Were those cartoons American or European?

This is more of cultural misunderstanding of Americans not knowing how to deal with European customs and traditions.

Also this has something to do with American sentiment of anything old is bad and anything new and modern is always better.

Oh yeah, my bad. Thanks for pointing that out.

Not unless the clam was pre soaked in Mercury or cyanide.

Much easier. Robot limbs would be battery powered and connect to body mostly with just the neuron network. Actual bio limbs would be like an Organ transplant. Quite a complicated mess, and is lifelong commitment to immunosuppression.

I dont mean adding Robot limbs would be actually easy, just saying that is still easier in few degrees of magnitude than an actual bio limb.

Yeah, extra limbs also need completely reworking anatomy neural networks, muscle memory, physiology. Lot more probably. Its gonna be quite a while before we get to that level.

Hm. Maybe this is a Christian thing? Wedding bands arent really a thing with other religions or even non religious from other cultures. Also, most cultures use the right hand for ceremonial/inportang rings and left hand for other fancy stuff.

Or Rings in general. Theres a reason it's called the Ring finger, most people put their rings first on that finger wedding bands or otherwise.

I love you Phillip Morris,

Jim Carrey plays a marvellous character and I just can never expect what his character will do next, but he does everything for the love of his life played by the beautiful Ewan McGregor.

One of my favourite love stories of all Time.

Samjay? Really??? Its Sanjay you uncultured human.! How can you get the name wrong??

Cool, my bad.

Oh. My bad. Still, thought the kettleman case was actually pretty good story.

Ikr. Weird thing to watch 5 seasons of a show you could never connect with. Season 6 doesn't have any more bombastic scenes than any previous ones.

No, anyone with an iPhone can make mediocre content. To make content that has any amount of depth more than a cheap "interesting shot", there really needs to be plenty of hard work regardless of what media and tools you have at your disposal. Talent is not same as tools. And noone is "born" talented. Even geniuses who contributed to the field at young age will have had lot of exposure to it which noone else gets.

You are missing one big difference.. Latin today is used solely for two purposes, as a liturgical language on religion, and scholarly study of the language.

Sanskrit has more than just those. There is literature like prose poetry and plays written, recited and enacted for crowds. There are philosophical discussions happening. There was recently a south Indian commercial movie released , made entirely in Sanskrit, for general public to watch and enjoy.

For these reasons. Sanskrit is not in same boat as Latin. People keep trying to push it in that, but it isn't.

Also, how a language changes along with time is entirely dependent on culture and the specific language construction itself.

Sanskrit was largely focused on oral traditions and was extensively worked out to prevent changes in language sounds. Paninis works shows how those time lasting standards and mechanisms were made and enacted. Due to its peculiar circumstances, it should not be judged on same standard as other language with little to no sound standards like in latin or Hebrew etc.

Yes, not Noone. There are speakers who speak it regularly, in the several thousands. Just not as mother tongue.

>Nobody is learning that language and using it in their day-to-day life as their primary mode of communication.

What difference does it make if the communication is the primary mode or secondary mode. What kind of arbitrary rule is this that there should be people who call it mother tongue for them to be considered a speaker of that language?

>"No native speakers" is a rough approximation of that, but still pretty much accurate - someone's primary day-to-day language would be what their kids learn.

That is irrelevant for it to be a qualifier for life of the language. A language spoken by 1st language speakers or 2nd language speakers is still the same language and usage. If do not use english for anything except in professional life should I not be considered part of the speaking population keeping it alive? Literally by speaking it, I am keeping the language tendencies accents inflection popcuktural references phrases and idioms, all relevant and recognizable. How is that not adding to keeping the language alive and well?

> An "undead" language, if you will.

So a Zombie language? Dude , the definition of living person vs a zombie is a human imagination. Just say its Alive without using complex "undead" status.

Besides, Latin is not used as extensively outside of religious services as Sanskrit is used.

You are literally forgetting how Sanskrit works. There has always been an unbroken line of scholars who have learned the language and have a vast understanding of the inflection and verbal varieties.

There is plenty supporting evidence of how vedas being recited in vedic schools with aid of oral traditions, are reciting in the exact inflection and speech variation as the ancient times. The oral traditions have literally constructed mechanisms to ensure this as a system that is widely studied as well. Sanskrit is not some language that people stopped using it for hundreds of years. Never the case. Infact the last Sanskrit scholar who wrote extensively in the language was no more than a 150 years ago.

There have been several Sanskrit schools of learning before and after that person. You are in denial of how the language actually functions and exists and studied continually. And all of these do cause language variations and trends just as much as any other language, or maybe fewer, but not zero.

I literally explained how people are speaking it as a secondary language for various functions such as speech, poetry, prose, and theatre. People are speaking and writing it. There are schools teaching it in the hundreds. You are using the word "speaking" but not giving a satisfactory definition of it.

The entire work of Panini : Astadhyayi is the set of rules being discussed here. The rules are approx 4000, which have a system of construction of words and sentences. The debate of solving the system is to use it to get the resulting sentences which always differed from reality of actual Sanskrit language.

The student/scholar recently found the right interpretation of the rules, which is what the achievement is. Now the rules and algorithm produce results as prescribed by Panini in his ancient work. It is called a machine cos the rules act as a mechanism acting on a sound based input and producing a meaningful words and sentences as outputs. Hence a machine.

They are dying BECAUSE noone is speaking them... going extinct if it makes more sense to you?

Languages change due to act of speaking. Not related to it being native to anywhere or not.

English is not native to 99% of Indian population and some approx 20% can speak it. But if you removed those 20% and isolated them from other english speakers, the English they speak will still continue to change and adapt for newer needs and trends in language and pop culture.

This logic of a language is frozen if spoken only by second language speakers is entirely flawed. I know 6 languages, but if my 6th language got new trends among similar 6th language speakers of same language, I will still register that and it may or may not propagate back to 1st speakers of that language depending on how popular it gets.

People are having conversations in it, writing literature, has a news telecast in Sanskrit, there are drama and theatre , .... what else needs to happen for it to be considered "speaking" it?

There are a few everyday speakers of Sanskrit, who use it sort of a vernacular in public speaking.

Dude, the article clearly says this is about language and grammar. Why would you think about stones and machines? This is pseudo algorithm techniques.

It didn't make too many errors, the rule book was never correctly applied, and hence no accurate and conclusive results. That's the argument made here. And once the correct application is deciphered the errors are reduced to nearly zero. And thata why it is an achievement.

How bad are you at reading comprehension?