File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Non-native English speakers of /trv/, what did you hate most about the English language?

I bet it was the homonyms.

Also, best languages in the world.
>> Anonymous
The UK and Ireland don't speak English. They speak some vile, pig disgusting dialect. You go into a pub and attempt to translate what those fuckheads are saying.
>> Anonymous
Actually india has a lot more english speakers than england. Maybe not as their 1st language but they do speak it even though the accent is horrible.
>> Anonymous
>>27308
>The UK and Ireland don't speak English.
>UK
>English
Man that was a weak troll.
>> Anonymous
Eh, not really, the homonyms never bothered me at all. It's the damn conjugations that irked me. But overall it wasn't so hard.

Then again I learned at an early age, and as a South Asian and in Britain.

Then had to learn every kind of accent moving to New York and slowly working my way south to Houston. Now I'm pretty damn awesome in English.

It's Arabic that's fucking my shit up right about now.
>> ?????????? !JiHADLZ54Q
It wasn't particularly hard, but I hate everything about it anyway.

It's a clumsy language, in a way.
>> Anonymous
I never had any trouble speaking the language or understanding anyone from anywhere. The only time I ever had anyone ask me to repeat what I said was "zed" for the alphabet Z, dam eye sight test person took a while before asking me to say "zee". I also messed up on writing words since it wasnt my country. I remember writing new york as "ney york" hahahaha.
>> Anonymous
I hate that it doesn't have grammatical cases and genders, no real formal clauses, no dual (wtf, singular and plural only?) etc. How you people manage to communicate in such a primitive language confuses me.

Slovene/German native speaker.
>> Anonymous
>>27328
One thing I'll never understand about other languages is the use of gendered verbs.

Why even have this? It's not as if it adds any additional information about what the object is doing. What it does do is add one completely arbitrary thing to each and every verb out there.

English seems superior in this regard.
>> Anonymous
>>27330

Actually, the non-use of gendered nouns is what confused me most in English. A closet is a she, and the knife is a he, or at least that's what I've been told since I could talk. How can they both be "it"? Also, what's with calling animals "it"? And, grammatical cases make up for a ton of context.

Again, primitive language is primitive.
>> Anonymous
>>27330

P.S.:verbs don't have genders, nouns do. Verbs have case(nominative, genitive, dative, accusative, intrumental), time(future, present, past, past-past), person (1st/2nd/3rd), and number (singular/dual/plural)
>> Anonymous
>>27331
>How can they both be "it"?
Because they don't have dicks or vaginas?

>Also, what's with calling animals "it"?
In my experience, people generally call an animal by it's gender if they know it. It just happens that a lot of the time we don't without close inspection.
>> Anonymous
I always confuse tought, tough, thought, through

A lot of different words sound the same to me
>> ?????????? !JiHADLZ54Q
>>27334

Verbs don't have case.
>> Anonymous
If you want primitive, try indonesian. To pluralize, you say the word twice, lol srsly.

English is really a product of Old English meeting Danish in it's early years, then absorbing Latin and Greek. Whereas most European languages are direct descendants (more or less) of Latin, (with the obvious exception of Slavic languages and Germanic tongues) English had a complex interplay with Very old Germanic/Nordic languages and some English tribal words (witness Sheep vs. Ewe - most languages use some derivation of 'ewe') and only absorbed latin much later in it's development.

I believe English is best at absorbing foreign words, not only as nouns but as verbs, which is key. Other languages have a hard time doing so (like spanish, which must ad -ar, -er or -ir to the end of any stem form of a verb) To lol, we lol, I lol and I'm lolling vs. lolar, lolamos, lolo, lolando.
>> Anonymous
when a constant is followed by R, and the TH sound. When I try to pronounce those with a proper NY accent I always end up making spaceship noises.
Speaking russian, hebrew and english with a slight russian accent.
>> ?????????? !JiHADLZ54Q
>>I believe English is best at absorbing foreign words, not only as nouns but as verbs, which is key. Other languages have a hard time doing so (like spanish, which must ad -ar, -er or -ir to the end of any stem form of a verb) To lol, we lol, I lol and I'm lolling vs. lolar, lolamos, lolo, lolando.

Really? I think it's much more comfortable that way. Depends on the language though - it's a shitload harder in Arabic with its system of roots forming words, but in European languages that use declension/inflection, I find it a lot better.
>> Anonymous
>>27330
Why use different names for objects, such as cars, busses and trucks?
Why not call all of them just vehicle?
Wouldn't that be so much easier?
The genders for nouns in German just add another layer of linguistic depth to the language.

As for myself I cannot recall ever having severe problems with the English language. After having mastered German, English was child's play.
>> Anonymous
lol HOMOnyms
>> Anonymous
>>27347
olololol
>> Anonymous
>>27347
>>27348
Prime example of retarded native speakers.
>> Zweihammer !!mVNIBL5jABT
Question for Latin-based language speakers:

What determines the gender of an inanimate object? If every phallic object had a male name then that would make sense . . .
>> Anonymous
Every foreign language is clumsy, you weren't raised with it and will never know the subtle intricacies that only a 2 year old with a moldable brain can learn.

I for one will never understand why a windows and cars have vaginas, but somehow it makes perfect sense to French people.

>>27346
Cars are for a small amount of people, buses are for many people, and trucks are for goods and Mexicans. Those words add a lot of meaning, I can't see how giving inanimate objects a gender adds anything, but I'm a native English speaker so I will probably never know.

Though ships, cars and countries are called "she"'s sometimes, as in "ain't she a beaut"
>> Anonymous
>>27357
it doesn't make sense. you have to memorize it. it's just like regular memorization of words except with an extra bit of information to remember about the words. (in english for instance you have to memorize the spellings of many words due to a lack of orthographical rules, which is much more problematic imo)
>> Anonymous
>>27357
In Spanish, words which last syllable contain an "a" tend to sound feminine, if they include "o", "e" masculine. It's just how usage and custom shapes the language during its evolution, there's no apparent logic behind it. Also slang terms for genitals in Castilian have the gender interchanged, such as "la poya" (feminine) meaning dick or "el coño" (masculine) meaning cunt, I don't know if this is still true in Latin-American Spanish.
>> Anonymous
I'm Dutch. I like the English language, but if anything, it can be confusing as to how one pronounces words. For example: through, tough and bough don't rhyme.
>> Anonymous
>>27357

Nothing determinates it. There's not a rule for this sort of thing.
>> Anonymous
>>27339
tought isnt a word
>> Anonymous
I've got a question (english learner here):

What determinates if something is "thing of thing" or "thing's thing"?

Like: "Church of Christ" or "Christ's Church"?
>> Anonymous
>>27388
"christ's church" just sounds stupid
hope that helps
>> Anonymous
>>27383

I don't know why we do that, we could spell through and tough thru and tuff, but someone decided only stupid people do that.

The real spelling of Donut (doughnut) throws Americans, including myself, off because we're used to seeing Dunkin' Donuts.
>> Anonymous
>>27388

Church of Christ sounds cooler and like it has more authority, thats about it I think.

Sweet Child of Mine makes a cooler song than My Sweet Child would for instance
>> Anonymous
>>27388
There really isn't a rule for why.

People will understand what you mean either way though, since they mean exactly the same thing, so don't sweat it much. It just tells us that you're not a native speaker.
>> Anonymous
>>27388
In both these cases, the emphasis is usually on the second 'thing'. Therefore in the phrase 'Church of Christ' there is greater focus on the word 'Christ', something a religion would want.
>> Anonymous
>>27383
Blame late-medieval English scribes. They copied Middle English texts with the spelling intact, but the language kept evolving; in Middle English, those three words DID rhyme.
>> Anonymous
Thanks for all who responded me.

Another question:

How is your pronounciation with the words like that, this, there, the?

Do you say just "Dat, dis, der, da" or the sound is like of a soft /th/?
>> Anonymous
>>27421
>dat
The above word is a prime example of niggerspeak.
>> Anonymous
>>27421
I'm afraid you'll need to learn the /ð/ sound that we have. It really helps if you know IPA when learning a foreign langauge as you can find out how things are pronounced.
>> Anonymous
Actually I know that sound and I use it.

I'm asking it because this is something I usually can't hear. Maybe my audition is not accurate enough.
>> Anonymous
>>27388

the answer to this is that Christ's Church would sound a little funny. when north american say the word Christ, they often barely pronounce the T at the end, so pronouncing the addition S that is tacked on to show possession would make the 2 Ss too close (kry-ssss church). so it's just mainly said as Church of Christ sounds a bit funny the other way
>> Anonymous
>>27435
If you're talking to educated individuals, you should always hear it...
>> Anonymous
>>27421

Ever hear the one about the German coastguard?

Mayday, Mayday, help us we are sinking.

Oh, what are you zinking about?
>> Anonymous
>>27456
http://youtube.com/watch?v=rD4roXEY8hk
>> Anonymous
>>27331
Turkish, for instance, has no different pronouns for he, she and it; they're all "o". It also lacks articles (like "the"), a suffix does the work of the definite article, the only times I feel the lack of articles in Turkish is when I want to say something like "the hardest, if not THE hardest, metal known to man". Also, as far as primitivity is concerned, Indo-European languages are far more primitive than agglutinative languages; having a "word" for everything (eg. prepositions) is a clever idea that makes things easier, but primitive.
>> Anonymous
>>27464

What do you mean by primitive?

Every country with a non-Aryan language sucks
>> Anonymous
>>27467
>having a "word" for everything (eg. prepositions) is a clever idea that makes things easier, but primitive.
This. It's kind of hard to solidify, especially to someone who doesn't speak an agglutinative language. Just imagining how the Indo-European sentence structure came about... There are already words for "tree", "I" and "on" and then you just put them together and have "I (am) on (the) tree". In Turkish that would be "a?açtay?m" where "a?aç" ("tree") is the only bit that has a meaning on its own, "-ta-(y)-?m" is a suffix set that completes the meaning to "I am on the tree". Finnfags might be able to contribute other examples.
>> Anonymous
>>27421
When speaking English I am always trying to stick as close as possible to the rules of pronounciation.
Since I am a foreign speaker with deficits in various fields of the language I wouldn't want to be misunderstood because of sloppy talk. I want to get that right at least.
>> NO LIFE COLLECTOR OF OLD TV
>>27341
you forgot "and then being conquered by the french for about 400 years"
>> NO LIFE COLLECTOR OF OLD TV
>>27388

There's no functional difference. You can use them interchangeably in normal speech (although there might be a few that just sound awkward).

You mention "Church of Christ" versus "Christ's Church." "Church of Christ" is a specific religion in the US, so you wouldn't change its name to "Christ's Church."

However, the "formal rules" of English grammar state that inanimate objects (maybe animals, too? lol, English speaker that doesn't know) cannot actually "possess," and therefore you cannot use "'s."

For example, technically "the house's chimney" is wrong because the house is an inanimate object. "The chimney of the house" is correct.

However, for humans, both "her ball" and "the ball of hers" are correct. I can't even sense more than maybe the smallest nuance of difference, although that could just be because it's 5:30 am here and I need to go to bed.

But fucking shit, language threads are awesome.
>> NO LIFE COLLECTOR OF OLD TV
>>27421

Correct pronunciation (that is to say, Standard American English) dictates a soft th, notated as /ð/, which is incidentally also the letter "eth" in Old English as well as some letter in Icelandic meaning either hard or soft th sound

Also, it's called a "voiced dental fricative" or "voiced interdental fricative."
>> NO LIFE COLLECTOR OF OLD TV
>>27464

yeah, but the poetry of agglutinative languages sucks compared to non-agglutinative langauges because non-agglutinative (specifically English and the Romance languages) permit a higher degree of word-order freedom.

However, I will concede that agglutinative languages are the best for expressing complex philosophical ideas.

I know this isn't a philosophical word per se, but "Schadenfreude" is so much more complex and expressive than "taking pleasure in another person's pain"
>> Anonymous
>>27506
sauce on these 'rules' please
>> Anonymous
>>27511
"sadistic" is also more expressive than "taking pleasure in another person's pain"
>> Anonymous
>>27506
>maybe animals, too?
No. "The dog's ball" is just more accepted than "the ball of the dog" as the latter makes you sound like a faggot.

>English speaker that doesn't know
How the fuck can you not know this?
>> NO LIFE COLLECTOR OF OLD TV
>>27515
university website: http://english.cua.edu/wc3/handouts/Possession.cfm
classic english grammar text: http://books.google.com/books?id=4TroEh3GtDQC&pg=PA4&lpg=PA4&dq=english+possessive+apost
rophe+inanimate&source=web&ots=-5jDKy35PO&sig=sHgpg4_oBbdhSOptHkKwn-BcTN4&hl=en

There is controversy over this issue, just like whether you need a serial comma between the penultimate and ultimate elements:

1. the cat, the hat, and the bat
2. the cat, the hat and the bat

And also whether to tack on 's on to singular words that end in s:
1. Look at Hans's shirt
2. Look at Hans' shirt

However, in this case, the people who "make the rules" say use "of" for inanimate because inanimate objects cannot possess. Rather, you use "of" to indicate a cognitive relationship between them.
>> NO LIFE COLLECTOR OF OLD TV
>>27517
but sadism and Schadenfreude aren't the same thing

Sadism is the joy of inflicting pain on another. Schadenfreude is the joy of witnessing another's pain, whether you caused it or not.

For example, seeing someone get rained on is Schadenfreudic. You cannot be sadistic unless you are God causing the rain.
>> Anonymous
>>27523
>CUA
I lol'd
>> Anonymous
>>27511
>the poetry of agglutinative languages sucks compared to non-agglutinative langauges because non-agglutinative (specifically English and the Romance languages) permit a higher degree of word-order freedom.
In the specific example of Turkish, word order is not very strict. But I agree, because when writing poetry you want to avoid rhyming suffixes because it sounds bland, tough when they appear in similar form at the end of every verb and every other noun due to declension.

>I know this isn't a philosophical word per se, but "Schadenfreude" is so much more complex and expressive than "taking pleasure in another person's pain"
That's fusion, not agglutination; though I think you can have such words in Finnish too, if not in Turkish.
>> Anonymous
>>27523
catholic university... enough said.
>> Anonymous
Dunno, maybe the "th" sound in "thick" and "meth". I refused to pronounce it until i got like 18 since i thought it made me sound like a fucking faggot.

Non-native English speaker ofc.
>> Anonymous
Phrasal verbs... memorizing that shit was really annoying.

Look up to, look after, look out, look at, pick after, pick out, pick up, arrrrrrrghhhhhh!
>> Anonymous
>>27571
Also, false friends.

It took me a while until I realized that embarrassed does NOT mean pregnant.
>> Anonymous
>>27394
If you want to get technical, tough should be spelt t?f. Why are Americans so afraid of diacritics? It would make the language so much easier.

Sample text of English with diacritics.
Sämpl text ?v I?gl?š w?ð dai?kr?t?ks.
>> Anonymous
>>27577
I lol'd
>> Anonymous
>>27577
WOW THAT LOOKS SO MUCH CLEANER AND NICER IT SURE IS TOO BAD THAT WE DON'T USE DIACRITICS HUH?
>> Anonymous
>>27331
hahahaha. genders for words. a closet is just a closet a knife, a knife. not female or male you fucking retard. how complicated is that? the reason English is so simple (or primitive, as you say) is because we try to make it easier for non-americans (this is you monkey) to come here and actually be able to communicate without having to learn some cunt hole moonspeak and yet its still a wonder how some of u faggots manage to STILL fuck up the language.
>> Anonymous
Thanks for all those who helped me out here.

And, answering to the thread's question, I hate phrasal verbs and prepositions.
>> Anonymous
The pronouncing.
Also that there's no plural for "You"
>> NO LIFE COLLECTOR OF OLD TV
>>27564
There have been two "th" sounds in English since before 1000 AD--eth and thorn. Eth is the "th" in "the," and thorn is the "th" in "think."
>> NO LIFE COLLECTOR OF OLD TV
>>27573
haha, yeah, we have a story in English about Parker (a pen company) that created an advertisement in Mexico that said something like "It won't leak in your pocket and impregnate you" instead of "It won't leak in your pocket and embarrass you."
>> NO LIFE COLLECTOR OF OLD TV
>>27577
because there are too many ways to pronounce a word in English; therefore, there would be no standard spelling system in English

someone in TX might use "a" while in Boston would write "ä" and in Ausfailia might use æ. It wouldn't be spelled the same within one country, and it wouldn't be spelled the same across the world.

Can you imagine a world in which EVERY FUCKING WORD displays something similar to the color/colour variation between, in some places in England, 30 miles of each other?
>> NO LIFE COLLECTOR OF OLD TV
>>27577

Oh yeah, also you got "with" wrong. We don't use the voiced, but rather the voiceless "th." Also, the vowel sound is different practically everywhere here in the US than what you transcribed. With would be /w??/
>> Anonymous
>>27621
The point of diacritics is to avoid that people pronounce words different every 30 miles.
>> NO LIFE COLLECTOR OF OLD TV
>>27612
umm, y'all, you all, youse, you, depending on location

i've been hearing a spread of "y'all" to places in the north over the past 10 years

youse is like new jersey and brooklyn

you all and you guys is like wisconsin and minnesota
>> Anonymous
>>27623
That will happen whether you use diacritics or not. Dialects are spontaneous, they do not arise rationally. You're just being lazy because you only want to learn one ultra-standard of English. No language works like that.
>> Anonymous
prepositions, they just don't match the words.
To wait on somebody just sounds retarded for example.
>> Anonymous
Linguistics major here.
This thread made me RAGE.
>> Anonymous
gender for noun have been decided because of the semantics, the morphology and the convention of the word.
>> Anonymous
what the hell is homonyms?
I'm an exchange student, and I dont have a clue!
ÆØÅ
>> Anonymous
>>27638

i'm just guessing since i'm italian, but i think homonyms are those words with identical pronunciation and different spelling. And yes, they make me RAGE quite a lot. It would be better if english words were written just the way they're pronounced.
>> Anonymous
>>27641
No, Homonyms (homo = same, nym = name) are two words with the same spelling and pronunciation but different meanings.

Ex:
Left(as in the direction) and Left (as in no longer being there anymore)
The house it to the left of the man.
The man left the house at 8:00 AM.
>> Anonymous
>>27641
Homophones are words with the same pronunciation but different spellings.

Example: Right and Write
The house it to the right of the man.
The man likes to write about his house.
>> Anonymous
>>27631
>>To wait on somebody just sounds retarded for example.
I have thought it was "to wait for somebody"...?
>> Anonymous
>>27675
He means how a waiter or waitress "waits on" their customers.
>> Anonymous
>>27612
While not technically proper, many dialects have their own version of the plural "you." "Y'all", "You all", and "all of you" are the most common in my experience.

They're fine in general parlance, just don't use them when writing a paper (well actually I think you could probably use the last one, but whatever...).
>> Anonymous
>>27678
I surely would want a waitress to wait on me.
>> Anonymous
>>27664
You are entirely not-left.
>> Anonymous
That all the simple words come from my native language,
and all the noble expression have their origin in French.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>27604
>> Anonymous
The problem with English, and Latin had this problem too, to a lesser extent, is that being spoken EVERYWHERE, it absorbs and incorporates not just words but pronunciations from around the world. Think of words like Thug or Senator- neither are actually english words, and both are perfect examples of the way English is stitched together and has become almost a pidgin of every other language on Earth.

tl;dr- If you don't like English you have noone to blame but yourselves.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>27604
... and English is my first language, too...
>> Anonymous
English wantonly grabs words from other languages like it has a drug problem. "Something ineffable? Wait, there's a word in Urdu that describes it; we're cool."
>> Anonymous
>>There is controversy over this issue, just like whether you need a serial comma between the penultimate and ultimate elements

i don't understand why this is "controversial." i think it's pretty fucking obvious you need the final comma. when you write 'the cat, the hat and the bat', it groups the hat and the bat, which are supposed to be separate elements, together into one element. this can not only cause confusion as to meaning, but also is really, really awkward to read -- you just run into the end of the sentence or clause, leaving the tempo unresolved. i RAGE RAGE RAGE whenever i see someone doing this. when you are speaking and you say a list like this, there is an AUDIBLE PAUSE after every element in the list. that means you should put a fucking comma there when you write a list.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>27736
it can create ambiguity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_comma
>To my mother, Ayn Rand and God.
>To my mother, Ayn Rand, and God.
>Betty, a maid and a rabbit.
>Betty, a maid, and a rabbit.
>RAGE RAGE RAGE
>> Anonymous
>>27331

We have no gender for words in English because we don't perceive gender, we perceive biological sex. That's why male knives make no sense to us. What makes a knife so masculine, or a closet so feminine? When you walk into a closet, do you see a vagina in there? Do you feel like you're walking into a vagina? See the point I'm trying to make?

There are exceptions to the rule, of course. Let's say you want to personify something - referring to a state or a ship as a "she" to emphasize its maternal qualities, for example. That's cool by us.

Sorry about the orthography. I can't really help that. Look on the bright side, it's gotten better. Have you ever heard of the medial 's'? You sure as hell haven't. And that's how it should be.
>> Anonymous
>>27730
>English ... has become almost a pidgin of every other language on Earth.

>>27735
>"Something ineffable? Wait, there's a word in Urdu that describes it; we're cool."

Have fun conducting your business affairs in Urdu, jackass.
>> Anonymous
English native speaker here, can I request that you guys also say what your native language is? This is really interesting but I want to ask pretty much everyone that's posted what their native language is.
>> Anonymous
don't be an idiot. We don't see a knife as being a male or a female LOL.

It is JUST the word who have a gender, not the object per se.
>> Anonymous
>>27632
At least I wasn't the first person to rage at this thread. I only took one class in linguistics, but still.
>> Anonymous
It's a bit ironic that foreign speakers are usually aware of the structure, grammar and nuances of our language more than we are. We just speak it without giving it any thought.
>> Anonymous
>>27737
as a native english speaker, having a comma on the last one I personally use only when you're only listing a few items:
>The frog, cat, and the dog.

you forget that last comma if you have a large list:
>the frog, cat, dog, rabbit, mouse, snake and bird.

That's just how I've come to see it just out of years of general perception.
>> Anonymous
>>27736
>i think it's pretty fucking obvious you need the final comma. when you write 'the cat, the hat and the bat', it groups the hat and the bat

It should be clear here that it's listing three things. You are meant to use semi-colons to list longer things or things with "and" in them.

>the cat; the hat and the bat.

Now it groups the hat and bat together.
>> Anonymous
them words ALL THEM FUCKING WORDS (largest vocabulary of ANY language on earth... that's right ANY!!!!!!!!!!!)
>> Anonymous
>>27763

Portuguese here.
>> Anonymous
>>27819
You might have the largest vocabulary but everyday English is just bland & simple compared to other languages.
>> Anonymous
>>27818
you're wrong on both counds

semicolons are used to link serial items that have internal commas, such as:

bobby, the boy I know; jim, the boy I don't know; and paul.

As for your idiotic assertion that
A, B and C groups B and C together, that's not true. For an illustration, consider that if B and C are grouped together, then you have two items (A) and (B and C). When listing two items, you don't use a comma.
>> Anonymous
>>27814
your habits does nothing to change the fact that competing style guides suggest to use and not to use the comma. Strunk and White's Elements of Style say to use the comma. Other guides that I don't know anymore (because in the field of law--my field--you ALWAYS use that last comma) say not to use the comma.
>> Anonymous
the fucking americans fucking up the english language is what i hate most. "zee" instead of z? "erbs" instead of "herbs"? wtf is up with that. fucking americans
>> Anonymous
>>27825
You're wrong. Semicolons can be used to seperate lists of "complex" items, which may or may not contain commas in them.

>For an illustration...
The rules are different for semicolons so your illustration is irrelavent. But yes having "and" in the final item of a list could cause confustion and I wouldn't do it in practice.
>> Anonymous
>>27825
Put these items in a list for me then faggot, in a single sentence:

Wallace and Gromit
Beaty and the Beast
Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone
>> Anonymous
In b4 reference to the spelling mistake.
>> Anonymous
>>27862
Yesterday, I read three books: "Wallace and Gromit", "Beaty and the Beast", and "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone".
>> Anonymous
>>27866
Quotation marks are a cop-out. The English language deserves better.
>> Anonymous
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=12874827324
>> Anonymous
>>27870
lolwut
>> Anonymous
>>27869
all punctuation is a cop out
infactspacesareacopout
cm2thnkftvwlrcpt
>> Anonymous
>>27866
Convention dictates making the titles oblique, but that's not really an option here.
>> Anonymous
>>27866
Try again, with:

Scotland and whisky
France and wine
Poland and vodka
>> Anonymous
>>27878
Countries are often associated with their national drinks. Examples of this would be: Scotland and whisky; France and wine; Poland and vodka.

you can use commas instead, if you want.

the real issue here is why would you be constructing that sentence in the first place. thats not something i would ever try and communicate to someone as a list.
>> Anonymous
>>27885
This post goes against everything you said in>>27825.

You lose, my friend.
>> Anonymous
>>27889

>>27866,>>27885were a different poster to>>27825.

i just answered>>27862because im a faggot
>> Anonymous
Fuck this thread.