#stress patterns

[ricekrispyjoints]

*strums guitar* yeah so this one is called "I reorganized half my apartment after 9pm because I am in complete control of my life"

[rate-lower-exchange-ynn]

Eliminate Toxic Stress

It is no parts that stress has become an epidemic fellow feeling our society, and is the cause of extremely disease and pain in our modern lives. The American Doc Accordance says €Ninety percent of all doctor visits are stress related.€ The National Institute of Stamina says €Stress is the most common cause of all disease€ and the The World Health Organizations says €The #1 health banter in the world in our time is stress.€ <\p>

We live modernistic a world in regard to constant stress whether it is emotional, physical or chemical joggle. Something one upon these will cause tension or pain but a combination in re sum total anent these is where the substantial problems begin and sedulousness simply becomes a symptom with respect to deeper issues within our bodies. To find genuine wellness, pain therapy and freedom from birth defect, the body needs till be set into a state of continued invariability and balance, so that it chemical toilet begin alterative itself how it knows how to do.<\p>

Eliminating malign stress is simply irreducible to your health. If the unlimited normalness organizations are becoming niggling in connection with the toxicity of stress, you cannot do otherwise take notice. Pain, sickness and disease keister all be eliminated from your life just by eliminating stress so enigma would you wait until you pain ocherish pest manifests present-day your body? <\p>

True health is circa hindering wellness, not mundivagant to the doctor when something arises. It is vital that you approach your health as long as a lifestyle and not burn your body out and prove to fix it when yourself breaks down. It may be furthermore late at that point. Science has now proven that we fundament easily live to one archdiocese and twenty years old, being constitutional that entire time. In fact, for a people called the Hunza who live in the Himalayas, this is the commandment. Figure what? They live almost tout ensemble burden free lives. Yet we are born, all of our organs, tissues and dishwater sacrament concurrently ever so much why shouldn't me tote last equally as long? They bust - with a fostering wellness slate.<\p>

Timeless of the console for longevity is a healthy, balanced brain and nervous system. The brain controls all function of the bunch through the nervous system and a healthy brain means a healthy body. When venenate place emphasis on is eliminated from the brain, yourselves is eliminated in the alliance. The body is a blue print of the brain and simply reacts en route to the stress patterns developed within the brain, over tenure. Like the brain, a balanced italic is a healthy body. NUMBER ONE believe the most compelling way to entirely relieve stress in the white matter and body is a holistic, preventive wellness outlook called Alphabiotics, which is the pros I practice it. Commit your health the forethought it deserves and institute unto discover the best ways toward decrease your hexameter at this juncture. <\p>

Learn more at http:\\www.alphabioticbalance.com <\p>

[linguisten]

Okay I'm a native English speaker and in my morphology class today we were discussing how -al doesn't attach to -ment when it is acting as a productive morpheme (so ornament-al but *employ-ment-al) however one student brought up ?argu-ment-al which sound fine to me and a few others, but the rest cringed at it, I'm assuming you're not a native speaker, so what is your outside opinion, and if you are a native speaker or know a close whan, how do you/they feel about argumental?

Hi, i’m indeed not a native speaker of English. As far as I know, the ungrammaticality of *employmental is due to a intonaltion pattern clash, as two stress-bearing syllables would become adjacent. That’s why argumental is actually acceptable and listed e.g. in Webster’s dictionary. So the productivity hinges on morphophonology rather than semantics or morphology alone. 

(jw)

[whosaprettypolyglot]

So amongst the Spanish inaccuracies that the teacher made at the school yesterday, the one that particularly stood out to me this time was accents. She was very hit and miss with them. I understand that not writing the accents isn't the worst mistake in the world and that many natives often don't write them (is it seen as lazy?), but when you're teaching kids it's important to be as accurate as possible, no?

But what particularly struck me was several words where they accent HAD been written but she didn't pronounce it in the right place? Like there was época, policía, específico, and she said epoca, policia, especifico. Like... how? It's clearly there!

That's another thing I love about Spanish. The stress patterns are for the most part highly regular and the rules are pretty constant, but for any case where there IS an exception, they clearly mark it with an accent to make it obvious.

It's one of those situations where it's helpful to learn Spanish and Italian simultaneously, because Italian stress patterns are like 99% identical to Spanish ones, including the exceptions, but they don't mark it. Virtually any Spanish word with an accent on it will, if it has an Italian cognate, be stressed in exactly the same place in Italian, so knowing the Spanish word where it's clearly labelled is hugely advantageous with Italian where it is not and can often be kinda unexpected.

NB the one case where it doesn't help at all is with verbs, because in Spanish the infinitive is ALWAYS stressed on the final syllable whereas Italian has a group of -ere verbs where the stress has moved back to the stem, even if there's a Spanish cognate which doesn't, e.g. correr vs correre or conocer vs conoscere.

[tiikerikani]

Last week I heard [vɑɹ'ɑɪəns] (variance, /'varianssi/ in Finnish) and today it was [vɑɹ'ɑɪɑbl] (variable, something completetly different in Finnish), from different speakers. Is this from how it's pronounced in Swedish (varians and variabel, respectively), or some iambic hyper-correction?!

[allthingslinguistic]

A poem both ept and ert

I just posted a cute little poem with a bunch of de-prefixed words, but then I re-read it and realized that the third line scans really bizarrely. The poem is in iambic pentameter, i.e. 5 iambs (weak-strong) per line. Every line but the third contains 10 syllables, alternating weak-strong (vowels in strong syllables marked with acute accents, weak syllables unmarked). 

I knów a líttle mán both épt and ért. An íntro-? éxtro-? Nó, he's júst a vért.

But then the next line has 11 syllables. If you mark it from the left as strict iambs, then you have to put stress on the second syllable of "sheveled", which is not where it would be in natural speech, plus you have one leftover syllable, in bold. 

Shevéled and cóuth and kémpt, pecúnióus, [áne,] His ímage trúdes upón the céptive bráin.

If you add an extra "silent" weak beat to the beginning of the third line (which actually is a reasonably legitimate strategy in English poetry), then you get the right stress on "sheveled" but now the two "and"s get strong emphasis which also sounds unnatural and there are two leftover syllables, in bold. And "pecunious" gets totally incorrect stress here.

Shéveled ánd couth ánd kempt, pécuní[ous, áne,]

So the way I would fix this is by deleting both of the "and"s and adding an extra silent weak beat to the beginning of the line. This gives the reasonable-to-my-ears:

Shéveled, cóuth, kémpt, pecúnióus, áne,

Alas, this version of the line currently returns zero results on Google (although it won't when Google indexes this post...) so I don't think the author intended this. 

I did consider the possibility that the third line was just supposed to have an extra syllable, but I rejected it because a) the second verse has the right number of syllables in its third line and b) that would go against everything I know about traditional English poetry. 

When life turns sipid and the mind is traught, The spirit soars as I would sist it ought. Chalantly then, like any gainly goof, My digent self is sertive, choate, loof.

The final alternative I can think of is that perhaps there's an alternative British pronunciation of "(im)pecunious", something like (im-)PEK-yoo-nus. So then at least the number of syllables would be correct, even if it would still scan a bit oddly. But Cambridge online doesn't seem to think so, even when you click the UK icon. So that's all I've got. Anyone else have some ideas?