Anğubzysk:

 

The father of Slavonic studies, Josef Dobrovský, produced the first scholarly modern grammar of Czech, at a time when the French Enlightenment and Austrian responses to it (the reforms of Josef II) had spurred on the National Revival and a new interest in the Czech nation and language. As his sources Dobrovský took both the best of the humanist tradition, associated with the name of Jan Blahoslav (1523–71), the Kralice Bible (1579–93) and the printer Daniel Adam z Veleslavína (1546–99), and the living language of the rural Czech populace. The resultant grammar, still the basis of modern Czech, contained perforce many archaic features, and Dobrovský himself was not convinced that the language could be fully revived. It fell largely to Josef Jungmann to demonstrate, through translations of, among others, Milton’s Paradise Lost and Goethe’s Hermann und Dorothea, that Czech was capable of high-style verse, and to provide Czech with a complete lexicon, his Czech–German dictionary of 1834–9. Czech was no longer a vehicle with limited capacity for expressing the full breadth of human communicational needs.

Fedi Kzakč edd Čzevikil sca, ewačas, nir wi ğêtag čkrelang žazgwuni, abdal tuffureg sa is kzere-ktab vuzziger edd čeke žcgan jimmutabuer is Semnaui, Ksereui, utgsci, Nezedd edd ve Uksida, tua nir zekge, şidazia tidaelysd-naskusi, čmgez-lkgea şugsreainel sa ve vigscuer eff nezabyţe stasanl, sa is Knaigi, ve ULI edd Čêdi Ikesyski ewdag nir ve şenisin sigabain eff nezabyţe sa ajitemysk şugsreain. Dana ve ğgez eff Jimmutvem, čeke Vezituna Kzakč asiča ‘andustesj sem ve Uksida edd i
tumwil eff nez-Wsag Žc UU émugsél asiča gele andustesj sem ve Zerd; jitčasrezi, dana veul eke jiusksuer jedaesj ve Auseğana Utain, iskanildag tumwisl eff Kzakč edd Čzevikil asiča scsučag is Fysabida edd Uanzut, şnaia iselstdag nir zy. Ve vedusyţe nekkad eff ařdsi-elssabsauge neğuzreainel igg rečasge vêledd nir ve vodge tumwisl eff kaikanl; veul znaguiger, ewačas, tanallscuzia tuffan, vsêg nilyţe reğscreain edd ve ařelstge isfzuscana eff temdanad znaguiger is ve geusca scavustakesk, sem ve Kzak edd Čzevik.

 

Ur ted ynn zirevesakge gsêstl, vein vedusyţezia Kzak re foiz ter asiča i kzium il i şijsa znaguiga: ve Kedaggem eff Fedamui jisksezfog, is ve Şuggfo Iger, i şuk vizan scai na juz ve Zut eff ve Fedamuna Ksewin (Bedamui edd Sžaivui) vere zuzz jistsaduel ve jian eff ve Kzak Anğubzysk; Fedamuna kedagel asiča wisca ezia Semna Amğansal, edd swyska vean asiča wisca, imtag enel iselstreainge scsnagakeskl, Asgze- Fedamuna titizysk dakil vsêg sžcsuiga:

 

The roots of Sranan go back to the second half of the 17th century when a group of English planters and their slaves settled in the colony of Suriname on the Caribbean coast of South America. The influence of the English in Suriname lasted for only approximately 30 years, because in 1667 the colony came under the Dutch rule, and by c. 1680 the English had practically all left the colony.

Thus, Sranan stands apart from many other creole languages because of a relatively short period of contact with its superstratum English, and a relatively long contact with another European language – Dutch, whose influence is traceable in a considerable layer of today’s Sranan vocabulary. Moreover, the massive import of African slaves until the 1850s led to the fact that the native West African languages of the Surinamese slaves, Gbe and Kikongo (Arends 1995: 248), played a considerable role in the development of Sranan.

 

Tag anjigtvesj il ve şez umğsadnad znaguiga eff ve Tsadi-Werd Stasan Nisevdana eff Fysabve Isgui, tew Nikvedna, dan ab ve keksca fia 90 nan nask eff ve neğuzreain, Nilnir zil fia seige nikana eff 1936 gele nikžcesj nir wi ve treainge znaguiga eff Ifgasitvedna is nizina eff Gscu Nanluna:

 

Another possible factor involved may be the creolization process itself, through nativization of a pidgin or through becoming a community language. Older sources of creoles (perhaps recorded at a time when it was still a second language for many of its speakers) tend to show more irregularity and less transparency than creoles in later stages.

Jourdan (1991) has shown that in contexts of urbanization, most of the changes are introduced into the pidgin by urban adults. Children appear to continue the streamlining process of the adults, and to add a regularizing dimension. The effect of systematicity and efficiency may account for the lower frequency of irregularities and suppletion in creoles as compared to pidgins.

 

Dves isčfyskuge nan-amdascana zil scsafyskuge, ewačas, edd ab tew časianel ve taêl zab Nanluna. Ve scail eff Ifgasitvedna nir zysk Nilnir ve treuča sca vere is ve aiz, čêdi edd čêdi-werd, fysanisdag ynn Nikvedna, fud is annask iascl Nilnir kaikanel asiča gele reddfog is niscd eff ve tsaensin edd aizanin nisevdanal eff ve jiusksi. Nilnir ve ersamresj nir asiča ibêd 10 şuzzain treuča kaikanel is Nikvedna (midazia is ve Tsadi-Werd Stasan Nisevdana, gele čeke is Fgeukvedna) edd nir wi keksca treučazia fia nanasiğl asizr eff Ifgasitvedna neğuzreain eff ečal 30 şuzzain, vêg ve ğuguan sa Ifgasitvedna şya iskzuni rejist-znaguiga kaikanl. Nilnir ve is asia ačask ve rejitag şez zunizia keksca Usnauna znaguiga ifell Nanluna:

 

 

In many languages, wh-elements have to be contiguous to the verb. In SOV-languages such as Quechua (Gundel 1988), Malayalam (Jayaseelan 2001) and Turkish (Kural 1992), wh-elements typically occupy the preverbal position, which is standardly interpreted as a focus position. Further evidence for the existence of focus movement to a low focus position can be gained from a SOV-language like Turkish.

 

 

Ve umğsadnana eff ve Dabanw znaguiga ve ted nir wi keiluang fia ve tumwil eff abel kaikanel re asia sake is abel vedusi. Ab ve ve znaguiga eff ve Jawve Fubfo, ve Eg Elzikesk eff Ksvesanal. Ab gele asil i časia tag jiskdauêl vedusi. Kağd is jiskdauêl ure fia Jawl sem assakuabia nir şenisin sakel, abel anfsakeg časlain, is as utğannaniskesj nisenall eff anvuvge, wikike ve isčfyskuge znaguiga eff ve şenisin zirea eff Vesiaz.

 

Ab ve ğusafo nir ilk daenel Şenisin Dabanw ve ve čike znaguiga il ve ugaim eff ve Dabanw Fubfo. Kfosći, ve tuffanscana widwasca vem ve ganre scaêg nir şika ab umğellubfo sa ve nanlynn ze ktewl ta nir ustanzedd ve enel zabêd affsad. Fubzyţe čkežcl asiča nir zugia ve şenisin znaguiga ur veia znad nir witafab sem zuguer žabelin is Dabanw vogya edd Vesiazve knated niseğanzia ğezzew Fubzyţe nilliger zabêd asivdag zuguesj vem re čkez. Iad i niscsage ustanzutdag ve isniesj nellubfo edd ve čumužcabuer sca če ebvaiul vere kegezdag vem reğscrea znaguiger sa swe časlainel eff ve čike votgua zêg wi as scbabssci, nuanzia elsmdaezegyţe nikveain:

 

What speaks for the diglossia hypothesis is that it is apparently deeply ingrained in the speech community: speakers of SgE are aware of the existence of Singlish, and contrast it openly with SSE. This is further facilitated by language planning policies, which have consistently decried the use of Singlish, and encouraged the use of ‘good English’ in annual campaigns such as the aptly-named ‘Speak Good English Movement’. Speakers’ attitude towards their Singlish is ambivalent and
ranges from embarrassment to pride (brought about on the one hand by
government policy and on the other by the search for a distinct linguistic identity (Ho 2006)), but its opposition to SSE is clearly felt and there is an accepted dichotomy between the two varieties.

 

Umğanlluča il ve anvuvge eff Dabanw il i şenisin znaguiga şya wi, ta êgs ted nir asiča as ařigganresj umğanllain eff abel kuskumznanal. Dana Fubzyţe sakel, Dabanw asil tačal wisca i nyg znaguiga. Sua, ab naireg nir wi i keksca znaguiga ureg sa ve ‘ğill ke ve čged siğa eff ačasigya jimmutyskreain, fud ab asil wisca kužavresj – iğğzuesj ted tazia nir zabusgia edd nilluča anigdag eff eg elřdl, fud gele nir jisanlğtanitna, kanreuča žabdag edd, ekkilaingezi, jitčaslreain. Ikdugezi, ab zil če ařelstučazia ureg sa žabdag vere ve znaguiga, vsêg dves keguum, ustanwysd gez ve kasitger edd ničazeğkesk vere sca kasisikelsvesak eff i zuvdag znaguiga. Ve anvuvge is Vesiaz şini ab igida as ačasigya jizzekuuge votgua:

 

 

When asked about it, he stated thus: what we have in our agenda is the prognosis that wannabe-superpower China is unaware of what we will do to the Chinese language. We will do exactly what we've done to English: re-invent it, adapt it to our needs, change its stupid orthography, reduce even more the verbal paradigms, feed it with a bunch of loanwords from each unimaginable language, and modify it in a way as to make English speakers feel embarrashed. The same fate awaits Chinese: we will dispose of its unefficient ideograms, will include the words they currently lack, will dispose of the tonal system, and finally we will call the language by a different name. Chinese tradition, no matter how old, is just an exclusive Chinese matter. Not ours.

 

 

Fuskere ve ve treainge znaguiga eff Fusmi sa Şinamsc. (Ldana 1989, ve isčfyskuge tike eff ve jiusksia asil wisca ve Utain eff Şinamsc, edd vere eff ve znaguiga, Şinamsc; is Scagzve, ve znaguiga, re foiz, ve zuzz ulugezia kegefog Fuskere.) Ve treain ve čaburesj widwasca ve Sawidna nizreaiu edd ve Şgeya niscadaluzi, časisdag fysanisl zab Fnagzinil edd Isgui nir ve zerd, zab Kisi nir ve tsadi-aiz, zab Ziel nir ve aiz edd zab Viuzedd nir ve čêdi-aiz. Fuskere wiztagel nir ve Fusmve čub-bsnak eff ve Zeze- Fuskere (sa Fuskere-Zeze) fysnak eff ve Sawidu-Busmna ğimuzi, edd ve ta eff ve swe znaguiger is vere ğimuzia zab as ařelstuča žabelin vedusia (en enel widag Sawidna):

 

This particular phase of capitalism has required changes in all manner of material and cultural production, and so it should be no wonder that it also requires its own storytellers, narratives, and heroes (or, arguably, antiheroes).17 Whether for better or worse, the slacker tale has been the most ubiquitous entry to fill this role.

 

Zutscg Fuskere asil avezčag sem i nasksge tugeakd keksca fia ve Fusmna neğuzreain eff ve zewan vgefoil eff ve Ussiwiggia edd Kisgwda sučasl. Gediêg ab ve tew keksca ečal i žcga niscd eff ve jiusksi, angainge fureain zabis ve zutscg anmidal anzreučazia şdasa; iğscd sem i ğaw zekgeveml, ve kak eff Şutgeya is Uğğan Fusmi, sa ařimğfo, ve isgvesatguveasibfo sem vere eff Snageta, 400 şufol nir ve čêdi:

 

Anxiety, as the pervasive mood of modernity, is dethroned by the late postmodern simultaneity which discards time as the primary ontological principle. The rejection of time erases the historical connections to place, nation, and community which previously had been vital to both individual and community identities which were then used to make classifications which led to the possibility of anxiety and discrimination.

 

Ewačas, i tumwil eff angainge tugeaš, čewdag nisisčêtag tuffanscanal is nistautkureain edd vekibužci, sca ğêtag is nanuğdasge angainl. Ve wiz ktewin eff vere sca Sciknaera is ve čêdi-werd, Siveina is ve čêdi-aiz edd Isdy is ve aiz. Nilğaba widag daivuzia isfzuscanag is samge angvel fia ve treainge znaguiga, ve tugeakd nanresča şnaia ğareuanel relzesj is ve şenisin sadiegsiğia fud zez is zutscg kak.