Ongezellig
IAZ and soft NAZ
ZWABAG
[Return] [Thread list] [Index] [Catalog] [Bottom] | Replies: 247 | Views: 5 | Currently viewing: 1
File:
1784499688915.png
(53.08 KB, 1303x2072, Mymy_executes_maya_1.png)
File:
1784499688915.jpeg
(500.17 KB, 2048x1536, 42e4665c67f55ec5b5c7c49974bd91853.jpg)
File:
1784499688915.jpeg
(540.19 KB, 2048x1536, maya beheading.jpg)
I knew I forgot something
>>20476
gem also nice detail with the live leak logo and the writing (it says "total gooner death total belgian death")
gem also nice detail with the live leak logo and the writing (it says "total gooner death total belgian death")
File:
1784499688915-1.png
(57.46 KB, 1219x2734, Mymy_reading_de_bibble_censored.png)
File:
1784499688915-2.png
(119.83 KB, 1219x2734, Mymy_reading_de_bibble.png)
File:
1784499688915.jpeg
(67.53 KB, 500x694, ToPXHn6.jpeg)
Draw Coco (on the left) and Mymy
>These women will die for Japsterdam
>These women will die for Japsterdam
>>20544
Or on the right? I don't know what the convention is. Anyway, Coco is the one with pistol.
Or on the right? I don't know what the convention is. Anyway, Coco is the one with pistol.
you can redraw one of these to help with the reanimation project (the one in the sticky) >>8219 please tell if you pick one i'll do one too
File:
1784499688915.jpeg
(82.84 KB, 600x793, de waffen roept u.png)
Hello ihuvagononondeyeweelyusit
As an official member of dutch parliament. I announce that saying zem instead of gem is a crime and in result you shall be punished with death. The whole "zem "thing makes no sense in the first place because zellig isn't an actual word. Gezellig is a word. Which is still "gem". And im too fucking tired to deal with this niggerous bullshit.
TL;DR you will get beheaded if you say "zem" instead of "gem"
>>20554
zellig is just 'zellig without the apostrophe, how can you not know that
zellig is just 'zellig without the apostrophe, how can you not know that
>>20554
it's pronounced cchchhhhhh(gurgle)hhcchhhhhesellicchhhhh(spit)cchhhhhcchh because dutch is stupid
it's pronounced cchchhhhhh(gurgle)hhcchhhhhesellicchhhhh(spit)cchhhhhcchh because dutch is stupid
>>20585
I addressed the "zellig is not a word" part, as if apostrophising had to always result with producing correct words
I addressed the "zellig is not a word" part, as if apostrophising had to always result with producing correct words
>>20586
literally not the case
These aren't words, it's a meme dialect. 'inistration isn't a word just because it's administration with an apostrophe. You can't just cut whatever word you want with an apostrophe and call it a real word. It's just soyspeak. Go into the Netherlands and ask them if 'zellig is a word just because it has an apostrophe. Take any word in the english dictionary and shorten it with an apostrophe and check if it's a real word.
NULINGO FAGGOTS ARE ALL IDIOTS
literally not the case
These aren't words, it's a meme dialect. 'inistration isn't a word just because it's administration with an apostrophe. You can't just cut whatever word you want with an apostrophe and call it a real word. It's just soyspeak. Go into the Netherlands and ask them if 'zellig is a word just because it has an apostrophe. Take any word in the english dictionary and shorten it with an apostrophe and check if it's a real word.
NULINGO FAGGOTS ARE ALL IDIOTS
>>20587
Zellig is just apostrophised ongezellig with the apostrophe dropped. Nobody has ever insisted it's a correct word in Dutch. I don't know what you are trying to disagree with. Fighting strawmans is a waste of time, don't do that please.
Zellig is just apostrophised ongezellig with the apostrophe dropped. Nobody has ever insisted it's a correct word in Dutch. I don't know what you are trying to disagree with. Fighting strawmans is a waste of time, don't do that please.
>>20588
zellig isn't a word, 'zellig isn't a word either. being a word means being a correct word, otherwise it's a jumble of letters
zellig isn't a word, 'zellig isn't a word either. being a word means being a correct word, otherwise it's a jumble of letters
>>20589
Your definition of a word is invalid as nonsense words exist.
Your definition of a word is invalid as nonsense words exist.
>>20589
Any and all words exist to communicate some information. If the line of characters [zellig] communicate information clearly, which it does, it is a word.
Any and all words exist to communicate some information. If the line of characters [zellig] communicate information clearly, which it does, it is a word.
>>20590
if anything is a word nothing is a word. You made the category superfluous. You can argue that any string of characters is technically a word by the nature of being a string of characters but then it's senseless to engage in the debate of whether or not "zellig" is a a word, OP merely posited that it's not an "actual" word, aka not a real word.
>>20591
In that case any string of characters that can be intelligible or meaningful to any single other person is a word, once again making the category arbitrary and subjective.
if anything is a word nothing is a word. You made the category superfluous. You can argue that any string of characters is technically a word by the nature of being a string of characters but then it's senseless to engage in the debate of whether or not "zellig" is a a word, OP merely posited that it's not an "actual" word, aka not a real word.
>>20591
In that case any string of characters that can be intelligible or meaningful to any single other person is a word, once again making the category arbitrary and subjective.
>>20603
>OP merely posited that it's not an "actual" word, aka not a real word.
But nobody claims it is, so the whole discussion is pointless.
>OP merely posited that it's not an "actual" word, aka not a real word.
But nobody claims it is, so the whole discussion is pointless.
>>20603
Arbitrary and subjective == not real, zellig IS an actual, real and existing word used to refer to the dutch cartoon Ongezellig.
Arbitrary and subjective == not real, zellig IS an actual, real and existing word used to refer to the dutch cartoon Ongezellig.
>>20625
so a string of letters can be arbitrary and subjectively meaningful and still be an "Actual real word"? Then the purpose of having a category for what a word is is pointless. You are arguing against a category. I can say hibitunikari is a real, actual word because it means something to me or my friend, even doe it's obviously nonsense and you won't find it in any dictionary. Go play scribble and try to use "subjective" and "arbitrary" words and see if your opponent is convinced that they're "actual real words". "'Zellig" is a meme dialect
so a string of letters can be arbitrary and subjectively meaningful and still be an "Actual real word"? Then the purpose of having a category for what a word is is pointless. You are arguing against a category. I can say hibitunikari is a real, actual word because it means something to me or my friend, even doe it's obviously nonsense and you won't find it in any dictionary. Go play scribble and try to use "subjective" and "arbitrary" words and see if your opponent is convinced that they're "actual real words". "'Zellig" is a meme dialect
>>20629
The Hungarian word [végállomás] may appear "nonsense" to you, but that does not make it a fake word. It is a noun that describes something(specifically the final stop of some vehicle, such as a train or a bus).
Did the word "automobile" or "telephone" exist for medieval peasants? Obviously not. Yet those are real words. At a point in time they were "arbitrary and subjective", yet you do not dispute the existence of those.
The Hungarian word [végállomás] may appear "nonsense" to you, but that does not make it a fake word. It is a noun that describes something(specifically the final stop of some vehicle, such as a train or a bus).
Did the word "automobile" or "telephone" exist for medieval peasants? Obviously not. Yet those are real words. At a point in time they were "arbitrary and subjective", yet you do not dispute the existence of those.
Just to summarize and end this pointless debate. A word is a string of symbols from some alphabet. A word can have some meaning associated by some people, in particular different groups of people can understand the same word in a different way. A word can belong to a natural language, dialect or slang. It doesn't matter how many people speak a given language and some languages are dead. Abbreviating a word creates a different word that can or can not belong to the language the source word comes from. It doesn't matter as long as the target audience can map the abbreviation to the original word. Zellig is an abbreviation of word 'ongezellig' created through apostrophisation with the apostrophe symbol omitted. The word 'zellig' doesn't belong to Dutch language, but it belongs to the soyspeak. Meaning of 'zellig' in the soyspeak is not identical with the meaning of 'ongezellig' in Dutch, as the latter is an adjective describing a person or a thing, while the former precisely refers to the dutch cartoon named Ongezellig.
>>20634
végállomás is a real word in hungarian but it's gibberish in English, therefore it's not an actual word in English. And of course the word automobile wasn't a real word in the medival times. If you used automobile in a sentence while talking to a 12th century peasant they'd burn you at the stakes because that isn't a real word.
>>20638
words words words kys
végállomás is a real word in hungarian but it's gibberish in English, therefore it's not an actual word in English. And of course the word automobile wasn't a real word in the medival times. If you used automobile in a sentence while talking to a 12th century peasant they'd burn you at the stakes because that isn't a real word.
>>20638
words words words kys
>>20643
>real word in Hungarian [...] not an actual word in English
If a word can at once be real and not real, then zellig is a real word. Maybe not in Dutch, but in English.
>wasn't a real word in medieval times
As it now is, words may move from not being a real word to being a real word. As such, henceforth, zellig ceases being gibberish and becomes a real word.
>real word in Hungarian [...] not an actual word in English
If a word can at once be real and not real, then zellig is a real word. Maybe not in Dutch, but in English.
>wasn't a real word in medieval times
As it now is, words may move from not being a real word to being a real word. As such, henceforth, zellig ceases being gibberish and becomes a real word.
File:
1784499762258.gif
(1.90 MB, 326x498, heart.gif)
love you drawGOD
File:
1784499762258.png
(1.55 MB, 1112x1604, 1713703608261.png)
Requesting Mymy attacking Tintin from behind (he's belgian) or Maya.
File:
1784499762258.png
(76.22 KB, 778x485, ClipboardImage.png)
>>20645
>If a word can at once be real and not real
Every language has a collection of words in it's vocabulary. The fact that one language has a word while the other doesn't isn't proof of Quantum uncertainty. We use words legitimate to a language we are currently speaking. You don't mix in foreign words unless they're a name of a dish or a piece of media or some other thing that need be denoted in said foreign language, in this case we burrow words. When speaking a language you use words of said language, and using random words from random languages is like speaking giberish, as these aren't words belonging to said language and thus are in said language not actual words.
>As it now is, words may move from not being a real word to being a real word. As such, henceforth, zellig ceases being gibberish and becomes a real word.
The fact that words and names are invented and given doesn't mean any word or name can be proclaimed legitimate by the nature of naming things. zellig is still not an actual English (or dutch) word, neither is gyatt, niether is blud, it's gibberish internet lingo. You wouldn't use it in a dissertation, you wouldn't use it in a newspaper, you wouldn't find it in a dictionary. It's not recognized as an English word, it's IB/internet lingo, the same way that "desu" is 4chan gibberish, not a real word (unless you're speaking japanese). Again, the only way you could quantify internet gibberish as words is by making the category arbitrary (and as such useless), your objective is self defeating.
>If a word can at once be real and not real
Every language has a collection of words in it's vocabulary. The fact that one language has a word while the other doesn't isn't proof of Quantum uncertainty. We use words legitimate to a language we are currently speaking. You don't mix in foreign words unless they're a name of a dish or a piece of media or some other thing that need be denoted in said foreign language, in this case we burrow words. When speaking a language you use words of said language, and using random words from random languages is like speaking giberish, as these aren't words belonging to said language and thus are in said language not actual words.
>As it now is, words may move from not being a real word to being a real word. As such, henceforth, zellig ceases being gibberish and becomes a real word.
The fact that words and names are invented and given doesn't mean any word or name can be proclaimed legitimate by the nature of naming things. zellig is still not an actual English (or dutch) word, neither is gyatt, niether is blud, it's gibberish internet lingo. You wouldn't use it in a dissertation, you wouldn't use it in a newspaper, you wouldn't find it in a dictionary. It's not recognized as an English word, it's IB/internet lingo, the same way that "desu" is 4chan gibberish, not a real word (unless you're speaking japanese). Again, the only way you could quantify internet gibberish as words is by making the category arbitrary (and as such useless), your objective is self defeating.
>>20650
An argot is a vocabulary belonging to a particular area of interest. Sciences have these, sports have these, criminals have these, and hobbies have these. Within these groups, terms that "aren't real" in day to day speech "are real". In the context of the soyzellig.party website, the words "zellig" is real.
>uselessness of the category of words
Internet gibberish often has a meaning and forms part of the argot of the internet terms. Gibberish is separated from words by not having a meaning: if a piece of gibberish is given meaning, it becomes a word. You are not putting gibberish into the same category as words, you take gibberish that has become a word into the category of words.
An argot is a vocabulary belonging to a particular area of interest. Sciences have these, sports have these, criminals have these, and hobbies have these. Within these groups, terms that "aren't real" in day to day speech "are real". In the context of the soyzellig.party website, the words "zellig" is real.
>uselessness of the category of words
Internet gibberish often has a meaning and forms part of the argot of the internet terms. Gibberish is separated from words by not having a meaning: if a piece of gibberish is given meaning, it becomes a word. You are not putting gibberish into the same category as words, you take gibberish that has become a word into the category of words.
>>20652
You once again make the category arbitrary and thus useless because anyone or any one group of people could give meaning to any single array of ltters, thus any and all gibberish can be considered a word by a single person deciding it now holds meaning. Argot is just lingo so that doesn't move the topic anywhere.
You once again make the category arbitrary and thus useless because anyone or any one group of people could give meaning to any single array of ltters, thus any and all gibberish can be considered a word by a single person deciding it now holds meaning. Argot is just lingo so that doesn't move the topic anywhere.
>>20653
How is the category of words made useless by adding expressions with meaning to it? What does the category impart upon those words that belong to it?
How is the category of words made useless by adding expressions with meaning to it? What does the category impart upon those words that belong to it?
>>20654
Because defining the category as "Any word that has a meaning to any person" means any array of letters can be considered a word, thus the category may as well be "any array of letters". This is why it's necessary to distinguish words that are actually part of the language's vocabulary if the category is to be exclusionary to anything (aka useful)
Because defining the category as "Any word that has a meaning to any person" means any array of letters can be considered a word, thus the category may as well be "any array of letters". This is why it's necessary to distinguish words that are actually part of the language's vocabulary if the category is to be exclusionary to anything (aka useful)
>>20655
>the category may as well be "any array of letters"
It may not, because not any array of letters communicates information. The letters "HsHsJjjl" communicates nothing to no one, but "zellig" communicates something(the show) to someone (people on this site).
>the category may as well be "any array of letters"
It may not, because not any array of letters communicates information. The letters "HsHsJjjl" communicates nothing to no one, but "zellig" communicates something(the show) to someone (people on this site).
Post actions
[Return] [Thread list] [Index] [Catalog] [Top] | Replies: 247 | Views: 5 | Currently viewing: 1