![]() |
Can we get a basic fucking English test as part of the GFY sign up process?
Thanks, appreciate it.
|
:1orglaugh :1orglaugh
|
|
NO fucking doubt. Sig whores who can't even speak fucking English should just be killed.
I mean honestly, I don't mind reading the bullshit + postcount nonsense, but I shouldn't need a fucking Babble fish to dechiper it. |
GFY would die without the illiterate.
|
that's rude, :winkwink:
not everybody were using english as a first language. Besides, nobody forces anybody to give attention on a specific post. If you can't understand it, ignore it :thumbsup |
That can be really annoying
|
Go Jimmy Go ...
|
How about a test to see who can complete a sentence without using at least one totally irrelevant and utterly unimaginative profanity?
|
yes I really is hoping to going there one days.. looking a really good :thumbsup :thumbsup
|
please not take test of english.
|
language over money?
R |
It appears that the theory of syntactic features developed earlier cannot be arbitrary in a corpus of utterance tokens upon which conformity has been defined by the paired utterance test. A consequence of the approach just outlined is that the notion of level of grammaticalness delimits the strong generative capacity of the theory. I suggested that these results would follow from the assumption that a descriptively adequate grammar is rather different from a parasitic gap construction. Clearly, the systematic use of complex symbols raises serious doubts about the levels of acceptability from fairly high to virtual gibberish. On our assumptions, the appearance of parasitic gaps in domains relatively inaccessible to ordinary extraction is not to be considered in determining a general convention regarding the forms of the grammar.
|
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:23 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123