I just finished taking my TEAS for the second time. 1 year ago, I took it for the first time and scored a 78% total. After finishing it today, I scored a total of 84%! This is better than last time, although I was reaching for an 85%. I got 84.6% in Reading, 94.1% in Math, 84.1% in Science and 72.7% in English/Language.
My weak spot is English. I especially struggled with subject-verb agreement and pronoun-antecedent. These two topics were at least 5 of the questions that appeared on this section of the exam. It’s important to really put aside time to study the concepts in detail because the questions can be tricky! Good luck to anyone taking the exam. Take your time and double check if you have extra time!

I have my final placement with children 0-5, mostly working in language. I keep getting feedback from my supervisor that I need to involve the parents more and give more homework and stuff. Parent coaching sounds great as a concept to me, but I never really understand what it would actually look like. Maybe it would have been nice to observe a session where an SLP provides it. My school had a pricey hanen workshop but I wish I would have done it!
Right now, I am just explaining the goals of activities and advising parents to do things like dialogoc book reading at home. I have been giving homework worksheets. Lots of goals include pronouns, plurals and expanding vocab. I feel kind of awakesrd with parents a lot of my kids have big behavior issues and it’s hard for me to run a session, manage the behaviors and get the parents involved

Understanding "Lo Que" vs. "Que" in Spanish

Learning the difference between "lo que" and "que" is essential for mastering Spanish as an English speaker. Both of these phrases can translate to "what" or "that" in English, but they are used in different contexts.

1. "Que"

The word "que" is a relative pronoun that means "that," "which," or "who" depending on the context. It is used to introduce relative clauses, providing more information about a noun mentioned previously in the sentence.
Examples: - La chica que estudia español es muy inteligente. (The girl who studies Spanish is very intelligent.) - El libro que está sobre la mesa es mío. (The book that is on the table is mine.)

2. "Lo Que"

"Lo que" means "what" or "that which." It is used to refer to an entire idea, concept, or unspecified thing. Unlike "que," it doesn’t need an antecedent (a noun it refers back to) and is often used to emphasize a statement.
Examples: - Lo que necesito es un descanso. (What I need is a break.) - No entiendo lo que dices. (I don’t understand what you are saying.)

Key Differences

1. Antecedent: "Que" usually follows a noun it refers to, whereas "lo que" doesn’t need a specific noun before it.
2. Context: "Que" is often used in relative clauses to add information about a noun, while "lo que" is used to refer to concepts or ideas more broadly.

Examples in Sentences

Using "Que": - La película que vimos anoche fue interesante. (The movie that we saw last night was interesting.) - Los estudiantes que terminaron el examen pueden salir. (The students who finished the exam can leave.)
Using "Lo Que": - Lo que más me gusta es la comida mexicana. (What I like the most is Mexican food.) - Dime lo que piensas sobre el plan. (Tell me what you think about the plan.)

Practice with Pal

Want to get better at differentiating between "lo que" and "que"? Practice makes perfect, and Pal is here to help!
A. Go to [Get-Pal.com/WhatsApp/](Get-Pal.com/WhatsApp/)
B. Create a sentence using "lo que" or "que" and send it to Pal: - For example, try a sentence like "Lo que necesito es aprender más gramática" (What I need is to learn more grammar). - Or "El libro que me prestaste es muy bueno" (The book that you lent me is very good).
C. Pal will review your sentence, correct any mistakes, and keep the conversation going! If you're ever stuck, just ask Pal for help. Consistent practice will help you become more fluent.
Remember, the best way to learn is through continuous practice and real conversation! Happy learning! 🌟

I’m basically looking for a natural language analogue of “second order” or “sentential” variables of formal logic, just as “first order” variables are taken to correspond to ordinary pronouns. For instance, in “Socrates is mortal, and so is Plato”, isn’t “so” something like a pro-adjective, taking “mortal” as antecedent?
Thanks in advance!

'•.¸♡Welcome to Agere Cozy Corner♡¸.•'
What does Agere Cozy Corner have to offer? ╔. ■ .═══════╗ ➩ An 18+ SFW space
➩ Active and responsive staff
➩ Lots of text channels for chatting
➩ A space for age regressors, pet regressors, and caregivers alike
➩ A safe space for systems (this server only supports traumagenic systems)
➩ A safe space for LGBTQ+ and POC
➩ Lots of different roles (age, sexuality, pronouns, boundary roles, etc.)
➩ Voice channels
➩ lots of fun bots (QOTD, pancake bot, flower bot, taco shack, fishing bot, mimu etc.)
➩ rooms (a room is like a personal journal! You can choose for it to be public or private)
➩ Daily worksheets (you can turn them in for mimu currency)
➩ A strict blacklist to keep the server safe
➩ Babysitting channels (this server is not a looking server, meaning this is not the place to look for a permanent caregiver)
➩ Spontaneous events (there will be announcements about them so you don't have to worry about missing them!)
.｡ﾟ+..｡ We hope to see you soon! ﾟ+..｡*ﾟ+ ╚═══════. ■ .╝ https://discord.gg/CW4j9k8XE5

'•.¸♡Welcome to Agere Cozy Corner♡¸.•'
What does Agere Cozy Corner have to offer? ╔. ■ .═══════╗ ➩ An 18+ SFW space
➩ Active and responsive staff
➩ Lots of text channels for chatting
➩ A space for age regressors, pet regressors, and caregivers alike
➩ A safe space for systems (this server only supports traumagenic systems)
➩ A safe space for LGBTQ+ and POC
➩ Lots of different roles (age, sexuality, pronouns, boundary roles, etc.)
➩ Voice channels
➩ lots of fun bots (QOTD, pancake bot, flower bot, taco shack, fishing bot, mimu etc.)
➩ rooms (a room is like a personal journal! You can choose for it to be public or private)
➩ Daily worksheets (you can turn them in for mimu currency)
➩ A strict blacklist to keep the server safe
➩ Babysitting channels (this server is not a looking server, meaning this is not the place to look for a permanent caregiver)
➩ Spontaneous events (there will be announcements about them so you don't have to worry about missing them!)
.｡ﾟ+..｡ We hope to see you soon! ﾟ+..｡*ﾟ+ ╚═══════. ■ .╝ https://discord.gg/CW4j9k8XE5

'The number of people who use "whom" and "who" wrongly is appalling. The problem is a difficult one and it is complicated by the importance of tone, or taste. Take the common expression, "Whom are you, anyways?" That is of course, strictly speaking, correct — and yet how formal, how stilted! The usage to be preferred in ordinary speech and writing is "Who are you, anyways?" "Whom" should be used in the nominative case only when a note of dignity or austerity is desired. For example, if a writer is dealing with a meeting of, say, the British Cabinet, it would be better to have the Premier greet a new arrival, such as an under-secretary, with a "Whom are you, anyways?" rather than a "Who are you, anyways?" — always granted that the Premier is sincerely unaware of the man's identity. To address a person one knows by a "Whom are you?" is a mark either of incredible lapse of memory or inexcusable arrogance. "How are you?" is a much kindlier salutation.'
--James Thurber, Ladies' and Gentlemen's Guide to Modern English Usage
Pronouns and Pronoun-Antecedent Agreement (guidetogrammar.org)

I need help identifying the problem and solution in this sentence, I am stumped
Here is the prompt:
Each of the following problems contains a single error in either:
Subject-Verb Agreement
Spelling
Punctuation
Pronoun Case
Pronoun Antecedent Agreement
identify the problem and identify the solution.
​
Here is the Sentence.
Dear Dr. Bukowski,
Please find my attached resume, as I am quite interested in your opening for a veterinary technician

Can anyone recommend a website or app where I can practice pronouns in German? I’m looking for something like worksheets

I was on reddit and I saw this person say "Interesting fact: Standard English translations of John 8:44 obscure the Greek, which reads: ὑμεῖς ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς τοῦ διαβόλου ἐστὲ. With the article preceding πατρὸς, the phrase τοῦ διαβόλου is a genitive phrase modifying the nominal phrase ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς;.. Thus: "You are from the father of the Devil." If the statement were to mean, as the standard English translation renders it, "You are of the father, the Devil," then the article preceding πατρὸς, would not be present. In this case the phrase, "father" would be in the predicate position, a grammatical choice that the author of John makes a few verses later in 8:56 when referencing Abraham: Ἀβραὰμ ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν, "Abraham, your father." This literal reading is confirmed by the last segment of the verse (8:44f) which straightforwardly acknowledges the present of two beings, the liar and his father: ὅταν λαλῇ τὸ ψεῦδος, ἐκ τῶν ἰδίων λαλεῖ, ὅτι ψεύστης ἐστὶν καὶ ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ. The full verse reasons that the Devil lies since his nature is that of a liar. Why? Because not only is the Devil a liar himself but his father is also a liar. But this is not the sense of the standard English translation which is peculiar and strained. It reads αὐτοῦ as a genitive "it" referring to an unnamed singular antecedent such as "lying" or "falsehood." Thus: πατὴρ αὐτοῦ is rendered in the standard English translation idiosyncratically, "the father of lies." This is incredibly incorrect and dishonest. Aὐτοῦ doesn`t mean “ it” but is a personal pronoun which this context refers to the devil, therefore it should say “the father of the devil” not “the father of lies” https://biblehub.com/greek/846.htm This verse functioned as a calling card for Gnostics who used it as plain evidence that Jesus taught that the Jewish God was the father of the Devil. A number of Gnostics employed this verse to prove that Jesus himself instructed them that there existed a god in addition to Jesus' true Father. This other god is the Old Testament God and is responsible for the generation of the Devil and evil. They insisted that this verse demonstrates that determinism plays a role in human nature, especially in terms of the most wicked people, the apostates. According to these Gnostics, it is a wicked deity - the god the old testament - who fathered both the apostates and the Devil. The early catholics faced a real dilemma when it came to explaining this verse. In order to neutralize it, they insisted that the Greek be read appositionally, "you are from the father, the Devil" even though they confess that reading it this way would be clearer if the genitive article before father were erased. Their ultimate concern is that the scripture cannot say "from the father of the Devil" so they plead that another reading of the text is necessary, a reading that they regard as 'better' than the plain reading. They are so certain that that text means "from the father, the Devil" that they freely render it, "You are sons of the Devil," and attribute these words to Jesus instead of the words found in the scripture. They are uneasy about quoting the Greek in the form it appears in the biblical passage itself. So they tend to substitute for it what they think the passage should say by paraphrasing the passage whenever they reference it. If the author, intended to write “You are sons of the Devil” he would have simply wrote it. If Jesus wanted to say “You are sons of the Devil” he would of said it that way. “For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.” 1 Corinthians 14:33" What is the argument against this? I have a gnostic friend at school and I want to show him the way the truth and the life :) If anyone has a good detailed answer I would truely truely truely appreciate it!

I was on reddit and I saw this person say "Interesting fact: Standard English translations of John 8:44 obscure the Greek, which reads: ὑμεῖς ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς τοῦ διαβόλου ἐστὲ. With the article preceding πατρὸς, the phrase τοῦ διαβόλου is a genitive phrase modifying the nominal phrase ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς;.. Thus: "You are from the father of the Devil." If the statement were to mean, as the standard English translation renders it, "You are of the father, the Devil," then the article preceding πατρὸς, would not be present. In this case the phrase, "father" would be in the predicate position, a grammatical choice that the author of John makes a few verses later in 8:56 when referencing Abraham: Ἀβραὰμ ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν, "Abraham, your father." This literal reading is confirmed by the last segment of the verse (8:44f) which straightforwardly acknowledges the present of two beings, the liar and his father: ὅταν λαλῇ τὸ ψεῦδος, ἐκ τῶν ἰδίων λαλεῖ, ὅτι ψεύστης ἐστὶν καὶ ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ. The full verse reasons that the Devil lies since his nature is that of a liar. Why? Because not only is the Devil a liar himself but his father is also a liar. But this is not the sense of the standard English translation which is peculiar and strained. It reads αὐτοῦ as a genitive "it" referring to an unnamed singular antecedent such as "lying" or "falsehood." Thus: πατὴρ αὐτοῦ is rendered in the standard English translation idiosyncratically, "the father of lies." This is incredibly incorrect and dishonest. Aὐτοῦ doesn`t mean “ it” but is a personal pronoun which this context refers to the devil, therefore it should say “the father of the devil” not “the father of lies” https://biblehub.com/greek/846.htm This verse functioned as a calling card for Gnostics who used it as plain evidence that Jesus taught that the Jewish God was the father of the Devil. A number of Gnostics employed this verse to prove that Jesus himself instructed them that there existed a god in addition to Jesus' true Father. This other god is the Old Testament God and is responsible for the generation of the Devil and evil. They insisted that this verse demonstrates that determinism plays a role in human nature, especially in terms of the most wicked people, the apostates. According to these Gnostics, it is a wicked deity - the god the old testament - who fathered both the apostates and the Devil. The early catholics faced a real dilemma when it came to explaining this verse. In order to neutralize it, they insisted that the Greek be read appositionally, "you are from the father, the Devil" even though they confess that reading it this way would be clearer if the genitive article before father were erased. Their ultimate concern is that the scripture cannot say "from the father of the Devil" so they plead that another reading of the text is necessary, a reading that they regard as 'better' than the plain reading. They are so certain that that text means "from the father, the Devil" that they freely render it, "You are sons of the Devil," and attribute these words to Jesus instead of the words found in the scripture. They are uneasy about quoting the Greek in the form it appears in the biblical passage itself. So they tend to substitute for it what they think the passage should say by paraphrasing the passage whenever they reference it. If the author, intended to write “You are sons of the Devil” he would have simply wrote it. If Jesus wanted to say “You are sons of the Devil” he would of said it that way. “For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.” 1 Corinthians 14:33" What is the argument against this? I have a gnostic friend at school and I want to show him the way the truth and the life :) If anyone has a good detailed answer I would truely truely truely appreciate it!

I took three years of French in Middle/High School and I’ve definitely lost touch with some of the basics. While I’m doing great on DuoLingo, I need some resources (like literal worksheets or something similar) to help bring me back to the basics of understanding pronouns and conjunctions because I keep messing up 😔 Any and all free resources would be greatly appreciated 🤍🇫🇷

The Chicago Manual of Style (CMOS) was last updated in 2017, seven years ago. A new edition is coming out in Sept 2024.
In regulatory and medical writing, CMOS is the second most-common style guide, after the AMA Manual of Style. But adoption of CMOS the primary house style guide has some advantages over selecting AMA Manual as the primary house style guide:

• The CMOS can be broadly applied across the organization including marketing and commercial functions.
• Some editing Add-ons to Microsoft Word, such as PerfectIt, have inbuilt CMOS style guide and there are currently no Add-ons with AMA style guide. Using MS Word Add-on (or Apps) are great for automating consistency-check related tasks.

Some of the updates in the 18th edition from CMOS announcement are:

• Rules for en dashes will be expanded to include an additional category: The names of two or more people used as a compound modifier in certain terms will now be separated by an en dash rather than a hyphen; a hyphenated name, however, remains hyphenated (Epstein–Barr virus, named for two people, but Albers-Schönberg disease, named for one person).
• The generic singular they will now be considered acceptable even in formal writing—for example, when the antecedent is an indefinite pronoun (someone forgot their coat) or when referring to a person whose gender is unknown or irrelevant (will the driver of the yellow sedan please move their car) or whose identity must be concealed (the author wants their privacy protected).
• Clarified rules relative to compound modifiers that follow a noun to allow for certain hyphenated exceptions. For example, though a well-read student is well read (no change to our current rules), a first-rate editor will remain first-rate after the noun. We’ll also clarify our rules for compound modifiers that may remain open before a noun, as the term guest room in guest room access.
• The first word of a grammatically complete sentence following a colon will now get an initial capital.

SOURCE

• Announcing The Chicago Manual of Style, 18th Edition. CMOS Shop Talk. 16 April 2024 [archive]

CMOS 18th edition pre-order here ($75)
Related: Style guides commonly used in regulatory and clinical writing, CMOS versus AMA manual of style, CMOS versus Oxford style

With the will of God, I plan to share the book verse by verse in due time. For now, let's look into a straightforward verse, to see the beautiful intelligence within God's scripture. Remember, reading the Quran requires patience and reflection, for each word holds depth. Each word is a root word which is a general subject that can be broken down into more specifics. Each word builds off of each other like the structure of a cell. As a sample lets look at this simple verse:
وَإِنَّ مِن شِيعَتِهِۦ لَإِبْرَٰهِيمَ
And of his kind was Abraham, (37:83)
In this verse, the mention of Ibrahim gives a transition in the chapter. We went from the criminals on the day of judgement gathered with their wives asking questions, to the companions of heaven gathering together and asking each other questions, to the tree of Zaqoom unravveling and unfolding before the evil doers with its branches and fruits like the heads of satans, to Noah and his mission, to now Ibrahim. It shifts as a pivot point, showing the continuity of the prophets missions and the patience and struggle of the righteous when facing kufr (disbelief) and adversity.
This part of the verse "وَإِنَّ مِن شِيعَتِهِۦ" means "And indeed, among his kindred (followers) was Abraham." Here, "شِيعَتِهِ" can mean followers, supporters, or kin. Ibrahim is pinpointed as one of the righteous children of Adam who remained bonded and firm in his iman/faith even though he faced hostility from his father (and had to cut contact "9:114") and from the wrongdoers he faced especially when the entire city formed a mob against him, dragging him to court then cheering as he was dragged to the fire and cussed at as they built the structure around and over him.
First, we shall "zoom out" and look at the verse through a Macro lens. From this view, it shows us several messages:

1. By pivoting from Nuh to Ibrahim the book is showing us the continuation of the prophetic mission throughout generations. It shows us how they are all connected and how they all shared the same struggle when calling the people to monotheism and righteousness.
2. Ibrahim met challenges and rejections form his own community, yet remained patient and solid in his love for God.
3. Ibrahim is pinpointed "as a member" of the righteous followers of Nuh elevates his status and tells us about his superior character and devotion to God. His identity in this group shows his distinction. (distinction but we make no division "2:136" "3:84")
4. This also tells us that their is a unity in mission, objectives, and will by all the prophets throughout history. Even though they took place in different places at sometimes different times (Ibrahim and Lut were in different places at the same time "51:32"), all the prophets called to the same thing, which were the building blocks of monotheism, righteousness, and submission to God.

Now lets switch lenses and look at the verse with a microscope:

1. Word: وَإِنَّ Grammatical form: prefixed conjunction wa (and), accusative particle
2. Word: مِن Grammatical form: preposition
3. Word: شِيعَتِهِۦ Grammatical form: genitive feminine noun, 3rd person masculine singular possessive pronoun Base form: شِيعَة Root letters: ش ي ع Root occurrences: 6:65, 6:159, 15:10, 19:69, 24:19, 28:4, 28:15, 30:32, 34:54, 37:83, 54:51 4. Word: لَإِبْرَٰهِيمَ Grammatical form: emphatic prefix lām, accusative masculine proper noun

The "وَإِنَّ" (wa inna), indicating certainty and linking it to the preceding clause. "مِن" (min) follows, signifying belonging or affiliation and indicating Ibrahim's inclusion within a specific group. "شِيعَتِهِۦ" (shi'atih) refers to a faction, with "هِۦ" (hi) denoting ownership by a singular antecedent. Then, "لَإِبْرَٰهِيمَ" (la-Ibrahima) pinpoints Ibrahim's exclusivity within this group. This structure shows the importance of Ibrahim's role in the verse, with each building block reinforcing the next to formulate the significance of the statement and depth.
Lets get more specific:
The particle "إِنَّ" (inna) that follows is an emphatic marker of certainty, showing the assuredness of the statement that follows. Its presence decorates the verse with a sense of gravity and importance, bringing attention to the bigger message about to be uncovered.
The preposition "مِن" (min), we see a subtle yet significant indication of belonging or affiliation. This preposition tells us a part or portion of a larger whole, suggesting an intimate connection between the subject and the object of the verse. It tells us a relationship characterized by closeness and association, bringing us to the significance of what follows.
The noun "شِيعَتِهِۦ" (shi'atih) is derived from the root "ش ي ع" (shīn yā 'ayn), which tells us the concept of a group, faction, or following. It pinpoints a community or assembly bound together by shared beliefs or principles. The possessive pronoun "هِۦ" (hi) indicates ownership or possession, pointing back to a masculine singular antecedent. This suggests that the group being referred to belongs to a specific individual, indicating a sense of loyalty and allegiance.
Finally, we encounter the emphatic prefix "لَ" (la) attached to the proper noun "إِبْرَاهِيمَ" (Ibrahima), enhancing its significance and exclusivity. This prefix adds power and exclusivity to the noun, showing the unique status of Ibrahim within this identified group. It shows Ibrahim's honored role and importance, elevating his position as a central figure in the Gods plan.
In summary:
(The conjunction "وَ" (wa) connects and boosts what follows, while the particle "إِنَّ" (inna) adds certainty or emphasis. The preposition "مِن" (min) suggests affiliation or belonging, indicating a connection between Ibrahim and the group. The term "شِيعَتِهِۦ" (shi'atih) refers to the group or faction, emphasizing unity and shared beliefs, with the possessive pronoun "هِۦ" (hi) indicating ownership. Finally, the emphatic prefix "لَ" (la) attached to "إِبْرَاهِيمَ" (Ibrahima) emphasizes its significance.)
What does all this mean?
Ibrahim's association with the group shows the significance of communal alignment in beliefs. This is exemplified in the chapter where wrongdoers displayed unity in their ideologies, while believers found themselves either alone or in groups. Those believers who banded together eventually prevailed and conquered, establishing the laws of God, whereas solitary believers witnessed the punishment of wrongdoers through natural disasters. (Say thou: “Do you await for us save one of the two best things? And we await for you, that God will afflict you with a punishment from Him or at our hands. So wait — we are with you waiting.”(9:52) The reference to "shia" or group signifies a shared set of beliefs and unity when confronting life's trials, while also pushing forward the importance of individual faith and dedication. This presents a stark contrast to the scenario depicted in verse 20:115.
Prophet Ibrahim had a very important role within this group. He was not just a passive member, he was a central member in this community/group. It indirectly shows us that their is spiritual lineages and ideological descendants to the Prophets. This suggests that Ibrahim's legacy continues to influence and guide believers, bringing the unity of missions in alignment with God's "Sunnah". (17:77)
*****************************************************************************
In summary, this verse teaches us about sticking together in religious communities and learning from Prophet Ibrahim's leadership. It shows how important it is to stay loyal to God's laws, which keeps us united. The next part talks about how Prophet Ibrahim's determination, courage, and kindness teach us valuable lessons. It reminds us that being part of a community and sharing beliefs help us grow spiritually and face life's challenges.
***********************************************************************************

(Original post)
The few new words aren't really that enlightening, but here it goes:
(Conjecture is marked with *)
aho –
ahoro – [plural of aho? Both are found in initial position; *this/that?]
aimaste – *imposter
an – *(possessive determiner) [always following a group (Fraershi an, Ihumina an, Mirake an, zelmalaile Velan an, Naga an), so it might just be denoting a collective instead]
arek – *dead
aspat – *(expletive)
cha – [found in final position; possibly adverb or pronoun]
chur – nine
elame – friend
elame Mirake an – *friend of Goblins
Elame-Mirak – Goblinfriend
Elame-Mirake – Goblinfriend [only Niers uses this version, so maybe he got it slightly wrong, but there are apparently many ways to say this]
fa – two
faira – want
fasna – kind (adj.)
Fraershi – Fraerling / Fraerlings
funu – only
Gredathe – Greydath
hairó – river
hast – seven
hax – eight
he – (copula)
i / -i- – *and [might just be a regular infix in number formation]
Ihumina – Human / Humans
is – *she
Kanadith – (name)
kava – speak
keta – four
Kinita – Earth
Kinita-shónu – Earth-girl
kiskai – *enemy
kopo – tree
kos – rock
kótómehie – appreciate
kru – *can *need [initiates a question]
kufa – *false
masku – *what if [initiates a question and similarity to 'sku']
mien – five
Mirak – Goblin
Mirak-Elame – Goblinfriend
Mirake – *Goblins
mota –
na – [found in final position, possibly adverb or pronoun]
naefoma/nӕfoma – help [n. and v.?]
Naga – Naga [sg. and pl.?]
o – you [only singular?]
pach – [adjective or noun]
Pasai – *Goblin Lord
pexa – *wait
pir – ten
pir-i-ti – eleven
pir-i-fa – twelve
*pir-i-sif – *thirteen [this is conjecture as there might be a difference between 11/12 and the rest of the teens like there is so often in natural languages, but then again 11/12 seem pretty regular]
*pir-i-keta – *fourteen
*pir-i-mien – *fifteen
*pir-i-pru – *sixteen
*pir-i-hast – *seventeen
*pir-i-hax – *eighteen
*pir-i-chur – *nineteen
pru – six
razivin – [noun or verb]
se – [found in initial position, possibly modal verb or adverb]
seh – *you (pl.) *they [could also be a verb instead]
s'ho – [might be a contraction of 'se' and 'aho']
shónu – girl
shu – water
shuli – ocean
shush – wet
si—(incomplete) –
sif – three
sku – *if [seems to initiate the antecedent clause of a conditional sentence]
smak – very
smak shush – drenched [lit. 'very wet']
stan – [possibly a verb]
tarek – [possibly a verb]
te –
tere – [plural of te? comparative of te? Both seem to initiate the consequent clause of a conditional sentence]
Tilhatan – Titan
ti – one
tizan – [possibly a compound of 'ti' (one) and 'zan'; *oneself? *once (=one time)? But from context it seems to be a verb]
to – *and *but [initiates a possible ellipsis]
tok – *need
uro – *(negation particle)
va – I
van – we
viti – [possibly preposition]
zan – [possibly reflexive pronoun or preposition]
zelmalaile – tribe
zifu – [found in final position, possibly adverb or noun]
*-li – *(collective noun? derivation suffix)
*-sh – *(adjective derivation suffix) [part of 'Fraershi'?]
Word order:
Verb-Subject-Object [Kótómehie va o – appreciate I you]
Auxiliary/ModalVerb-Subject-Verb-(Object) [faira o kava? – want you speak?]
Subject-Copula-PredicativeExpression [O he Elame-Mirake – you are Goblinfriend]
Questions don't modify word order [Is he elame Mirake an! – she is friend of Goblins!; O he elame Mirake an? - you are friend of Goblins?]
Adjectives and attributes are postnominal [Mirak-Elame kufa – Goblinfriend false; Velan Fasna – Velan Kind; Gredathe Pasai – Greydath Lord]

Dr. Terry Watkins Dial-the-Truth Ministries
God has placed a lot of importance upon His words.
Matthew 24:35 reads, "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my WORDS shall not pass away." Psalms 138:2 says, ". . . for thou hast magnified thy WORD above all thy name." Psalms 119:89 says, "For ever, O LORD, thy WORD is settled in heaven." The spiritual life-blood of the human race is the word of God.

• It brings salvation: "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God. . ." (1 Peter 1:23) • It produces faith: ". . . faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God" (Romans 10:17). • It produces spiritual growth: ". . .desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:" (1 Peter 2:2) • 

Jesus Christ said in John 6:63, ". . .the words that I speak unto you, they are SPIRIT, and they are LIFE." And the first time Satan attacks the human race was a direct attack on the word of God!
Genesis 3:1 says, "Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, YEA, HATH GOD SAID. . .?" Satan planted a small seed of doubt into the mind of Eve. And as Eve questioned the truthfulness of God's Word - the fall of mankind was only a bite away.
Satan's aim of attack hasn't changed!
In Luke 8, Jesus Christ tells the parable of the sower, verses 11,12 read, "Now the parable is this: The SEED is the word of God. . . THEN COMETH THE DEVIL, and taketh away the word. . ."
Satan knows - if he can supplant even a small seed of doubt in God's word - MANKIND WILL LOOK ELSEWHERE!
Never in history has such doubt and confusion over the Bible existed as is today. And nothing has flamed the fire of confusion and doubt over the Bible more than the scores of different translations flooding the scene. Time magazine (April 20, 1981 p.62) reports, ". . . there is an UNPRECEDENTED CONFUSION of choices in Bibles. Never have so many major new translations been on the market." Since 1880, over 200 different translations have appeared. Every six months a new English version appears!
NO WONDER PEOPLE ARE CONFUSED!
The question has to be asked - is God the author of this flood of new versions? Is God the author of CONFUSION in His word? 1 Corinthians 14:33, clearly states, "God is NOT the author of CONFUSION."
BUT SATAN IS! He knows, if he can plant the smallest seed of doubt and confusion - that individual will not take God's word serious!
God promised to preserve His word...
God promised in Psalms 12:7 that He would preserve His word, "Thou shalt KEEP them, O LORD, thou shalt PRESERVE them from this generation FOR EVER."
And God keeps His promise! I believe, without a doubt, the King James Bible is the preserved word of God. And the new versions are satanic counterfeits to cast doubt, cause confusion and ATTACK THE LORD JESUS CHRIST! And I'm going to prove that on the remainder of this message! If you've come this far, please keep reading - what you're about to read - may be the most important words YOU WILL EVER READ!
Are the new versions different?
Most people believe the different versions are basically the same. They believe the newer versions are just "harmless" updating of words and made easier to understand.
NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH!
One of the clearest verses in the Bible proclaiming the deity of Jesus Christ, that Jesus was God in the flesh, is 1 Timothy 3:16. The King James Bible reads, "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: GOD WAS MANIFEST IN THE FLESH. . ." The King James says, clearly, "GOD was manifest in the flesh".
The New International Version (NIV) says, "HE appeared in a body". The NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV, etc, change "GOD" to "HE". "He appeared in a body"? Big deal! Everyone has "appeared in a body"! The KJV is clear and definite, "GOD was manifest in the flesh". "He" is a pronoun that refers to a noun or antecedent. There is no antecedent in the context! The statement does NOT even make grammatical sense!
AN ATTACK ON THE DEITY OF JESUS CHRIST!
In Philippians 2:6, The KJV again, clearly declares the deity of Jesus Christ: "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery TO BE EQUAL WITH GOD" The new translations completely re-word the verse to deny the deity of Jesus Christ! The NIV, RSV, NASV, NRSV, NKJV(1979 ed.), etc. reads, "Who, being in very nature God, DID NOT CONSIDER EQUALITY WITH GOD something to be grasped,"
Someone is attacking the most important doctrine in the Bible - the deity of Jesus Christ!
WHO WOULD DO SUCH A THING?
They attack the virgin birth!
In Luke 2:33, The King James reads, "And JOSEPH and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him." The NIV, NASV, NRSV, etc. reads, "The CHILD'S FATHER and mother marveled at what was said about him." The "CHILD'S FATHER"? Do you believe that Joseph was Jesus's father? Not if you believe the virgin birth! Not if you believe John 3:16, that Jesus Christ was the Son of God! A subtle, attack at the virgin birth.
Think these are just isolated cases? NOT BY A LONG SHOT! There are over 6,000 changes!
They remove the Blood!
Consider Colossians 1:14: the KJV reads, "In whom we have redemption THROUGH HIS BLOOD, even the forgiveness of sins:" The NIV reads, "In whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins." The NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV and co. rip the precious words "THROUGH HIS BLOOD" out! Friend, salvation is only "THROUGH HIS BLOOD". That old song says, "What can wash away my sins, NOTHING BUT THE BLOOD OF JESUS!"
They attack John 3:16!
And something has to be done with John 3:16! So the NIV and company reads, "For God so loved the world that he gave his ONE AND ONLY SON, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life" - removing the critical word "BEGOTTEN"! If Jesus was "the one and only" then what happens to the wonderful promise to believers like 1 John 3:2, "Beloved, now are we the sons of God. . ."? AN OBVIOUS CONTRADICTION APPEARS!
They tell lies!
A blatant error is found in the NIV, NASV, NRSV and "buddies" in Mark 1:2,3: "It is written in Isaiah the prophet: I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way -a voice of one calling in the desert, Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him." It is NOT written in Isaiah! "I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way" - is found in Malachi 3:1! The King James correctly reads: "As it is written in the PROPHETS, . . ."
A better translation! Easier to understand! BY A LIE!
Psalms 119:160 says, "Thy word is TRUE. . ." John 17:17 says, ". . . thy word is TRUTH." Titus 1:2 clearly says, ". . . God that CANNOT LIE"
How could the God of Titus 1:2 be the God of Mark 1:2,3 in these new versions? Either the translators of the NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV, "crowd" can't read or have never read Isaiah nor Malachi (which is likely!) or somebody is deliberately tampering with God's Word to DISCREDIT IT!
Who would do such a thing?
I'll give you a hint - he's called the "A LIAR, and the father of it" in John 8:44!
Oh, by the way, did you think David killed Goliath? Not according to the NIV, NRSV, NASV, and "boys". In 2 Samuel 21:19, they erroneously read, ". . . Elhanan son of JaareOregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver's rod."
They make Lucifer and Jesus Christ - THE SAME!
In Isaiah 14:12, the father of the new versions removes his mask. The King James reads, "How art thou fallen from heaven, O LUCIFER, son of the morning!. . ." The NIV, NASV, NRSV etc. reads, "How you have fallen from heaven, O MORNING STAR, son of the dawn. . ." The new per-versions change "Lucifer" to "morning star". According to Revelation 22:16, the "morning star" is the Lord Jesus Christ! What blasphemy! What perversion! And there's no basis whatsoever for the change! The Hebrew word for star (kokab) is not even found in Isaiah 14:12! Is there any doubt who is the "daddy" of these new versions?
They take out hell!
If Satan is the author of these new versions, one subject he will aim his attack, is the place the Bible calls hell. And the new versions go "into loony land" removing it!
Many times they change "hell" to "grave" or "death", but the word "hell" is far and few in the new versions! Like Psalm 9:17: in the King James reads, "The wicked shall be turned into HELL. . ." The NIV, reads, "The wicked return to the GRAVE. . ." We ALL "return to the GRAVE"!
Many times when the new versions come to the obvious word "hell" - they replace it with the Greek word "Hades" or Hebrew "Sheol"! (See Matt. 16:18, Luke 16:23, Acts 2:31 and many, many more, the NEW King James does this 29 times!) Rather than translate into the obvious word hell - THEY REFUSE TO TRANSLATE IT!
And this is a better translation? And these new versions are "easier to read" and "understand"? Who in their right mind thinks Hades or Sheol is "easier to understand" than hell? Why didn't they leave in the Greek word "Ouranos" for heaven? It's obvious! Because someone is trying to remove and cast doubt on the place called hell!
In Isaiah 14:15, the King James Bible condemns Lucifer to hell: "Yet thou shalt be brought down to HELL . . ." The new versions refuse to send Lucifer to hell! The NIV reads, "But you are brought down to the GRAVE. . ." The NASV, NRSV, NEW King James (NKJV) places him in "Sheol"!
hmm. . . I wonder which one the Devil prefers?
The Lord's or The Devil's Prayer?
An alarming display of Satanic perversion is found in Luke 11. The "The Lord's Prayer" is subtly (see 2 Cor. 11:3) transformed into "The Devil's Prayer".
The King James Bible in Luke 11:2-4, reads, ". . .Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth. Give us day by day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil." Incredibly, the NIV, NASV, NRSV, etc. take out: "WHICH ART IN HEAVEN. . . Thy will be done, AS IN HEAVEN, so in earth. . . but DELIVER US FROM EVIL." Heaven is completely removed! The "father" of the new versions is NOT IN HEAVEN and DOES NOT DELIVER FROM EVIL!
I wonder who it could be? (hint: see John 8:44)
Are you getting the picture? Do you see how subtil (see Genesis 3:1), seemingly, harmless the changes are - AND YET HOW DEADLY THEY ARE TO THE INTEGRITY OF GOD'S WORD!
They attack the Lord Jesus Christ! They attack the plan of salvation! They glorify Lucifer! And they deny hell!
Yes friend. Satan has launched an attack on your Bible!
YOU'D BETTER BELIEVE IT!
Did you know, the King James Bible is the only English Bible in the world that has a command to "study" your Bible! That's right! 2 Timothy 2:15, "STUDY to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth" - has been changed in every English Bible on the face of this earth! BUT ONE!
They take out whole verses!
In Acts 8:37, the King James reads, "And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." The NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV and "buddies" reads - ZIP! NOTHING! THEY TOOK THE WHOLE VERSE OUT! One of the best verses in the Bible on salvation through Jesus Christ and they rip it out! Why?
Why is it that every time a sinner is saved by grace in the book of Acts - THEY ATTACK IT? In Acts 9:5,6: Paul is getting saved, and they take out 20 words! In Acts 16:31 when the Philippian jailor is getting saved, the word "CHRIST" is delicately removed! Why do these new bibles so fiercely attack God's wonderful plan of salvation?
WHO WOULD DO SUCH A THING?
Several times the Lord warns against "adding and taking away" from His Word. • Deuteronomy 4:2 reads: "YE SHALL NOT ADD unto the word which I command you, NEITHER SHALL YE DIMINISH ought from it . . ." • Proverbs 30::6, reads, "ADD THOU NOT unto his words . . ." • And just in case you missed it, GOD'S LAST WARNING is Revelation 22:18,19, ". . . IF ANY MAN SHALL ADD unto these things. . . And if any man shall TAKE AWAY FROM THE WORDS of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life. . ." • And despite these clear warnings, the new versions, take out and add text, over and over! One of the greatest verses in all the Bible, Matthew 18:11: "For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost." - THEY TAKE IT OUT!
WHY!
They take out: Romans 16:24, Mark 11:25, Acts 15:34, Luke 23:17, Acts 28:29, John 5:4, Mark 7:16, 9:44,46 and many, many more - as your Bible is literally cut apart!
Jesus Christ says, in Luke 4:4, ". . . It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by EVERY WORD OF GOD." Not according to the NIV, NASV, NRSV and crew! In fact, the even "tear out"the last half of Luke 4:4 - "BUT BY EVERY WORD OF GOD"!
Yes, but the new versions have the deity in other places. They contain the plan of salvation in other places. There is good in them. Did you know ONE tiny, microscopic AIDS virus will "defile" a whole batch of perfectly "good" blood? It has some "good" in it - BUT IT WOULD BE DEADLY!
Would you "inject" it into your child, loved one or congregation? And would you "inject" them with a Bible that is "defiled" because it has some "good"? It could be far more costly than their physical life - THEIR ETERNAL SOUL! Galatians 5:9 says, "A LITTLE leaven leaveneth THE WHOLE lump."
But aren't the new versions easier to read?
One of the lies used to promote these per-versions is "they're easier to read and understand". But according to a Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level research study, The King James Bible is by far the easiest! Out of 26 different categories - the King James graded easier in a whopping 23! (New Age Bible Versions, Riplinger, pp.195-209)
But haven't "older and more reliable" manuscripts been discovered?
But haven't "older and more reliable manuscripts been discovered" since the King James Bible. Dr. Sam Gipp writes, "The fact is, that the King James translators had ALL OF THE READINGS available to them that modern critics have available to them today." (The Answer Book, Gipp, p.110) Not only that, but most of the recent discoveries support the King James Bible! And furthermore, it is a well documented fact that 85 - 90 per cent of all readings agree with the King James Bible! SO WHY ALL THE CHANGES? See Genesis 3:1.
What about the "ORIGINALS"?
Your King James Bible is attacked by preachers, some intentional and some simply out of ignorance, by "correcting" it with "THE ORIGINALS". There is one itsy-bitsy problem. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "THE ORIGINALS"! We don't have the "originals" Moses, or Paul, or David wrote. There are no set of "ORIGINALS" on the face of this earth! The ghost of "THE ORIGINALS" is a LIE! See John 8:44!
Preachers, by the thousands, will stand weekly in the pulpit and "correct" your King James Bible by saying, "This is an unfortunate translation" or "a better reading would be" or "this word in the 'Greek' can also be translated. . ." Friend, where is the Lord God? The One that "spoke" the worlds into existence - can He not preserve His word as He promised in Psalm 12:7 and Matthew 24:35? Did God Almighty NOT know what He was "inspiring"? Does the Lord need these "Bible correctors" to "help" Him "straighten-out" His word?
As God promised, He has preserved His word for the English people in the King James Bible. Proverbs 16:10 says, "A divine sentence is in the lips of the KING. . ." Ecclesiastes 8:4 says, "Where the word of a KING is, there is power . . ." King James. "James" is not an English word but a Hebrew word. Did you know the Hebrew word for James is Jacob! You'll never guess what Psalms 147:19 says, "He showeth His WORD unto JACOB . . ."
2 Timothy 2:9, reads, " . . . the word of God is NOT BOUND." Anybody can freely (there's that word Eve omitted in Genesis 3:2) print, distribute, and reproduce the King James Bible, without asking anybody for permission! All other translations are "bound" by © copyright laws. New American Standard, - copyright© Lockman Foundation, New International Version - copyright© New York International Bible Society, New King James Version - copyright© Thomas Nelson Publishers. Who with a brain, would seriously think the word of Almighty God is "BOUND" by copyright laws?
IF YOU HAVE A KING JAMES BIBLE
YOU HAVE THE WORD OF GOD!
And don't let anybody take it from you!
Dr. Frank Logsdon was co-founder of The New American Standard Version. As people begin confronting Dr. Logsdon on some the NASV's serious omissions and errors. He re-examined the evidence and this was his verdict:
"I must under God denounce every attachment to the New American Standard Version. I'm afraid I'm in trouble with the Lord . . . I wrote the format . . . I wrote the preface . . . I'm in trouble; . . . its wrong, terribly wrong; its frighteningly wrong . . .The deletions are absolutely frightening . . . there are so many . . . Are we so naive that we do not suspect Satanic deception in all of this?" Dr. Frank Logsdon Co-founder, New American Standard Versio