> you should all speak Chinese now, whose words don't change forms at all
There are some inflectional elements in Chinese.
Speaking for Mandarin:
- Verbs may be inflected into one of three aspects, with the suffixes 着 (progressive), 了 (perfective), or 过 (experiential).
- Certain verbs may be inflected for possibility or impossibility, with the infix 得 (for possibility) or 不 (for impossibility). If the verb is not naturally part of the category that participates in this construction, the dummy particle 了 (which shares spelling, but not pronunciation, with the perfect suffix mentioned above) must be supplied, to convert it into that category.
- Nouns may be inflected for plurality with the suffix 们. As I understand it, this is only really appropriate where the noun refers to a collection of people (broadly defined), but any such noun may receive the suffix.
Yeah but doesn't the way you intone a word change the meaning entirely? With how heavy accents are the norm for English second speakers I would think this makes Chinese practically impossible to learn to pronounce. Also 90% of the world can read the latin alphabet already which is a good start when learning a new language. Years ago I made a small attempt to learn some Russian and Cyrillic was like smashing against a brick wall, I imagine it's 200x worse for Chinese since you have to learn 5000 new characters.
I like this. Large deposit with some gov agency and the money gets awarded to the victim (or refunded to the claimant) when the dispute is finally resolved. You don't submit a claim unless you're really sure that you'd win.
This is how the DMCA should have been designed in the first place.
Taking Taiwan back won't make a Chinese leader "great". It is more of a responsibility and sort of a minor one, as a not so famous general （Shi Lang) in Qing dynasty achieved this and people have criticized and are still criticizing him for his betrayal to the Ming dynasty.
Deng Xiaoping brought Hong Kong and Macao back, but he was memorated as a great leader not because of this, but because he opened the door for China to its economic prosperity.
It's really absurd to call any labor performed by Uygur inside China forced labor. Are Uygurs so lazy to deny any labor? Or can they not prefer working in factories than, say, farming or herding cattles?
As to the ideology and gratitude part, I think people may alter their ideology if they so choose. After all, the Romans switched to Christianity, and slavery was once legal in the States. And people should be able to express gratitude to people giving them a chance to work for a better life. Even now, people from abroad are moving into the States to work, are they all forced labor?
Your comment makes no sense. No one claims that all Uyghur work is forced labour. As the parent comment and article make clear this is about actual forced labour.
And notably the roman empire doesn't exist anymore and the States have outlawed slavery as it is an abhorrent practice that should be outlawed everywhere.
