Addendum Template Word: Fill & Download for Free

Other answers have already touched on food, women, temples and movies. And the adaptability and resourcefulness of Malayalees.As a Tamil(ilian) who was lucky enough to actually live in Kerala during my college years, I want to add some more details. Not just about Malayalees but about Kerala in general.I want to start with the Malayalam language. It’s a fascinating language for a Tamil lover. Malayalam still uses some archaic Tamil words which are no longer used in Tamil. ‘Para’ to mean ‘say’, for example, can be found in very old Tamil texts but we no longer use it in Tamil. ‘PaNdu’ meaning ‘a long time ago’ is still used in spoken Malayalam. The word ‘VeLLam’ meant water even in Tamil many centuries ago, as understood in Malayalam now, but its meaning changed to flood somewhere along the line in Tamil. There are many such words.I also found learning Malayalam to be easier than Tamil in some ways. You might never get the accent right but at least you can learn to communicate fast. Of course, the alphabet can be quite challenging compared to Tamil. To give just one example: the Malayalam word for ‘came’ would be ‘vannu.’ The beauty is, the same ‘vannu’ can be used for all subjects - singular, plural, masculine, feminine, first person, second person, third person and so on - just like English - for I/we/you singular/you plural/he/she/it/they. It is highly convenient.Consider the Tamil conjugation for the same ‘vannu’: vandhen/vandhom/vandhaai/vandheergal/vandhaan/vandhaal/vandhadhu/vandhaargal/vandhana! (and this is just for the literary/formal prose) For spoken Tamil, we need to know another set. This is one reason you’ll find many Malayalees struggling with Tamil verb endings when attempting to speak in Tamil.The Kerala demographics is also unique and distinctly different from Tamil Nadu. There are almost equal number of Hindus, Christians and Muslims in Kerala - give or take a few percentage points. And, to their credit, the Malayalees have learned to co-exist and accept each other and mostly live in peace. (I’m sure there are always a few rotten apples) Only in a society with almost 100% literacy rate will this be possible.For a Tamil, who is used to watching most movie stars jump into politics for a second innings, Kerala politics can offer something different. Even an actor like Prem Nazir, who is in the Guinness book of records for playing the lead role in 725 movies (yes, you read that right!) did not dare to get into politics. Even today’s superstars Mohan Lal and Mammootty have no such ambitions. That’s because the Kerala electorate can’t be fooled as easily. They might like their actors but they know where to draw the line. The actors know most Malayalees won’t vote for them! When it comes to politics, let us stick with the professionals, is what Malayalees seem to think.An interesting note of irony here: The man who created the template for a movie actor to enter into Tamil Nadu politics and do well was, none other than M.G.Ramachandran, a Malayalee! He probably knew his template wouldn’t have worked in Kerala! Not only that, nobody since MGR has been able to employ that template as successfully in Tamil Nadu also. Jayalalitha was successful too but without MGR, there would have been no Amma.The Greenery! how can I forget? Every time, I would travel by train from Trichy to Calicut, as soon as the train crossed the border, I’d be able to see the dramatic change in colour outside - from a dry brown to a lush green!The seasonal rains: The relentless pounding that Kerala gets during every June, July, August is an awesome sight. You have to live in Kerala to experience it. As long as you don’t have to travel somewhere. It will be followed by the instant appearance of ‘Thoppi Kuda’s (the umbrellas made of palm tree leaves) as if by magic!There is a reason Kerala is called God’s own country!Addendum: I’ve been overwhelmed by the views and upvotes to this question and would like to thank each and every one of you who has read it and Upvoted it. I have answered more than 300 questions on Quora so far, but this one question has received more Upvotes than all the others combined!For me, my stay in NIT Calicut during 1975–1980 was magical. All my batch-mates talk about those days fondly even today. Almost 40 years after leaving Kerala! This small write-up hardly does justice to my experience. But, I’m glad to see it touched the hearts of many.

Three main options.Pile stuff up on the seabed.Use piles to create a coffer dam then pump out the water.Float a prefabricated structure into place then sink it.In practice these methods are combined more often than not, in the modern world.Creating artificial promontaries for harbour or breakwater construction generally involved the ‘pile it high' method, plus conventional construction methods to consolidate the footings at low tide then build up the structure.The Alderney breakwater on a calm day…Also used for lighthouses, watchtowers, coastal forts and Martello Towers.[1][1][1][1][2][2][2][2]The second is more often associated with bridges, where a sound footing ideally means bedrock, so the first order of business after waterproofing the piles and pumping the coffer dam out, is excavation followed by creating a massive stone foundation for each support.The third is reliant on modern materials, mainly structural steel, but also cement.It's how many oil rigs were constructed, a platform above a structure made with legs that - if the rig is ‘mobile' might be terminate in huge raft-like pontoons that act as submersibles, allowing ballast water to be ‘blown' until the rig can raise anchors and be towed away.This method - pioneered in wartime - was first used to tow naval forts into place:The ‘floating leg’ method is one way of constructing the anchor points for the masts of wind turbines, thousands of which are now gradually eliminating the necessity for coal mining and shipping natural gas from Russia or Alaska, but most are in shallow water, so they are permanently anchored in place, as above.The ancestor of many prefabricated structures, the Mulberry harbour formed the template for all kinds of underwater civil engineering:Essentially they were massive hollow cement barges that could be towed into position then sunk, both as breakwater and as the basis of a prefabricated steel road system that literally allowed trucks to drive off ships and onto the shore.AddendumMany thanks to those who suggested edits to various howlers, some my own, some due the bain of existence that is autocorrect, but all due to my lousy proofreading.PSThe above when auto corrected, read ‘various bowlers'… (cue weary sigh).PPSThe original also contained auto-mangled promontories that became ‘commentaries' - which is itself ‘corrected’ to ‘comanders' - which is in turn ‘corrected’ to ‘commander’s’ - and ‘piles', which turns into ‘luke's or ‘likes' depending on device…And no, I can't bloody turn it off.Because it is not a flaw - which doesn't autocorrect - but a creature.Sometimes words fail me.(No pun intended.)Footnotes[1] Alderney breakwater[1] Alderney breakwater[1] Alderney breakwater[1] Alderney breakwater[2] Martello tower - Wikipedia[2] Martello tower - Wikipedia[2] Martello tower - Wikipedia[2] Martello tower - Wikipedia

What do you mean?Do you mean:How does a theory of syntax work?If so, then there are four competing theories I know of, and a major conflict within linguistics has always been what role Syntax plays.There are currently two competing forms of Generativism.Chomskyan GenerativismSemantic SyntaxIn the Chomskyan model it looks like this:In the Semantic Syntax model proposed by Lakoff, Seuren, and others, it instead looks like this:The trees end up looking almost the same in both theories, but the primary difference is that Noam Chomsky and most American syntacticians believe syntax happens before semantics.The big debate with Chomskyan linguistics has been the extent to which semantics can communicate with phonology, morphology, etc.Semantic Syntax trees already have meaning in all of the words before the sentence is realised, whereas Chomskyan syntax trees get handed to Semantics, which then parses the tree.I find the proposition of sentences being built heuristically without any meaning whatsoever to be implausible, in fact, I find the fact linguists believe these trees reflect a psychological reality—as opposed to our representation of them—to be somewhat troublesome, but back to syntax:The Lexicon is the big collection of words a speaker knows. When you want to say something, your lexicon falls into a sentence structure that looks something like this:Let’s say I wanted to say… “I see dogs”Syntax puts those in these slots which already existed. The pronoun I begins in the specifier-vP position and then raises to specifier-TP position due to the Extended projection principle.The specifier position is the terminal head immediately under a P (e.g., spec TP on this tree is down and to the left of TP). P is ‘phrase.’That’s English.If I were speaking German, and I wanted to say “Ich sehe Hunden” the structure would look like this (following DuPlessis et al (1987)’s description, and my own addendum to make it fit into X-Bar Theory):Now you might wonder why the German structure looks so different even though they have the same word order—in any theory of Syntax English and German structure is going to have to look different.This is because in German, unless there is another verb or a conjunction, the verb has to be the second word of a sentence.We can say Ich sehe Hunde, but also Hunde sehe ich. The movement to spec-C explains how German can easily get OVS word order:When you have two verbs in a sentence, this model correctly predicts where each verb will be pronounced (the further to the right a branch, the further to the right of a sentence something will be pronounced—at least if we have a theory of syntax where phonology reads these trees like this):This is what I think an SV1OV2 sentence looks like (Ich habe Harry Potter gelesen ‘I read Harry Potter’):(1)Here’s what I think is a structure that fully explains the German sentence (Harry Potter habe ich gelesen ‘I read Harry Potter’/‘it is Harry Potter that I read’)(2)(3)Als ich Harry Potter gelesen habe‘when I read Harry Potter’The when blocks any movement of the verbs because it happens to occupy the slot where the subject moves to, blocking the spot the verb moves to, and so on.Actually, in this answer here, I argue with a peer-reviewed model of German syntax here if you want to read more:Brian Collins's answer to Do linguists know why or how verbs came to be placed at the end of [some] sentences in German?When I raised my model to a syntax professor in my undergraduate degree, he scoffed:“It is psychologically impossible for a language to have both right-branching and left-branching structures. The human brain cannot handle it.”In any case, we have covered how two theories of syntax work (using the same trees, but Semantic Syntax believes the nodes already have meaning, whereas Chomskyan syntax believes they are then handed to Semantics after we finish the last step and move everything to the right position).Seeing as I haven’t done an example following Semantic Syntax, here is how Semantic Syntax handles Reduplication—figure from Inkelas (2008):Inkelas never once mentions the words “Semantic Syntax” or “Generative Semantics” in her paper, but this is Semantic Syntax.We are sticking together components with meaning already, and then getting new meaning out of it.In this case the plural in an aboriginal language is formed by saying the same noun twice so midi ‘little one’ is said twice midi midi. Saying the word twice literally makes two copies of the noun, and the two copies mean multiple.In Chomskyan syntax, reduplication is instead treated as a phonological problem. When you are in Syntax long enough, you realise that Chomskyan Syntax just shifts everything it cannot explain to Phonology.Theory 4…. Head-driven phrase structure grammarIt has several ways of representing sentences.I know one linguist who does HPSG (currently working for Amazon), and I do not feel comfortable doing it myself because I am not trained in HPSG, but I know how it works and how to read it.Unlike Semantic Syntax and Chomsyan Generativism, HPSG builds a sentence from left to right just as you would pronounce it. It does not postulate positions to the left of where we slot words into a structure, and then move those words to those positions.We can see here the sentence “NL (the Netherlands) is officially making the offer”Netherlands is the first word, then we know, since Netherlands is a noun, the next word must be either a verb like is, kills, has, behaves or a conjunctions like and.The next syntactic decision is governed by the first. Then the next decision is the verb is after <be> almost anything can happen. Anything that can be a predicate can slot in, but then officially gets slotted in, and we know the next word must be a progressive verb or a prepositional phrase—our structure at this point is:The Netherlands is officially ________We can have:here (stand in for prepositional phrase)progressive verb-ing (making, talking, thinking, cooking, reading)in the house/at the meeting/with us (prepositional phrases)As the sentence is built from the left, things get further and further constrained until we end up with a working sentence.Then, all of this is stored as an HPSG Lexical Entry in memory. As more HPSG Lexical Entries are stored in the mind (or a computer’s hard drive), we get better at building sentences following those templates.Lots of people who work with computers use this because, unlike Semantic Syntax or Chomskyan Syntax, HPSG works! It physically works, and people can physically have computers learn this way.Theory 4: Radical Exemplar TheoryRadical Exemplar Theory, in this context, is actually very similar to HPSG.Exemplar Theory is a learning theory that started in Psychology in the 1980s where you learn by getting examples of something. It took off in Phonology in the 1990s and 2000s, and there are literally thousands of scholarly articles on phonological problems, explaining them with exemplar theory.In Syntax, Exemplar Theory would postulate that people associate a word in the lexicon with another word that they often hear coming after it.Exemplar Theory Syntax thus builds sentences in the order people make them from left to right, and does not postulate any abstractions.The problem with both Radical Exemplar Theory and HPSG, in my opinion, is that I do not think they would not predict that abstract phenomenon like German sentence order would ever exist.However, they may be able to model the way speakers currently learn German syntax.Oh, did you mean how does Syntax work as in… syntax as opposed to a theory on Syntax?If I have not demonstrated that there is not one ‘syntax’ out there, then I have failed.How syntax works depends on your theory of syntax. At the moment, no theory of syntax is actually backed by experimental data. Some have been falsified by real language data, but more often then not, they are simply watered-down.Actually I can give you one example of this. In the 1960s everyone was sure that all languages were SVO, SOV, or VSO. Then someone made it obvious that Malagasy was VOS.In the 1970s, most linguists thought that no language could ever have OVS word order—it would be a ‘psychological impossibility.’ Then in 1979, a field linguist with the last name ‘Derbyshire’ bumped into one called Hixkaryana deep in the Amazons.More recently, Dan Everett tried undermining Chomskyan Linguistics in 2005 claiming that one language he bumped into in the Amazons has cultural constraints preventing speakers from learning abstract concepts, or from forming recursive sentences.This time, linguists were less than impressed. The comments section of his paper looks like this:"Blatant inconsistencies likewise do nothing to reassure the reader. For example, we are told that the Pirahã are monolingual, but we find that “often this or that Pirahã informant would tell me (in Portuguese) that. . .” and that Piraha ̃ “have long intermarried with outsiders,” suggesting sustained bilingualism. Elsewhere it is stated that there are bilingual informants, although their Portuguese is poor.Having made the Pirahã sound like the mindless bearers of an almost subhumanly simple culture, Everett ends with a paean to “this beautiful language and culture” with “so much to teach us.” As one of the few spokespersons for a small, unempowered group, he surely has some obligation to have presented a more balanced picture throughout."And this:"in using such glosses, Everett exoticizes the language rather than identifying its genuinely distinctive features. To say that ti ’ogi means, literally, 'my bigness' (rather than 'we') is like saying that in English to understand means, literally, 'to stand under.' To deny that hi’ogi means 'all' is to make a similar mistake."It goes on and on with linguists from hundreds of universities tacking on their comment.I agree with the comments.References:DuPlessis, J., Solin, D., Travis, L., & White, L. (1987). UG or not UG, that is the question: a reply to Clahsen and Muysken. Interlanguage studies bulletin (Utrecht), 3(1), 56-75.Derbyshire, D. (1979). Hixkaryana. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing. ISBN.Everett, D. (2005). Cultural constraints on grammar and cognition in Pirahã. Current anthropology, 46(4), 621-646.Inkelas, S. (2008). The dual theory of reduplication. Linguistics, 46(2), 351-401.Nevins, A., Pesetsky, D., & Rodrigues, C. (2009). Pirahã exceptionality: A reassessment. Language, 355-404.