clear
swap_horiz
search

Latest contributions

linked by FeuDRenais, 2015-09-03 00:18

linked by FeuDRenais, 2015-09-03 00:18

#4487383 ئاخشام ماڭا تېلېفون بەردىلىمۇ؟

added by FeuDRenais, 2015-09-03 00:18

linked by FeuDRenais, 2015-09-03 00:18

linked by FeuDRenais, 2015-09-03 00:18

#4487382 ئاخشام ماڭا تېلېفون بەردىڭلارما؟

added by FeuDRenais, 2015-09-03 00:18

linked by FeuDRenais, 2015-09-03 00:18

linked by FeuDRenais, 2015-09-03 00:18

#4487380 ئاخشام ماڭا تېلېفون بەردىڭىزما؟

added by FeuDRenais, 2015-09-03 00:18

linked by FeuDRenais, 2015-09-03 00:17

Latest sentencesview all

eng
Her graduation certificate.
eng
Her diploma.
eng
When Shishir comes out to translate, it's best to remain indoors.
eng
He's not a scientist, but he is our friend.
eng
If there's a big earthquake, the house could really collapse!
eng
In case I can't come, I'll give you a call beforehand.
eng
We'll buy one car for each.
eng
Let’s go now. Otherwise, we'll be late.
eng
You'll use the computer for studying, and not for playing games.
eng
One of the students didn't come today.

Latest commentsview all

FeuDRenais 2015-08-13 07:37 link permalink

قىزىقراق بىرنەرسە ئىچكۈم بار.

FeuDRenais 2014-07-07 01:04 link permalink

Ошибка ошибкой, но по-моему люди так говорят. Предлагаю добавить (правильный) вариант.

FeuDRenais 2014-07-07 00:55 link permalink

ۋۇي، خاتالىشىپتىمەن... رەھمەت سىلىگە!

FeuDRenais 2014-07-06 05:06 link permalink

Можно было бы покороче, но спасибо за объяснение.

FeuDRenais 2014-07-03 10:54 link permalink

“曾经”可以这样用吗?

这里不是“已经”合适一点?

FeuDRenais 2014-07-02 00:58 link permalink

Странно, но для меня разница между "на что-то не обратить внимание" и "не обратить внимание на что-то" чисто стилистическая. Готов вам поверить, но хотелось бы получить, как минимум, ещё одно мнение.

FeuDRenais 2014-07-01 14:41 link permalink

В вашем мнение, здесь порядок слов так важен?

FeuDRenais 2014-06-30 08:00 link permalink

شۇنداق، رەھمەت سىزگە.

FeuDRenais 2013-12-26 18:12 link permalink

Yes, it's an Uyghur male name.

It's pronounced E-met ("met" is pronounced as "met", and the first E is pronounced just like the "e" in "met").

FeuDRenais 2013-12-08 21:33 link permalink

Ой, да.

Latest Wall messagesview all

FeuDRenais
2014-06-30 08:09
I've noticed that I've accumulated quite a few comments on my sentences. My apologies for the prolonged absence - I will try to make the necessary corrections over the course of the next week. Hope that everyone's been well!
FeuDRenais
2013-12-01 23:36
"It's just that in the case of sentences, the purpose of the rating is silly, because most people don't know their own language sufficiently we'll to be in that position."

This is equivalent to saying that a rating scheme would fail because rating sentences is too complicated, so again you contradict yourself. And by "rating sentences", I of course mean "rating sentences well", which you didn't seem to catch.

By your logic, there should be no attempt to decide on the quality of a sentence or a translation. In other words, there should be no OK tags (which are just a very brute rating system, by the way), no @change tags, no comments saying things like "this is incorrect". Because we don't know our own language sufficiently well to make those judgments.

Or are you saying that about the masses and not about yourself? In that case, you have once more demonstrated your ignorance, since who could rate sentences and how is something that goes into the algorithm's design - it thus becomes technical. In fact, I would propose that only advanced users be allowed to rate. But didn't you already know that?
FeuDRenais
2013-12-01 23:22
Then why do people even bother to use "OK" tags?
FeuDRenais
2013-12-01 22:47
> I perfectly understand you proposal

No, you don't, because you keep bringing up counter points that have either been addressed already or can be addressed, and act as if they're irrefutable arguments for why a rating system cannot work.

Furthermore, you do not seem to come from technical fields or have the ability to think things through analytically, thereby making you unable to envision how a rating system would function *on a mathematical and algorithmic level*. I'm not saying that this is a flaw or even a drawback, as different people have different professions/backgrounds, but the proper thing to do when you don't have a certain type of knowledge is not to say "well, that's bound to fail because it's too complicated to rate sentences", but to try to learn and understand, bringing up your particular concerns and seeing if what is being proposed can address them or not.

So, no. You don't understand and you don't even try to understand.

When I wrote my long proposal last January, I gave numbers, estimates, and formulas. I actually proposed things in detail and justified why I proposed them that way. Liori *actually coded* what I proposed, ran a simple scenario, and pointed out a drawback, which led me to refine what I did and to improve it. *That* discussion was actually useful, and we need more like that. The discussions I'm having here with you are just garbage, unfortunately.
FeuDRenais
2013-12-01 22:11
I highly recommend this for you:

https://www.coursera.org/course/thinkagain

Aren't you glad that learning is open to the masses now?
FeuDRenais
2013-12-01 22:06
I have "trolled" this community with "endless talk" about the rating of sentences because I would like to be a part of a community that somehow evolves and advances and benefits things on a bigger scale than simply benefiting its 10-20 active users.

Naturally, this involves proposing new things and pushing for them when you believe that they're extremely likely to succeed and succeed tremendously. You, on the other hand, cry "nay!" to any idea you don't like/understand without even considering it, and make abstract, circular arguments without proposing your own solutions.

Of course, I understand that it's much easier to sit in your armchair and criticize what others propose without proposing anything yourself.
FeuDRenais
2013-12-01 21:58
Gee, I don't know... You sit down, you propose algorithms, you observe how they work, you make judgments, and then you refine them until they can do no better. And then, if it's still insufficient, you go to sacredceltic, you kneel down before him, and you say "Good sir, I should have listened to your wisdom! We were on a fool's errand, trying to somehow improve the quality of a site's contents via a rating algorithm, an approach that, though it is the standard for almost any professional site, is simply a hopeless endeavor for a language sentence site as divine as this one! Oh, how we have erred!"

Otherwise, you succeed and the site is better.
FeuDRenais
2013-12-01 21:53
I don't believe that it works as simply as you say. A handful of people cannot control the media, the internet, and the press to the point where they decide how the language is used. When a new idiom appears, it appears, spreads, and people start to use it regardless of official rules. If a certain grammatical construction starts to get shortcutted for practical reasons, then no handful of people are going to enforce, in today's world, that this shortcutting stop. If the handful of people make rules that are followed, it's because the people accept those rules and because they're needed. Rules that aren't needed are likely to be ignored or amended informally until they're amended officially.

You're also oversimplifying when you say that the language would be destroyed by its own speakers. You have to define what "destroyed" means first. Of the languages I speak, most don't have regulative bodies and some are even being assailed by outside influences, but even then I would not say that they're being "destroyed". Certainly, they are being taken farther away from their roots, but so is every language to some extent and one must ask "how much?" to qualify destruction. For me personally, a language is "destroyed" when it no longer has any speakers.
FeuDRenais
2013-12-01 20:36
You make them different languages for rating purposes.
FeuDRenais
2013-12-01 20:35
I think you've oversimplifying.