vijayjohn wrote:It's been varying lately, but I definitely have a light meal by 2 (usually by 12 or 1 PM) and then a bigger meal about seven hours later. So I guess the answer to your question is "between 7 and 9 (but sometimes earlier if I ate "breakfast" earlier)."
Alright, ok. Maybe I should try to eat something earlier, too, and maybe not as much in the evening.
At work, I always ate my main meal from 1 to 2 PM (yes, I frequently use up the entire hour, sometimes even more than an hour.
At home, it is not uncommon for me to spend three or four hours eating one meal. Yes, you read that correctly. Three or four. Not an exaggeration) and then ate my lighter meal around 9 PM (sometimes 8).
How is that even physically possible?
The longest I've ever taken to eat one meal was as a kid with my grandparents (my dad's parents) at our summer cottage (which my dad sold last year), when it was common for us to eat for like an hour and a half or maybe two hours but never longer than that IIRC, and it was because there were different foods over the course of the same meal and they considered it impolite to eat fast or something.
vijayjohn wrote:I get a headache if I wait too long to eat. I can stay hungry for a few hours and feel fine, but beyond that, it will surely affect me.
This is pretty much never true.
Hopefully that's the case, but there are a few users here and other language forums who will never reply to any of my posts even if I reply to their posts and it's 100% about languages, and it's clear they're intentionally ignoring me (and at least one openly said he's ignoring me), which is fine but if the reason is that they think I'm an alt-righter or whatever... well, I don't want people to think I'm one because I'm not (even if I could've become one if it wasn't for a handful of issues I could never agree with them on and they could never compromise regarding).
Then again, insisting that I'm not one will only make them think more and more that I am
vijayjohn wrote:It happens. There was a time I didn't really understand Indian complaints about racism in the US, and it showed, on this forum.
But at least that's an issue you (at least could) have a personal attachment to, meanwhile I mostly raved on and on about things I knew nothing about and that didn't affect me in any way. For example all my paranoid rants about Uyghurs, which sounded like Chinese government propaganda or something (and almost certainly the origin of the claims I based it on was exactly that, but I didn't even think of that until it was pointed out). There are probably literally like ten Uyghurs in Finland, who've fled from genocide, and here I was posting about how they're supposedly all violent extremists...
I'm so ashamed of those posts. The fact that I've since come to feel compassion and love for the Uyghurs seems disingenuous because of my past idiocy, because I also can't really stress about how I now support the rights of Uyghurs and wish they could gain freedom since in practice
I don't do anything to support them, and besides I have zero connection to them and have never actually interacted
with a single Uyghur in my life AFAICR except like commenting on a video on Youtube and the uploader replying to my comment like a couple of days ago, but obviously that doesn't count as actual interaction.
Of course it's the same with all other human rights issues and such, I've never done anything to help anyone. I'd like to, but honestly my mental health is so fragile that I'd get extremely depressed if I got into activism of any kind and had to deal with the suffering of others. And I can't really afford to donate to charities or anything (and I'm sure the government wouldn't like that, since I live on welfare), so...
vijayjohn wrote:I'm so lazy about learning Central Asian languages other than Tajik.
Heh, for me it's the exact opposite: I'm into all of them except
Well, it's not like I'm actively trying to avoid learning Tajik or anything, and I have once in a while read about its grammar and looked up a couple of words and whatnot, and I love the letters <Ӣӣ Ӯӯ>, and its relationship with Uzbek is interesting to read about (even if sometimes the information out there is contradictory), and I could listen to this song by Shabnami Sobiri
any time (although I don't understand 99% of the lyrics, that doesn't bother me at all since I enjoy music based on how it sounds, not what it's about), and its phonology is nice, but it just doesn't hold my attention the same way the Turkic languages do.
Strangely enough, considering Uzbek is the Central Asian language I'm second most interested in (after Kazakh), it logically "should" segue into an interest in Tajik... and it often does, but my focus will still be on Uzbek.
If/when Kazakhs start using the new Latin alphabet on social media, I'll probably mostly lost interest in learning Kazakh and my interest will shift almost exclusively to Uzbek since at least it looks as cool in the Latin alphabet as it does in Cyrillic even with the apostrophes and digraphs. The Uzbek alphabet is balanced out just right imho... but they're also reforming it, so soon it won't have all those apostrophes and digraphs. At least their reform won't make it worse; it will lose its unique charm, but well.
I sound so bitter when it comes to orthography reforms of other languages, but then would demand one for Finnish in the next sentence...
The traditional boundary between North and South in the USA is the Mason Dixon line
. This line literally forms the northern border of West Virginia (with the exception of the Northern Panhandle
Huh, I remember hearing/reading about some division like that before but I thought it was weird. Because it was such a nonsensical line to use for geographical terms, I could never remember which states were supposed to be southern and which northern based on it... but if it's a clear line that doesn't go all over the place, then I don't know why I was always confused by it.
linguoboy wrote:Any division of a country into "north" and "south" is going to be arbitrary
True, yeah. I won't argue with that.
linguoboy wrote:but I don't know how you can say that West Virginia isn't "literally" southern when it's literally south of 8 of the original 13 colonies and at least half the US population lives north of it.
Maybe it makes no sense, but to me it looks like it's more in the north than the south. I've always used the fairly straight line across the US that forms the northern border of North Carolina, Tennessee, Arkansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico and Arizona as the defining point for the geographical division between the north and south (and imagined the line continuing across Nevada and California so that it went from coast to coast; it'd end south of San Francisco). Some states north of it would be "geographically northern" but still southern for historical/political reasons, of course, and I mostly remember which were Confederate and that the border was farther north than that line.