It's a more colloquial form. Like in English we can sometimes drop the -ly in adverbs even though it may not be technically correct.
Why use a colloquial form when in the course, they used сильнее? It's like me teaching slang to a Russian who wants to learn English.
These are pretty much interchangeable, it's not nearly as bad as mixing adjectives and adverbs by people who speak their native English "real good".
I have to agree with you that the majority of Americans are ignorant, that's why we have a President who is a nazi buffoon. Vladimir is probably laughing his head off. It was easy for his hackers to screw up our Presidential Elections beyond repair.
"Virtuous" or not, Araucoforever has got at least one point: I am still waiting for that sad imitation of a president to manage a coherent, grammatically sound sentence. Regardless of your political views, I would assume that this particular ability would be valued in a language-oriented forum...
@zirkul: I don't really expect the president to be a linguist, and I can appreciate the propensity for persuasion he carries to beat all odds in convincing a nation that he's more capable that two entrenched political dynasties to run the country. I would think that the sentiment of nationalism would at least be acknowledged as legitimate in a Russian language forum.
Thank you very much for pointing out that our President speaks like a 12 y.o. but I have to admit that he is genuine and spoke from his heart when he refused to condemn unequivocally the neo-nazis, KKK, white supremacists and other "very fine people" who hate everybody else except themselves. In the case of blau210 who considers me a "virtuous" progressive, I have to agree with him that Hillary Clinton is corrupt and if it had not been for the Russian hackers we would have never known that Bernie Sanders was supposed to lose from day 1. That made me sick to the stomach because we are supposed to be a democracy. Maybe to have Trump as President is a well deserved punishment but we have to hope that we don't have a 2nd Civil War or WWIII As the "fake media" says, everything is "unprecedented" with a nazi buffoon as President.
>he refused to condemn unequivocally the neo-nazis, KKK, white supremacists
He actually did not refuse to, and has condemned those groups by name, specifically, on numerous occasions including twice in the week following the death in Charlottesville. I'm not an unequivocal apologist for the administration, but when I see unsubstantiated nonsense surface as if it's legitimate criticism, I do become skeptical whether it's part of an ulterior, disingenuous motive.
but when I see unsubstantiated nonsense surface as if it's legitimate criticism, I do become skeptical whether it's part of an ulterior, disingenuous motive.
I agree wholeheartedly. The implications may not be what you think they are though. Also, you might want to check what words actually mean, before you use them (or criticise their use). E.g. "unequivocally" means "without equivocation": http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/equivocation?q=equivocation. Perhaps you should revisit the entirety of statements made by Trump since Charlottesville and see (while trying to maintain a grain of objectivity) whether you might find any signs equivocation. And no, you do not need to be "a linguist" for that, basic literacy should suffice.
That in no way excuses calling Trump a Nazi - that word also has a fairly precise definition, and there is absolutely no proof that Trump fits it. A despicable person is not automatically a Nazi, or even a racist. Words are supposed to have meaning, and a number of people on the left are as guilty of misusing the language as those on the right. Two wrongs rarely make it right.
I am familiar with the definition of "unequivocal," and I appreciate that you should excuse me from the burden of having achieved a doctoral degree and professorship of linguistics in order to parse political statements. First, I don't consider it the responsibility of this, or any President, to provide commentary on every outbreak of violence in this country, however motivated by sensitive historical subjects. That said, since the President did, in addressing what happened in Charlottesville (a protest in defense of a statue, and counter-protest in opposition to the protest), we know that he did state the following:
“Racism is evil and those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists and other hate groups that are repugnant to all that we hold dear as Americans.”
Now that is a relatively unambiguous statement, and furthermore I find no "equivocation" in regards to the aforementioned groups, no matter how objectively I view the facts (a consideration I deem important whether you had advised me in that regard or not).
Now, as for the protest participants in general (keep in mind now speaking to a group distinct from the above groups as it would be impossible and completely unreasonable to assert that every person willing to vocalize their defense of a Confederate monument is among a "KKK member, neo-Nazi, or white supremacist"), he certainly did equivocate when discussing the violence (not just the car ramming) that occurred that day. And I do happen to agree with the position that both protesters and counter-protesters, not to mention local police, deserve criticism for fomenting and allowing violence to unfold at that event. It is sad that a statue could be the flashpoint for such division, and equally as sad that it could attract groups that foment hatred, but the suggestion that such a statue can be dumbed down to a "symbol of hatred" is, maybe you will even agree with this, a gross over-simplification, and such is equally true and can be said of anyone willing to defend that statue. Stating a fact about events that occurred on that day and the responsibility for the outbreak of violence cannot be construed as "equivocation," especially since two separate reporters at the press conference to which you might be referring when you suggest I look for "equivocation," asked the President specifically if he was referring to members of the "white nationalist" groups and he made clear in each case that he drew a distinction between protest participants that associated themselves with those groups, and individuals legitimately voicing their opposition to removal of a familiar historical monument. Perhaps you did not yourself catch the distinction drawn by the President at that press conference, and ignored by most of the media:
REPORTER: "You said the press has treated white nationalists unfairly?"
TRUMP: "No. There were people in that rally, and I looked the night before, if you look, they were people protesting very quietly the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee. I'm sure in that group there were some bad ones. The following day it looked like they had some rough, bad people. Neo Nazis, white nationalists, whatever you want to call them. But you had a lot of people in that group that were there to innocently protest and very legally protest. Because I don't know if you know, they had a permit. The other group didn't have a permit. So I only tell you this, there are two sides to a story. I thought what took place was a horrible moment for our country. A horrible moment. But there are two sides."
Whether you consider it an eloquent argument or otherwise, it is fairly clear that no, he did not "equivocate" anything with the KKK or anything like it.
Candidates campaign to win in the existing system. If America were a "democracy," campaigns would be targeted to focus on New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago. They aren't. He didn't. And I have engaged in no logical fallacies or false assertions. I do wish that pursuing the study of a foreign language could be a respite from partisan political attacks, but apparently that is only fantasy in today's world.
Zirkul, you are correct, again. I have been fighting to eliminate the Electoral College for years, actually since 2000 when George W. Bush stole the election from poor Al Gore. The Democratic Party is pathetic in defending the rights of the people of this country. Hope and wish that it finally gets a strong leader (it has nobody right now) if not our future is really gloomy,
we are supposed to be a democracy
No, we are not (see "Electoral College"). This logical fallacy allows people like blau210 to make patently false statements, such as that Trump was successful in "convincing a nation that he's more capable...". He most certainly was not successful in that; instead he succeeded in convincing just enough people living in the right places. If that's your definition of democracy - then I beg to differ.
Don't waste your breath. A person whose moral compass is guided by whether or not a particular group had a permit (while conveniently ignoring a murderer in their midst) should be completely beyond the Pale in a civilised society. (Although I would still object calling him a Nazi - a despicable opportunist with no morals and no principles would be a far more precise description.) The same goes for his apologists. Just ignore them. In the language of their leader, they are largely losers.
I wouldn't call them synonyms - just two acceptable variants of the same word.
duoling -- if either word is OK, then please accept either сильнее or сильней. Also, can you delete responses which are totally off the subject of the sentence? Political discussions should not be allowed here.
Just to elaborate: "свой" is a reflexive pronoun that refers back to the subject and hence cannot be a part of the subject (свой брат) itself.
Сильнее is another acceptable form -- read the discussion at the top of this thread.
I received the English sentence here to be translated into Russian. I was marked wrong because I said сильнее instead of сильней,, which I had never seen in this context. After reading the discussion here, I tried to report my answer, but the option "My answer should be accepted" was not offered.
@blau210, I want to remind you that the way things are going right now in our country, NOBODY absolutely NOBODY is objective any more. A famous Spanish poet once said, and I am going to simplify his beautiful poem: "Nothing is true or lie, everything depends on the glass through which you look at it". Obviously the glass is your ideology. We could be talking about Trump until hell freezes over and we will never agree on him. For me his life speaks by itself, in other words, all the racist acts that he has committed in his life, his famous bankrupcies, his denigration of an American judge of Mexican descent, his defense of "our heritage" meaning the defense of the White people of this country, his famous ad in the NYT accusing 5 black people of rape without any proof at that time, his race discrimination lawsuits, his usage of women as objects of pleasure, and I could go forever regarding his malignant narcissistic personality disorder. Finally if you read his speeches, the similarity with Hitler's speeches is phenomenal with the exception that his target are not jews but minorities. Obviously, I am not going to defend undocumented immigrants who came illegally into this country but the great majoirty came here because there were corrupt business people who alloved them to work. I came to this country with an "alien with distinguished merit visa" and it took me 5 years to prove that nobody could do the job that I had (this is called Labor Certification) and after that I got my Green Card. Then after another 5 years I got my American Citizenship. I know first hand how difficult it is to immigrate to this country. What I strongly disagree with Trump is that the majority of Hispanic coming illegally to this country are rapists, drug dealers and criminals. That's a horrible racist lie. Regarding the removal of statues of Confederate Generals, you have to remember that they were racists that approved of slavery and that act will never be forgotten or forgiven. NEVER. When you found a country based on the lie that "all men are created equal" you will have a problem for eternity like it or not. Maybe Thomas Jefferson should have been honest and say ALL WHITE MEN are created equal. When you consider a race inferior to other, the words Liberty, Equality and Fraternity are completely empty of meaning.
zirkul, I hate to disagree with you but Trump has all the characteristics of a neo-nazi. He is not just a White Supremacist and racist but he is also in favor of Economic Nationalism, against climate change, wants to isolate our country from the rest of the world, he has profound hate for immigrants, he is authoritarian, wants to become a dictator, and he is a very dangerous warmonger who could start WWIII, exactly like Hitler was. The only difference between the two is that Trump is surrounded by jews who support him and love him dearly. Obviously, there are progressive jews who hate him deeply because they see the similarities between him and Hitler. By the way, Ivana Trump, his first wife, said on record in an interview that Trump used to read Hitler's speeches and had a book on his night table (probably the only book that he has read in the last 30 years). Remember the old say: "if you walk like a duck, if you smell like a duck, if you eat like a duck and if you emit sounds like a duck, you are a duck". You don't need to have a neo-nazi Party card to be a neo-nazi. Your actions speak louder than words and the last ominous characteristic is that he has CHARISMA. That's why he is so dangerous. Even today, Roger Stone said that if Trump is impeached the far right could start a rebellion which could end up in a 2nd Civil War. This is not a joke. By the way, the neo-nazis, the Aryan nations, KKK and similar misfits are all armed to their teeth. The left is just "armed" with ideas and they will be targeted immediately.