/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.3269560]

why does my English always look cryptic to the other ;_;

[Anonymous No.3269606]

I've always enjoyed to speak and write in a way I feel fits the situation.
As long as the sentence isn't grammaticlally incorrect, I'll go with it.
I too fear though that it's perhaps not composed in a logical standard.

[Anonymous No.3269613]

What do you mean? Please, be more clear.

[Anonymous No.3269660]

>>3269613
I said it is you who makes my English look cryptic.

>>3269606
I don't get it too.
It is not like i go easy on writing but it's true that composing sentences gets exponentially hard as i write more.

[Anonymous No.3269668]

>>3269606
I agree, although not for the same reason I guess. I'm not a native speaker and some of my influences were sketchy, to say the least. But as long as most grammar nazis can't find much to nazi over, I'm fine. We are but anon speaking to itself, and my writing won't be read by anybody other than me anytime soon. Who gives a damn, really.

[Anonymous No.3269689]

>>3269668
>We are but anon speaking to itself, and my writing won't be read by anybody other than me anytime soon. Who gives a damn, really.
meh,i just read your reply and your english is fluent.
My problem is that there were too many grammar nazis in my childhood and highschool,i am not quite sure if my writing is sensible myself.

[Anonymous No.3269714]

am i ever making what to when want to do with what and then?

[Anonymous No.3269726]

>>3269714
reading this made my brain hurt a little.

[Anonymous No.3269733]

Oh, am i ever making what to when
when want to do with what and then again?

[Anonymous No.3269736]

>>3269733
keep trying hun!

[Anonymous No.3269756]

>>3269714
>>3269726
sorry i'm stupid, is it semantically valid?

[Anonymous No.3269810]

>>3269733
yes but if I and then when if after and then if you are making

[Anonymous No.3269814]

Problem of other minds, OP, look up it.

[Anonymous No.3269817]

>>3269810

Not true. Once were it not invalid for not going to make when it wasn't there.

[Anonymous No.3269826]

>>3269733
>>3269810
It's like reading Robert Burns for the first time again.

[Anonymous No.3269828]

>>3269817

What then if why turned come with when rush is or in either was gladly neither came?

[Anonymous No.3269832]

Oh what am I making,
when I craft you so?
We're only breaking,
at our own hands you know.

[Anonymous No.3269836]

>>3269828

Never whither went where ne'er wi'er came so then was not instead a lesser end from halfway, of course.

[Anonymous No.3269842]

>>3269814
haha

[OP No.3269843]

>>3269814
haha

[Anonymous No.3269849]

>>3269660
>I said it is you who makes my English look cryptic.
No, it's you.

Languages have laws. Learn them and follow them.

[Anonymous No.3269856]

>>3269849

Go to bed, Noam

[Anonymous No.3269857]

>>3269856
>Go to bed, Noam
But colorless green ideas sleep furiously

[Anonymous No.3269866]

OP, as far as I can tell, it seems to be responsible for (and sometimes the indirect cause of) the thing[1] which can further elucidate the underlying manifestations of the second quarter inflationary period, both post and prior to, any subsequent machinations of the former state[2] in a socio-economical climate dictated by the rise of a number of variables, relative to the distinct foreshadowing of events likely to be deemed reprehensible by a third party.

[1] Or 'Things', plural; two-fold is a frequent occurrence when the magnitude is exceeding a particular parameter.

[2] I am only considering the possibility of a hegemony when the practicality can be demonstrated to reduce the quantity of those in power, who not only want to prevent said occurrence, but actively act in a way that can be verified as bringing such occurrences into effect.

[Anonymous No.3269876]

>>3269857
Yeah but what about the current king of France's bald head?

[Anonymous No.3269890]

>>3269876
I think it's something to do with when he swapped souls with that cobbler.

[Anonymous No.3269926]

>that guy who doesn't capitalize I

Fuck you.