Hello russians...

hello russians, how do you deal with specificity and definiteness in sentences if you don't use articles in your language?

Attached: htgf.png (275x183, 320)

Fuck off mate.

whoa

>specificity and definiteness
What do you even mean by this? Articles in English are viewed here as something irrelevant, error with no meaning nor purpose, it's just there and you learn it. Idk what specificity and defineteness do they bring to English. It would be a same language with same degree of those two with or without them.

to eliminate a general or ambiguous connotation within a phrase, we'll use a definite article or demonstrative
>a bird
no specific bird
>the bird
ambiguous phrase, can be a specific bird or you're talking about birds in general
>that bird
talking about a specific bird/one that was previously mentioned or seen.
each of these noun phrases carry somewhat of a different meaning so i'm wondering with slavic languages that don't have those function words, how would they design their own noun phrases to designate these meanings?

>>a bird
no need in article
>>the bird
no need
>>that bird
этa птицa

>no specific bird
>ambiguous phrase, can be a specific bird or you're talking about birds in general
It can literally be fit in just saying "bird". Based on the other parts of conversation you see is it a specific bird or not. For me it's like noting the obvious, something like saying "noun bird" while everyone knows it's a noun. You don't need an extra thing to direct you to something that is self-explanatory.

>how would they design their own noun phrases to designate these meanings?
>Ptica mu je lupala po prozoru(A bird hit his window)
Putting "the" or "a" in front of "bird" makes equally no sense in a situation where the bird is not in front of us. If we could see her flying, it would be "Ta(that) ptica mu je lupala po prozoru". To specify anything, you can use "ta". But it's just that specifiying or not specifying something with an article in that situation where the bird isn't present isn't logical to my reasoning.

appreciate your answers

This. Short and clear

You think for second and figure out what talking person meant

Its artificial problem. Just try forming sentences without articles, you'll see that context fills gaps.

English speakers on places like twitter have apparently figured that out

>specificity? who the fuck needs that? "do you have the cash" vs. "do you have cash" eh these are the same
>wtf you can't call a bird a he, it's obviously a she
why are slavs like this?

Articles are stupid.

kek

They are the closest to the original Indo-Europeans, they are so close to them that they even speak like a bunch of unwashed horse riding barbarians from the Eurasian steppes, just like them.

gendered pronouns are stupid too. everything is just "it"

>Yes
>Noun bird(птицa) is feminine in Serbian, that's why "she"
The real questionerino is why are Germanic languages like that

A bird is a he though. Also, I wish anglos would kindly fuck off with using non-gendered shit like spokesperson. How the fuck am I supposed to translate that, especially in cases where no name is given? Specifically, it's not the noun that is the trouble, it's the verbs that go with it that have to be either male or female and "spokesperson" really doesn't tell you which is it.

So you don't talk uuh what was it called? non personal words?

I have to say someone is retarded because of a characteristic of them

ie like in a conversation, "he's a retard, the bird in him compels him to be one"

How do you do it in russian? Or do you don't use terms of speech like this in general?

>the bird in him compels him to be one
WTF

You subhuman baboon. You literal nigger.

How dare you speak, you swarthy jungle monkey. How dare you open your big lipped, rim encrusted, menthol cigarette smelling mouth?

You are human trash, Diego Tyrone LeShawn de Capone. Universally despised, derided and mocked. Your nationality and skin tone offers no hope to the world that South America can ever prosper. Crawl back in to the Brazilian jungle you came out of, you literal orangutan.

I hope you decide to sail your grandfathers skip to Africa and rape some sheep, as is in the negroes nature. Before you do so, maybe remove that white powder from your asshole so it doesn't get weird.

Take your black hairy fingers off your keyboard, and never talk about the human species again. Give Nigel and Robert a chance for some target practice, your sole use to the world.

You nigger.

You make Liberia look like a beacon of civilisation.

You are the Albania of South America.

Go fertilise the pampas with you and your families corpses, its the best you can hope for in life. For the first time in your life, nigger, you have a job making food for beings vastly superior to yourself. Ecuadorian cattle. Coincidentally, it would be the first time a Colombian "man" provided for a family.

Die, Diego. No one would miss you. Except for Australian Aboriginals, who now would have no one to make them look good.

like they said previously, context will provide the meaning

Based.

You forgot to change Pampas from the original one though, the Pampas are a specific region from Argentina, could switch it to the Colombian equivalent which is Los Llanos Orientales (you can shorten it to just Los Llanos).

Overall, 8/10, good remix of a classic copypasta.

Also, Ecuador doesn't even have much livestock, could have used Ecuadorian potatoes instead.

>gendered verbs
why..?

Thanks fren. This pasta can be pretty much remixed to any shitskin nationality. And best of all, newfags instantly after the seethe mode after seeing it.

"the [noun] in him" indicates he's related to [noun], whatever be the context.

If I say "bird in him" I'm making a nonsensical statement, it is heard as i'm starting mid sentence and the listener will think he missed something

If I say "a bird in him" or "that bird in him" means that bird is not an intrinsic characteristic to the object, but someone that is related due to a circumstance, so it doesn't represent all similar or comparable cases to the object.

Let's make it a hot button example:

"the nigger in him compels him to be retarded"
Racist statement implying all blacks are retarded, a general insult due to relation with the noun, meant will offend anyone related to the noun.
"a nigger in him compels him to be retarded
Meaning that someone, the person got niggerified or that magically a nigger was absorbed into the person. The person however is not intrinsically retarded nor can you assume that all persons like him are intrinsically retarded, still a racist statement, but an insult directed to the person instead to the association with the noun. Will offend only the person.
"nigger in him compels him to be retarded"
Context-less statement. Anyone who hears this thinks they are missing a part of the conversation.

Well, "a" and "the" provide the meaning in context.
If they say they have another means of providing context, then please show us.

you can either just repeat the phrase "the spokesperson" or "they" (used as a singular neuter pronoun). use neuter verbs.
also this wtf

Slavic languages are quite literally caveman-tier grug languages jfc

i don't know slavic at all, i was relying on their answers, but im guessing their syntax is formed as a result of topicalisation which can provide some sort of analytical basis for meaning.

if you have the narrow worldview that languages are decoded forms on your native language, it may seem that way, but each language has it's own system of encoding information to convey meaning to the listener, translating one from the other is merely arriving at an equivalent meaning, not an absolute meaning.

To specify. Gendered words and cases are way, way more specifying than articles. I could ask you: how do you know is it a female cat(мaчкa) or a male one(мaчaк) if you have no words for those? Or: Why do you say "Send it to Mark" when "Send it Marku(Пoшaљи тo Mapкy)" would make much more sense instead of saying "to" a thousand times?

Slavic languages are much more specifying. That's why they're hard as fuck. And if we, as the kings of specifying, say that "aTheAn" is irrelevant, trust me, it's really irrelevant then.

Shut the fuck abo cunt

Because it works and you can drop nouns and pronouns when it's clear what or whom you are talking about. The core of the verb stays the same but the suffix changes based on the gender of the one doing the action.

"a nigger in him"
We don't use that idiom at all. If we want to say somebody did something because he's a nigger, we say he did it because he's a nigger.

As I said, the term spokesperson is not the problem. I can't use "they" because "they" in Czech means exclusively 3rd person plural. back when krauts were around, it was used to as an honorific way of addressing someone you are speaking to but you can't really use it for third person singular now. Also, neuter verbs are a no go because a spokesperson has a gender. Everyone knows it's gotta be a man or a woman who does the talking, not some inanimate object.

>abo cunt
oh nonono
nigger mutt forgot he is in abo cunt too

Attached: 1590075617005.jpg (600x894, 59.07K)