Edit eSign Word Later
Make the most out of your eSignature workflows with airSlate SignNow
Extensive suite of eSignature tools
Robust integration and API capabilities
Advanced security and compliance
Various collaboration tools
Enjoyable and stress-free signing experience
Extensive support
How To Add Sign in eSignPay
Keep your eSignature workflows on track
Our user reviews speak for themselves
Edit eSign Word Later. Discover the most consumer-warm and friendly experience with airSlate SignNow. Manage your whole document handling and revealing method electronically. Go from hand held, papers-structured and erroneous workflows to programmed, digital and perfect. It is simple to produce, provide and indication any files on any product just about anywhere. Ensure your airSlate SignNow organization instances don't move overboard.
Discover how to Edit eSign Word Later. Follow the easy guideline to get going:
- Make your airSlate SignNow account in click throughs or log in with your Facebook or Google bank account.
- Take pleasure in the 30-day free trial offer or choose a pricing program that's great for you.
- Locate any legal template, construct on-line fillable kinds and reveal them securely.
- Use advanced characteristics to Edit eSign Word Later.
- Sign, individualize putting your signature on buy and accumulate in-man or woman signatures 10 times quicker.
- Established intelligent alerts and obtain notifications at each stage.
Shifting your activities into airSlate SignNow is simple. What adheres to is a straightforward method to Edit eSign Word Later, together with ideas and also hardwearing . peers and lovers for greater alliance. Encourage your staff with the finest tools to stay on the top of enterprise operations. Increase output and scale your organization quicker.
How it works
Rate your experience
-
Best ROI. Our customers achieve an average 7x ROI within the first six months.
-
Scales with your use cases. From SMBs to mid-market, airSlate SignNow delivers results for businesses of all sizes.
-
Intuitive UI and API. Sign and send documents from your apps in minutes.
A smarter way to work: —how to industry sign banking integrate
FAQs
-
What screams "I’m a chess player"?
There are some chess words that make it into my vocabulary. I don't know if these specific words are universal, but I suspect a few chess words make it into many longtime players’ vocabularies as well.For me, I often describe a decision that's foolish or short sighted as “one ply.” As in: “He snubbed his notoriously vain and petty boss? One ply move.”Similarly, using the word “blunder” to describe a serious (or not so serious) mistake is another tip that you're dealing with a chess player.Edit: okay okay commenters, I get it, blunder literally means mistake. Three things: First, my observation might apply more in the US. Most people know what the word means, but few (at least in the US) use it commonly. Second, we're talking about matters of degree. Chess players are likely to say “I blundered and picked up the wrong sandwich,” which is a less serious use of the word than the general meaning. Finally, I'm claiming that use of the word “blunder” is merely suggestive of indicating a chess player. Chess players do not have a monopoly on that word. Back to the answer…Using “variation” to describe a series of events. As in: “what if the car dealer counteroffers with so and so?” “I considered that variation, and I'll reject that and tell them such and such.”Using “forced” or “forced variation” to describe a scenario with no alternatives. “Hey, I didn't see you at the concert last night.” “Yeah, my in-laws are in town, so dinner with them was forced [or was a forced variation].”Yet another, using “compensation” to describe a silver lining to an otherwise bad situation. “Sorry about your tonsillitis, but at least you have ice cream compensation.”Finally, here's a true story:I was talking to a friend who is a strong chess player, and has virtually dedicated his entire adult life to chess. He's in his mid 30s at the time of this story.He was describing the online dating scene. He mentioned Tinder, which I had heard of, and Bumble, which I had not. I asked what Bumble was. “It's Tinder, except the women are white.”This took me by surprise. I didn't consider him to be racist or even racially sensitive. His last girlfriend wasn't white. (I figured maybe he was looking for a change…)It finally came up like ten minutes later that “the women are white” means that women make the first move; i. e., they initiate contact with the men.I laughed when I realized this, and even pointed out to him that his phrasing might have been misunderstood. He seemed to think he was perfectly clear.So that's a sign you're dealing with a chess player, albeit an extreme sign.
-
What are examples of seemingly unrelated words from the same etymological root?
I asked the question, but the delight I experienced reading the other answers made me realize that I had my own example to share.Do you know what this is?If you said an M16 or an AR-15, you are wrong. That right there is the M4 Carbine, which is a shorter-barreled tactical assault rifle that is a very popular choice in modern military equipment. If you know much about guns, you are likely already aware that Carbine is a word that refers to a rifle with a short barrel, often a shorter version of a rifle that also exists as a longer model.And this:is a scarab, also known as a dung beetle.Believe it or not, the term for a short-barreled rifle may come from a burrowing beetle that lives on the excrement of large animals. The admittedly hypothesized etymological pathway that the word took is a fascinating one, but I think that it makes sense when you know the whole story. So here it is.Scarab beetles live underground. When they have collected their balls of dung, they roll them in the manner seen above until they signNow their holes, and bury them underground. Because of this practice, they came to be used in Old French as a metaphor for the men who dug graves with the term escarrabin, meaning “gravedigger.”As military technology changed and firearms replaced bows and swords as the primary tools of combat, military tactics had to change as well. For centuries, the bulk of these modern armies still took the form of large regiments that would stand and fire as a group across the battlefield, especially since their muskets lacked the accuracy to be particularly useful except when fired en masse. It was also clear, however, that the musket was extremely useful as a weapon against enemy morale as well, as the boom and smoke that they produced were enough to quicken the hearts of even the most valiant soldier when they came unexpected. European armies began to supplement their infantry musket regiments with small groups of musketeers mounted on horseback. While the battle lines were being drawn, these fast, light troops could outflank the enemy positions, and while their shots were unlikely to cause more than a few deaths, the disarray that would be caused by their attacks would be more than worth the effort.These light mounted musketeers would often travel independently of the main body of the army, acting a scouts as well as guerillas, and as such, if one of them fell in combat, it would be the duty of the few other members of his unit to quickly dig him a grave before riding on. Because of this, they came to be known as carabin, which later became carabine, which then became carabiniers, with variations in different languages, but all derived from that Old French word for grave digger. At least, that is one of the theories.(A carabinier from the Napoleonic Wars, dated 1810, image from wikimedia commons)As you might expect, it made little sense for these fast mounted troops to carry full-length muskets (which were extremely heavy), especially when their primary role was more to disrupt than to cause major damage, so they carried a shorter version of the muskets or rifles used by the rest of the army, and the shorter version came to bear their name as a result.For a bit of added fun, anyone who has spent time in Italy is likely familiar with the often-fancifully-dressed gendarmerie known as the Carabinieri. These began as that very type of light soldiers and still bear their name today.I admit that I am more than a little entertained by the idea that both an Italian police force and a massively-popular tactical assault rifle (not to mention a whole host of other things) may all have taken their names from an insect that eats excrement.And that’s how it happened, boys and girls.I hope you enjoyed.
-
If you are in the armed forces, have you ever known someone to go AWOL? What was the reason and what happened to them as a resul
Yes…We’ll call him Ed. Ed was part of our tiny 11 man weather/oceanographic division aboard USS Wisconsin. Ed was a fuck up, but a lovable fuck up. He was funny, always knew good jokes, and when he had his head in the game he was actually not bad at the job. But when I say fuck up, I mean he always looked like he slept in his uniform, showed up late for musters, went to captain’s mast twice for drunk and disorderly, spent 60 days on restriction, and once showed up late for an abandon ship drill casually eating a sandwich which earned him a very entertaining public ass chewing from our division chief. These are just examples. But Ed was not stupid. No one can graduate from 5 months of weather A school and also be an imbecile. Ed just didn’t care, he certainly didn’t hate his country, he just hated the Navy. He was a former stoner surfer type from Florida, I guess think of of a hybrid of Owen Wilson and Pauly Shore. How and why this guy wound up in the Navy was anyone’s guess. Considering no one drafted him he was just one of those guys you just have to step back from and ask “why are you here?” Well, Ed never explained why, and we never asked. But he was all ours.Then came the news that Iraq had invaded Kuwait. All leave was cancelled, anyone on leave was contacted by their division chiefs to return to the ship. Ed was on leave in Florida, Ed never returned. Our chief said he got in contact with his father who promised Ed would return at once although Ed was not at home. On August 7th, 1990, after a furious 5 days of resupply and all other preparations, the ship departed Norfolk for the Persian Gulf. Without Ed. Our chief notified us that Ed was UA (unauthorized absence) and that the Navy would likely issue an arrest warrant for him. The Chief remarked that unless he had an excellent reason for missing the ship’s movement that he was going to be in serious trouble. We knew nothing further about him, what became of him, what would happen to him, why he didn’t return, he was like a ghost now. And we handled 7 months of Desert Storm without him. He was never heard from again.Fast forward to 1997. I was discharged in September 1991. Earned my Bachelors from Rutgers and was working for a major corporation.I was enjoying the scenery at an airport bar in Orlando one sunny afternoon waiting for my flight back to NJ. Then there was a tap on the shoulder, and there was Ed. “I knew it was you.” he said, wearing a giant grin. He was also flying out that day. I guess my first impression was how much better he looked, he looked healthier, like he had his shit together. He sat down, bought each of us each another drink, and after some brief pleasantries Ed got right to the main event. “So, you want to know what happened?’ Of course I did, and I told him I wanted to know and that I would listen. “You’re the only one from the ship I’ve talked to since then.” he said. And then the expression on his face shifted to a dark solemnity, like I was his priest.Ed told me that he spent that leave with his drug addicted, goth ex-girlfriend. On a side note, I did meet her once. Bizarre, scary chick. But still quite hot. Anyway. He had returned to heavy drug use on leave (was no secret Ed once held a black belt in bong hits) and all other bad habits. His girlfriend had a powerful sway over him and convinced him not to go back. His father did get in touch with him about the Chief’s call but he ignored it; he never got along with his father, anyway. He didn’t want to go war, didn’t want to return to the Navy life and not the least of which he knew he would get popped on a drug test. He decided to stay with her, both of them convinced no one would bother looking for him.Three days after the ship left there was a knock on her apartment door. He said he knew instantly his dad, knowing precisely where he could be found, had contacted the authorities and that’s exactly what happened. The Sheriff’s deputy took him into custody and, after 18 hours in jail, arrangements were made to transfer him to Navy custody. “There were never any cuffs. The Deputy asked for my ID, handed it back to me, and said Let’s go, son. They were pretty cool about it.” Eventually he was returned to Norfolk and locked up in the brig at Little Creek. “That’s when my life went to hell.” he said. Although he didn’t need to go to Court Martial because he already pleaded guilty to everything, the Navy prosecutor still wanted to punish Ed hard because he deliberately evaded duty in a wartime environment. “And that was completely fair, I did”, he said very matter of factly. His past disciplinary record didn’t help. And the topper was his mandatory drug test at Little Creek, his piss had leaves and stems floating in it., not really but you get the idea. He said he was ready to accept whatever happened to him and at the same time he was terrified and deeply regretful.Ed told me the prosecutor and his JAG attorney signNowed an agreement where he would not be charged with desertion, an extremely serious charge that was under consideration, but would have to serve some jail time followed by a bad conduct discharge. Ed wound up spending 6 months (talked down from a year by his attorney), at the brig; an experience he said was a living nightmare. He was then separated from the Navy with $50 and a big chicken dinner.At this point in his story Ed looked like he wanted to cry. He sort of went into stream of consciousness mode recounting the shame he felt, having to live with his Vietnam vet father and step-mom who never forgave him, how he thought about suicide when he saw the news footage of the ship returning to a crowded, cheering pier after the conflict, talked about how the BCD had prevented him from getting so many good things, “God, I was such a fucking idiot.” I just let him ramble, knowing he needed to tell all of this to someone from the ship, and I was the winner. But eventually I did stop him at “I let you all down, and I don’t expect you to forgive me.” I just couldn’t listen to this verbal self-flagellation any longer, and I thought that line went too far. I told him he made a mistake but that it sounded to me like he paid for it, and to let it go. He was young and he made a costly, immature decision, but that’s all over now. You don’t need our forgiveness, forgive yourself. Move on with your life. Tying it up with my trademark deadpan humor “And never, never do that shit again.” Ed laughed at that. I think that’s precisely what he needed to hear. In fact I think he needed to hear all of that. I do think a weight was lifted.And the odd thing was, this was not the Ed I recall, any of us would recall. This tall filled out guy in the sharp sport coat with the fresh coif wasn’t him at all. Never found out what he did for a living but he looked fine, like he had purpose. I expected old Ed, the chronic bitcher, joker, Navy-hating, un-sat slob. It hit me that was never him back then, he hid what I was looking at now. He hated, in retrospect, his behavior in those days which led to that delusional, adolescent choice. I did respond to that, why did you behave that way? His answer, “all of it.” I didn’t understand that answer but I backed off that line of questioning.Anyway after nearly an hour of the Ed Show it was time to head to our respective gates. We exchanged contact info and mutually pledged to keep in touch but that never happened. He gave me a very unexpected hug and in tone I never forgot he simply said “thanks.” Then our lovable fuck up was a ghost again. But I hope wherever you are, Ed, I hope you’ve forgiven the past. You were our friend, part of our little dysfunctional weather-guesser family, and we’d sail with you again.PS- Hope you didn’t miss your flight. Then again old habits are hard to break.
-
What would be the best way to learn Japanese by yourself?
There are so many different ways to answer this question, so I am going to limit myself to two small subsets of the overall learning Japanese experience. 1. Learn kanji. Kanji is the often terrifying, always interesting writing system that makes up one third of the Japanese alphabet. You need to learn it in order to be able to read just about anything other than the simplest children's books. The bad news is that there are thousands of kanji, many with multiple meanings and ways of being pronounced. The good news is that there are many great resources for learning kanji, and a lot of smart people have made a considerable effort to systematise the learning process and remove most of the pain. By far the best site I've found for learning kanji is WaniKani. Its fifty-level course teaches you around 200 radicals (the little shapes that make up kanji), 1800 or so of the most common kanji, and about 5000 words of vocabulary. Crucially, it actually teaches you how to read the kanji, both in isolation and in combination with other kanji, which is essential to linking what you'll learn by speaking or listening along with your newfound ability to read. It costs around $10 a month or $100 a year, and according to the site's FAQ a dedicated user should be able to learn all of the above within a year and a half. I would give the middle toe on my left foot to have known about this site when I started learning Japanese three years ago.2. Learn vocabulary. Vocabulary is just a fancy way of saying words. You need a few thousand of these to be able to partake in regular daily conversation in Japan, and that's just covering the basics. By far the best way to learn vocabulary is in context, by reading it in books or hearing it from conversations or on TV. However, it can take quite a while to get to the stage where you can do that naturally, and sometimes there's no substitute for just stuffing your head with as many words as you can possibly get. The site I use for this is Memrise. It's free, and you can search for different 'decks' (collections of information) to study. I'd recommend starting with the JLPT (Japanese Language Proficiency Test) beginner deck that you can find here:JLPT N5 Vocab Naturally, I am not affiliated in any way with the two sites I talked about above. I recommended them simply because in my three years of studying Japanese they have been the best resources I've found, and I wish someone had told me about them at the start. Happy studying!
-
Did Oscar Tay do all that interesting research himself? Or are they available in ordinary books for any student of doctorate in
rubs hands togetherThis is a long story.To illustrate how I would write an answer, I’ve chosen the first question to show up on my “Answer” tab, How do you say "king" in Proto-Indo-European, and does modern English have a cognate to it?, and I’ll be going through the process step by step.First, here’s what I know off the top of my head, without having to consult any sources:The English word “king” is from Old English cyning, from Proto-Germanic *kuningaz, which is itself literally “kin-ing” or “kin-person”. It has no direct Proto-Indo-European equivalent.The Latin rex (also “king”), however, does: it’s from a PIE word something like *regs, meaning “ruler” or “chief” or, roughly, “king”; it’s cognate with Hindi raj, English “rich”, German reich, and a Celtic word something like rix.The Celtic word for “bear” was ~artu, related to Greek arktos, also “bear”, whence “arctic”, literally “up where the bears are”. One Celtic name you’re familiar with was Artu-rix, “the bear-king” - the original Celtic name of King Arthur. This is the interesting sort of nugget I’d include in the final answer.From rex we get plenty of kingly words, including “regal” and “reign”, and plenty of others I’m not aware of or just can’t remember.It wouldn’t have been “king” in the same sense, though. The Proto-Indo-Europeans were a semi-nomadic society with individual groups or tribes ruled by a chief, so not quite the degree of power you’d be dealing with in a typical monarchy.To answer the question, while nothing like English “king” because of its derivation from “kin”, the PIE word was something like *regs, which is where we get Latin rex from, and from there English gets “regal”, “reign”, and some assorted others.I could post that as a semi-functioning answer. Fortunately, I would not do that, because a.) it’s not really complete, b.) it doesn’t do a good job of explaining the subject matter, and c.) it’s not all that interesting. It leaves open more questions:Why is the English word the way it is?Why didn’t the PIE root come down to English in the way it did to Latin or Sanskrit?Are there any other related words from other languages?What does this say about the different Indo-European societies?And so on. All those questions are rather boring for the average reader, so I’d have to find a way to make them more interesting, but that comes later, in the bit where I write the answer. Before I do that, I have to make sure what I’ve written here is correct.Etymonline and Wiktionary are the etymological dictionaries I usually consult. I’ve also got a copy of the compact edition of the Oxford English Dictionary (the two-volume set that comes with a magnifying glass), the American Heritage Dictionary of Indo-European roots (which picks up where the OED leaves off), and assorted others. Etymonline and Wiktionary are my main sources, though, because they are themselves a concise collection of all the etymological information in the OED or AHD. I’d only use the physical dictionaries if a word’s entry on either page were incomplete or if I needed examples of the word’s early use.The Etymonline page on “king” agrees with the etymology in my memory:a late Old English contraction of cyning “king, ruler” (also used as a title), from Proto-Germanic *kuningaz (source also of Dutch koning, Old Norse konungr, Danish konge, Old Saxon and Old High German kuning, Middle High German künic, German König).As does the Wiktionary page:From Middle English king, kyng, from Old English cyng, cyning (“king”), from Proto-Germanic *kuningaz, *kunungaz (“king”), equivalent to kin + -ing.Etymonline and Wiktionary agree here, but sometimes they don’t. When that happens, I’ll have to do a little more digging on the internet or in my physical dictionaries, with a hierarchy of sources I trust going from Etymonline down. (I would put the OED above Etymonline, but Etymonline takes its information from the OED as well as many other dictionaries, so it either has the same etymological information as the OED or better.)What I’d thought was correct, then. Good. As for rex, which I’m less sure on, Etymonline says:“a king,” 1610s, from Latin rex (genitive regis) “a king,” related to regere “to keep straight, guide, lead, rule,” from PIE root *reg- “move in a straight line,” with derivatives meaning “to direct in a straight line,” thus “to lead, rule” (source also of Sanskrit raj- “king”; Old Irish ri “king,” genitive rig).“Rex” is also an English word, borrowed directly from Latin. This is lucky. Etymonline is a source of English etymologies and English etymologies only. If I wanted the etymology of, say, Latin regalis, “regal”, it wouldn’t show up. I’d either have to consult Wiktionary, which has many languages’ etymologies, or I’d use Etymonline, but tricky this time.Etymonline’s got every English word’s etymologies, and it traces that etymology back to the source language. If a word in a language other than English happens to exist in some derived form in English, then I can go to that derived form for the word’s etymology. In the case of regalis, it exists in English as “regal”, so I can go to the etymology of “regal” for the etymology of regalis.Returning to the etymology of “rex”, where we can go straight to Latin this time, Wiktionary says:From Proto-Italic *rēks, from Proto-Indo-European *h₃rḗǵs (“ruler, king”). Cognates include Sanskrit राजन् (rājan, “king”) and Old Irish rí (“king”).Well, now we’ve got something of a disagreement. Etymonline says rex is from PIE *reg-, “to move in a straight line”, while Wiktionary claims it’s from PIE *h₃rḗǵs, “ruler”. Which one’s right? How do we know?Lucky again. Following the Wiktionary link on *h₃rḗǵs tells us it’s from *h₃reǵ-, also meaning “straight”, “direct”, “to move in a straight line”.It may seem there’s still a disagreement: Etymonline says *reg-, Wiktionary says *h₃reǵ-. But they’re the same word. Etymonline takes its etymologies from a few different sources, including the AHD. The AHD writes its PIE words in a simpler, friendlier-looking way that’s closer to how PIE would have been spoken in its later stages. For example, here’s Schleicher’s fable, the standard PIE story, in a form of that friendlier notation:Owis, jesmin wl̥nā ne ēst, dedork’e ek’wons woghom gʷr̥um weghontn̥s - bhorom meg'əm, monum ōk’u bherontn̥s. Owis ek’wobhos eweukʷet: K’erd aghnutai moi widn̥tei g’hm̥onm̥ ek’wons ag’ontm̥. Ek’woi eweukʷont: K’ludhi, owi, k’erd aghnutai dedr̥k'usbhos: monus potis wl̥nām owiōm temneti: sebhei ghʷermom westrom - owibhos kʷe wl̥nā ne esti. Tod k’ek’luwōs owis ag’rom ebhuget.*Reg-, with its basic Latin characters, fits nicely.Wiktionary does not do this. Wiktionary takes most of its Indo-European etymologies from the Brill Etymological Dictionaries, the most up-to-date comprehensive Indo-European etymological dictionaries. These use the most modern technical notation for PIE. Here’s the same text as above in this notation:h2áwey h1yosméy h₂wl̥h₁náh₂ né h₁ést, só h₁éḱwoms derḱt. só gʷr̥Húm wóǵʰom weǵʰed; só méǵh₂m̥ bʰórom; só dʰǵʰémonm̥ h₂ṓḱu bʰered. h₂ówis h₁ékʷoybʰyos wewked: “dʰǵʰémonm̥ spéḱyoh₂ h₁éḱwoms-kʷe h₂áǵeti, ḱḗr moy agʰnutor”. h₁éḱwōs tu wewkond: “ḱludʰí, h₂owei! tód spéḱyomes, n̥sméy agʰnutór ḱḗr: dʰǵʰémō, pótis, sē h₂áwyes h₂wl̥h₁náh₂ gʷʰérmom wéstrom wept, h₂áwibʰyos tu h₂wl̥h₁náh₂ né h₁esti.” tód ḱeḱluwṓs h₂ówis h₂aǵróm bʰuged.Wiktionary’s *h₃reǵ- is of this variety. It’s full of superscript characters and accents and h’s with numbers after them. It’s a lot uglier, but it’s more accurate, and so I prefer to use it in my answers.There you have it: Etymonline’s better for facts, Wiktionary for scope and technical bits. They complement one another wonderfully.And now we’ve got our two key etymologies:English king, from Old English cyning, from Proto-Germanic *kuningaz, common to all Germanic languages, all meaning “king”Latin rex, from Proto-Italic *rēks, from Proto-Indo-European *h₃rḗǵs, all meaning “king”, from *h₃reǵ-, “to move in a straight line”, “to be straight”, and by extension “to be just”, “to be correct”; as mentioned in Oscar Tay's answer to Why are right angles not called left angles?, the “rect” in “correct” is from *h₃reǵ-I could leave it at that. Fortunately - or not, depending on your opinion of my answers - I won’t. There are too many etymologies circling around *h₃rḗǵs to leave it at what the question’s after. What about Artu-rix? Raj? “Rich”? No, this seems like it ought to be an epic etymological wander-about. Rex and friends are scattered in odd places everywhere in Indo-European. I’ve never written about them on Quora. I may as well take this question to do so.You may have noticed that none of that research was original. There’s a lot of research, but all from other sources. I drew from my own knowledge, with Etymonline and Wiktionary for the specifics and to make sure I wasn’t making anything up.I don’t do original research. A linguist is someone who does do original research in linguistics, and since I don’t do that, I’m not a linguist. I’m a language teacher. That’s a totally different set of skills. As Gareth Roberts says in his answer to this question, I simply explain to non-linguists what linguists know.To answer your question, this is all available in ordinary books and websites and the like. Anyone could do what I’ve done to this point if they had a basic linguistics education. Hell, anyone could do this if they’d read enough books on etymology. (Which, I suppose, I have.) This is not that hard if you know where to look. I’ve just given out exactly where you need to look, what you need to do, and how to go about doing it.What comes next, however, is harder. It’s the most difficult part of writing any good answer on Quora. So far, I’ve made sure I have all the information I need. I’ve even started on explaining some of it. But I still have one very important piece to add:I have to make it interesting.That is: I have to make a complicated, confusing, and ultimately unimportant field, historical linguistics - historical linguistics! It almost sounds comic in its boringosity - interesting for an audience that potentially knows nothing about the field. They also have a limited attention span and a slew of much more interesting information at their fingertips. I have to, if only for a few minutes, hold that attention with only words and the odd picture.In the form of an essay.With a niche subject, remember. Comically niche.Where my main source of humour is an etymological dictionary.Without sacrificing facts for entertainment.Furthermore, I have to make sure they read the entire thing, learn everything I’ve lain out in said thing, remember that information, and then click the little blue button that says they’ve enjoyed it. Bonus points if they actually enjoyed it. Bonus bonus points if they laugh, or have their day otherwise improved, or share that information with a friend.This is - if you’ll forgive the hyperbole - pretty hard. Most people can’t do this part. Anyone can read a dictionary, but how many of us can make a friend want to read the dictionary? Or an essay about the dictionary? How about tens of thousands of strangers? How about making them enjoy the experience?Yet - if I may be permitted this - I am horribly, disgustingly lucky. I’ve got a thing wrong with my noggin that, among other things, makes this part intuitive. I can make students enjoy learning grammar. On Quora, I can make twenty thousand of them enjoy it at once. And I can get them to laugh while they learn it.I can imagine no higher compliment than for you, O Matías Damián, O original poster of this question, to say “interesting research”. “Research”? Sure, anyone can do that. I am honoured to be able to do interesting research.And, because I can explain anything in an interesting way, I can also explain how to explain anything in an interesting way in an interesting way. It is, I hope, contagious. Here’s how it works.I have my information: the etymologies, as stated above. Now we have to make people care about them. You may ask, how do you make them care about etymologies? But you don’t ask this yet. You want your audience to begin the story with curiosity. On Quora, all stories begin with a question, literally. That’s good. That creates curiosity. That tells your reader what to wonder, and what they’re going to be learning.You have to keep this curiosity going. If you start the story with the etymology as it is, that may answer any curiosity generated by the question, but if you want to make sure they keep reading, you have to create a hook.A hook. Not clickbait. A hook. Clickbait screams for attention; a hook merely suggests it. If you were in a market and had to choose between one vendor yelling at you to buy their product and another, quiet, friendly vendor with an interesting product you wanted to know more about, which would you go to?You want to make sure the question, or if not on Quora then the title, is friendly. Our question, again, is this:How do you say "king" in Proto-Indo-European, and does modern English have a cognate to it?The average person on Quora won’t know two of these words: “Proto-Indo-European” and “cognate”. A friendly question (or title) is one your audience will understand. How can we rephrase this question to be friendly? “Proto-Indo-European” is a proper noun, a name for a thing, and there’s no way to easily rephrase that. We’ll get to how to fix “Proto-Indo-European” in a moment.“Cognate” is easier. “Cognate” means “a word that’s related to another word”. This is an easy concept with an easy layman’s translation. We can edit this question to its friendlier variant:How do you say "king" in Proto-Indo-European, and does modern English have any words that are related to it?And there we are!: How do you say "king" in Proto-Indo-European, and does modern English have any words that are related to it?. To someone who doesn’t know what Proto-Indo-European is, the curiosity will translate to this: “I wonder how you’d say ‘king’ in this language, and if English has any words that are related to it.” Still not great, but this is a question someone else has asked, so we can’t mess with it more than clarification requires.We’re fighting with lukewarm curiosity now. There’s a few ways you could go about this. One method I used early on on Quora was to recount an abbreviated version of the story of Proto-Indo-European, as in this answer or this one, as an extension of the hook.It gets tedious if I have to do that for every mention of the language. Instead, what I’ve done is written a reference answer for PIE, Oscar Tay's answer to How do we know that a Proto-Indo-European language really existed? What is the evidence?, which I link to as early on in the answer as possible.Virtually all my followers, who form much of the readership of any given answer and the majority of views and upvotes and whatnot early on in the answer’s publication lifetime, have read this answer and/or have a good-enough understanding of PIE, so for them the question in question is a very friendly one indeed. For everyone else, I’ll mention Proto-Indo-European first thing or nearly first thing in the answer, link to that answer, and then carry on.And now the question, with some help from the answer, is friendly.How should we do the hook? Remember, not like clickbait. A clickbait introduction would be like this:Here’s ten word origins you won’t believe! [Include short paragraphs, gratuitous emboldened text and capital letters, and tangentially related stock photographs for each word.]Don’t do this. You’re writing a story, not a tabloid or BuzzFeed article, so write it like a story. The hook should give some hint about what this story is about while not answering any questions just yet. Or, if it does answer the question, then in a somewhat mysterious way; or, if it answers the question quite clearly, then it creates more questions.This time, I’ll begin this one like this:How do you say "king" in Proto-Indo-European, and does modern English have any words that are related to it?We have perhaps too many.Short, pithy, sort-of-answers the question in a vague enough way, and, most importantly, it builds curiosity. It tells the reader that this will be an etymological soup, with words connecting to one another in unexpected and seemingly impossible ways, but saves them. It’ll be good, it says, but you’ll have to read it.Lead into an introductory paragraph. This is where I’d put the link to the Proto-Indo-European answer. If the hook’s good enough, this is also where you’d put the boring expository information. Answer some easier part of the question, correct assumptions, preface one part or another, et cetera.The word is *h₃rḗǵs. It meant “king” or “ruler”, but not in the way you’d imagine your typical monarchy. The Proto-Indo-Europeans were a semi-nomadicNo. Not that. Say “semi-nomadic” if you’ve got to, but say something cooler if you can.The word is *h₃rḗǵs. It meant “king” or “ruler”, but not in the way you’d imagine your typical monarchy. The Proto-Indo-Europeans lived on horseback, herding animals from one bit of grassland to the next, building new shelters along the way or staying as another tribe’s guests for a time.Much better. You can squeeze more information into the flow there. Notice also that I’ve linked to other answers instead of explaining their matter again: the one about the laryngeals at the “3”; the one on the guest-host relationship at the end. (I’ve been told this has the side effect of leading to a rabbit-hole/web of answers one can fall into.)The word is *h₃rḗǵs. It meant “king” or “ruler”, but not in the way you’d imagine your typical monarchy. The Proto-Indo-Europeans lived on horseback, herding animals from one bit of grassland to the next, building new shelters along the way or staying as another tribe’s guests for a time. Different tribes were ruled by different tribal chiefs, and it’s these people who were called *h₃réǵes.I write in a style somewhere between formal/academic and informal/conversational, tending to one side or the other depending on the situation. I’ll switch from one to another from one paragraph to another. You don’t have to do this, but I find it’s a good balance between talking about a subject seriously and sounding like a human.Now that the boring expository first paragraph is out of the way, we can move to the interesting bits.Latin took *h₃rḗǵs, threw out the *h₃, and shortened the remaining regs to rex, “king” in its modern sense.This one’s the Latin branch. I usually start etymology stories with the Latin branch because it gives us the most words, and they tend to sound the same. The etymologies grow weirder as the answer progresses.Latin took *h₃rḗǵs, threw out the *h₃, and shortened the remaining regs to rex, “king” in its modern sense. It then took rex and pulled all sorts of new words out of it. The time when a king rules was his regnum, or règne in French, or “reign” in English; the rule itself is his regimen, which became “regimen” and “regime” and “realm”; the place where he ruled was a regionem, and that regionem lost its -em and fell on down as “region”. And the king himself? Regalis, “regal”, of course!The etymological derivation phrases never repeat. No “and this word comes from this word, and this word comes from this word, and this word comes from this word”; it goes “and Latin took this word and turned it into this word, and this word became this word, and this word was this word and then that word”. The sentences vary. If it’s the same sentence again and again, it’s not interesting.The best places to find these words are, again, Etymonline and Wiktionary, which have pages devoted to lists of words from a shared root. One more again, what I’m doing is not new research, but taking old, boring, dusty research and making it interesting for an audience who would not be able to read said research in the original.Go a further back from rex to *h₃rḗǵs and beyond and you’ve got *h₃reǵ-, “straight”, “to move in a straight line”, and by extension “to be just”, “to be correct”, as a king ought to be. As covered here, there’s plenty more from that route: “right” and “right” (the other kind) and the “rect” in “correct”; just one from that root in Latin is regula, “direct”, whose definition is echoed in all its descendants. From regula come “regulate”, and “rule”, and “ruler”, and “ruler”, even “rail”: tracks to direct a train, to rule where it goes.This one’s too long. Four to five, maybe six lines to a paragraph on Quora is what I try to stick to; a paragraph up, I left out regina, “queen”, because it would make the paragraph too long, it being already at six lines. This paragraph directly above has seven. Is there any way to break it up? If there isn’t, then we can leave it, because it’s not too far over the limit; but there is a logical spot where we can do this:Go a further back from rex to *h₃rḗǵs and beyond and you’ve got *h₃reǵ-, “straight”, “to move in a straight line”, and by extension “to be just”, “to be correct”, as a king ought to be. As covered here, there’s plenty more from that route: “right” and “right” (the other kind) and the “rect” in “correct”.Just one from that root in Latin is regula, “direct”, whose definition is echoed in all its descendants. From regula come “regulate”, and “rule”, and “ruler”, and “ruler”, even “rail”: tracks to direct a train, to rule where it goes.Flows better, looks nicer, less intimidating. More an aesthetics choice than a writing one, but aesthetics help any writing. Pictures every few paragraphs are great if you can fit them in and if they make sense. I forwent them in this answer because they wouldn’t make sense, but in others, where they do, it helps them be prettier.Away from Latin went *h₃rḗǵs as well, off to Germanic and Celtic and other branches of the family tree. In Germanic, it turned to *rīkiją, “kingdom” or “authority”, then Old English rīċe; stuck on the end of a word, it was the realm belonging to that word, as in “bishopric”. German, on the other hand, turned it to reich.Write it in storytelling-esque prose, too. Academics read papers. People read stories. Find some way to fit your subject into a story, whether or not there’s a real story there. Languages and words are not themselves alive, but I treat them as such and give them thoughts and opinions and wants and hopes and goals and so on, as for the suffix -ish in this answer.One way to make something into a story is to find a story already present within it and tell it instead. For instance, in Oscar Tay's answer to What is Linear B syllabary?, instead of saying “The Linear B syllabary was a writing system used predominantly in Crete in the latter half of the second millennium BC”, which sounds like an answer to an exam question, I told the story of its decipherment and the people involved. It’s a lot more interesting, fun, and likely to be remembered than stating just the facts of it.Then there was Proto-Germanic *rīkijaz, “rich” and “powerful” and “mighty” - kingly qualities, for sure. English whittled *rīkijaz to rīċe again, removed the e, swapped round some consonants, and made itself “rich”.That’s just a pun. I like puns.Then there was Proto-Germanic *rīkijaz, “rich” and “powerful” and “mighty” - kingly qualities, for sure. English whittled *rīkijaz to rīċe again, removed the e, swapped round some consonants, and made itself “rich”. The Romance languages liked that idea, so they looted the Germanic word-hoard and made off with ric or rico, as in Spanish Puerto Rico, literally “rich port”.More wordplay. Keeps it light while still being interesting and not sacrificing information for entertainment.Hardly content on staying within the realm of theAnother pun. I hide a lot of etymological puns in my answers. “Stellar”/“disaster” is my favourite.Hardly content on staying within the realm of the people-kings, *h₃rḗǵs ran over to Proto-Germanic again, dropped in as *rekô, and merged with *anadz, “duck”, to become *anadrekô: king of the ducks, manliest of the ducks, the *anadrekô, the male duck. Minus the first two syllables, we’ve still got it as “drake”.Making fun of the etymology. Always entertaining.In Celtic, our royal root decided it’d like to be rix. If you were an especially impressive king, with the strength of a bear, you might be known as the “bear-king”, artu-rix: Arthur.Wait. Is this true? I’ve heard it from somewhere, but I don’t know where. The name shows up on neither etymology page. I should check this first. As it turns out, this particular etymology is controversial and uncertain, so it wouldn’t do well to include it in the answer. Check to make sure your information is true, however much you’d like to include it.I’d also like to include mention of raj in this answer, but it would ruin how it works. If I added a paragraph on it at the end, since “raj” is the only English word from this root via the Indo-Iranian branch, it’d made the story anti-climactic. I need to lead into a section with more words than one in it.And I’ve got it: names. The root *h₃rḗǵs appears in name after name after name, given how cool it makes one’s name sound if you know what it means. “Richard” is boring and normal, unless you know it’s from *Rīkaharduz, literally “brave king” but with all the cultural associations of naming your kid “Emperor Fearless”.I may as well make that the paragraph. Some editing later, you’ve got this:And content less softly yet with just regular words, the root *h₃rḗǵs ran through name after name after name, given just how cool it makes one’s name sound if you know what it means. “Richard” sounds boring and normal - unless you know it’s from Proto-Germanic *Rīkaharduz, literally “brave king” but with all the cultural associations of naming your kid “Emperor Fearless”.Or Eiríkr, the Viking name, come to modern-day English as “Eric”. Definition: eternal ruler. “Henry”, too, from *Haimarīks, “king of the home”; and “Fred” from *Friþurīks, “king of peace”; and “Derek” from *Þeudarīks, “king of people”; and finally “Raj”, from Sanskrit rāj, from the same root, all meaning simply “king”.And I even managed to fit “raj” in there!Normally, this is where I would tie together all the loose questions. This answer isn’t like that. This is an etymology-abouting answer, not an essay on some piece of linguistic history. I can still answer those questions here, if there are any. If you’re smart, like I’m not, you can think ahead and leave some question to end on here.Luckily, I forgot the first etymology, so I can put it in here:But what about English “king”? It’s related to the word all Germanic languages use, from German König to Dutch koning to Finnish kuningas, wherein Finnish is not a Germanic language but stole the word anyway. That word in Proto-Germanic was *kuningaz. (Ten points to Finnish for preserving it so well while the languages it belonged to in the first place tossed syllables away as they so pleased.)*Kuningaz is not from the same root as rex, as you might have guessed. Rather than deriving from some word for justness or correctness, it comes from a very human word, which is to say it comes from a word more or less meaning “human”: *kunją, ancestor of our English “kin”. Using a since-lost sense of “-ing” to mean “belonging to”, *kunją-ingaz became *kuningaz, “of the people” or “ruler of the people”.And add some vaguely meaningful line to the end to finish the content:The king, according to the Proto-Germans, belongs to the people he rules.Finally, the sign-off:Thanks for asking!The final answer is available here: Oscar Tay's answer to How do you say "king" in Proto-Indo-European, and does modern English have any words that are related to it?For more essay-type answers like this one, I’ll tie everything back with a summary, so a.) no one can say I didn’t answer the question, b.) if they’re not interested in the content they can just read the summary, and c.) if I made it too confusing, then to reiterate the point and make sure we’re all thinking the same thing. Like so:To answer your question, I do research for my answers - the resulting answer to that question is only 750 words, and my longer ones approach 5000, so scale that up accordingly and you’ve got however long that takes - but none of it is original. Anyone could do the research I did. If you want reading material for historical linguistics, I’ve got a list here.Then summarize anything in the answer you may have said that was not directly related to the question:That isn’t really the point. My job is not to expand the boundaries of human knowledge, but to translate the sliver of human knowledge occupied by linguistics into something regular humans can understand, learn from, and enjoy.And add some vaguely meaningful paragraph or two to the end to finish the content:To look at it another way, anyone could do the research I did. If you’re the kind of person to go on Quora, you’ve probably got your own field of interest and/or expertise, and you can do the research in the way I’ve done it in linguistics for your chosen field.If you can make what you write interesting, and explain it well - and this is difficult, so it may take quite a bit of practice - then you can improve the world as much as any scientist can, just differently. If you haven’t tried writing about your interests on Quora before, or have but haven’t had success with it, I’d encourage you to try again with whichever of these nuggets of writing advice you’ve found helpful.Finally, the sign-off:Thanks for asking!
-
What were the greatest bluffs ever made in history?
BILL GATES IBM BLUFFLet us consider the success story of Bil Gates. In the business world, all the stories about failures are more or less the same, but in every success story there is something unique. Thefore, let us consider the history of a great success story: the tale of Bill Gates Microsoft tech startup. And and why not? It still remains a wonderful story. To do so, let's go to the early 80s when the world was about to witness the birth of the Personal Computer. When it comes to the very first days of Microsoft and the way Bill Gates starts his tech startup many stories go around but there is one particular anecdote which keeps coming up on many occasions. The computer giant IBM was about to decide whether or not IBM would manufacture and sell a Personal Computer (PC). There was one crucial element that was still missing: an operating system (OS) that was appropriate for the PC. Here begins the Bill Gates story. The success story of Bill Gates is also a story about bluff When Bill Gates heard that IBM was looking for an OS for the IBM PC he stepped in and claimed he could deliver the such a desired OS. The reality was that he had never written an OS, but he knew that a few blocks away someone had developed a Quick and Dirty Operating System (QDOS) for microcomputers. Gates bought QDOS for $ 50,000 (the original developer knew nothing of the prospective deal with IBM), tinkered together the necessary changes in the software, went back to IBM with it, and made the billion dollar deal The crux of the Gates deal with IBM was that in the meantime he founded Microsoft Corporation and retained the rights to the OS. He renamed QDOS in MS-DOS, and was ready to sell MS-DOS outside the IBM PC project. Of course, we do not know exactly how the negotiations went, but you can imagine that IBM made every effort to obtain the full rights while Bill Gates also made all possible efforts to retain as much of the rights as possible. Gates had the vision that every American family eventually would have a PC. A quick calculation had learned him that this would result into a much bigger gain than the amount of money IBM could offer him. Somehow Gates knew how to get his requirements granted by IBM and the rest is history.
-
Are natural resources the true reason behind the Kashmir conflict?
Acronyms to make writing short:Erstwhile kingdom of Kashmir : ERIKA, (mmm… Erika sounds nice)King of Kashmir : Koke (pronounced coke -’i’ has ‘e’ sound in some places)ERIKA is “claimed” by India and Pakistan - Who does not want to claim a cool chick -40c? Frozen Chicken! Claiming of one ‘item’ by two/more ‘parties’ is dispute, and not a conflict. Let us first address dispute-part, and later conflict-part.P.S: Just to clarify. The words ‘item‘ and ‘parties’, just means item and parties, nothing more about Erica.Edit: As one comment mentioned the sub-regions were demarcated by GoI recently: In ERIKA, 1/3 of area is Muslim, rest of 2/3 has Buddhists and Hindus. Hindus,Buddhists,Christian,Jain do not have kafir concept.Claim/dispute boils down to creation-ideology of Pakistan:India creation-ideology: None. Secular state.Birth Date: 15 Aug 1947. Death date: Depends on how inclusive the Hindi people are, in respecting other cultures, languages.Pakistan creation-ideology: Muslims need a separate “nation”Birth date 14 Aug 1947, Death date: Depends on how inclusive the Panjabi people are, in respecting other cultures, languages.Why one day early? Oh yes Islamists were British favorites. Islamists avoided freedom fight, and were friendly with British that’s why they got the ‘favor’ in dates, as well as West & East parts with rivers :).In 1947 ERIKA was separate kingdom that decided to be separate country. India respected that. However, greedy Pakistan started invading/violating ERICA with its forces. Koke was worried that his sovereignty is violated by a rogue neighbor, Koke asked India for military support. India put a precondition ‘only if you are joining we can protect with out military’, therefore Koke signed a treaty joining/marrying ERIKA to India. AFTER THAT SIGNING, India sent its army to INDIAN-TERRITORY (after treaty it is Indian territory right?). India says ERIKA is legally belongs to India due to treaty.Pakistan says, “I’m a muslim country, since ERIKA has lot of muslims, ERIKA belongs to me (I do not care about king signing a treaty with India)”India says, “Koke signed treaty, so ERIKA belongs to India”. “India is secular, India has the 2nd largest muslim population in the world - along with other religion people. ERIKA having muslims has no relevance wrt creation philosophy of India”The hypocrisy: Pakistan is not saying, “Give me ERIKA(the muslim 1/3rd), and also send ALL the muslims in India to our country” . If Pakistan claims to be a ‘muslim-identity’ country, to have credibility, they must stake claim to ALL-MUSLIMS in India to muslim-identity Pakistan. But they don’t want all muslims, they just want land.The verdict: One could say Pakistan wants additional territory, Pakistan could not explain the logic-narrative that is acceptable.The above is dispute part. Now coming to “conflict part”Since Pakistan could not explain a logical-narrative, they try to useTerrorism - killing innocent civilians.That terrorism also spreads and creates 9/11, Subway bombings in London, Paris bombing, Spain Bombing, Chechenya bombing etc. All has links to Pakistan based training.Also Pakistan tries to creating false narrative of oppression — however they failed miserably. Every time Pakistan makes “Kashmir dispute” case to world, India gives the “accession document”, and also the precondition in UN resolution that says .. “invader(Pakistan) must vacate the Kashmir kingdom (i.e get out of GB), and later, Indian forces have their presence in GB, and later talk about referendum”The Double speak that shows no-caring for ummah: Ask Pakistan what happened to Uygur muslims, why are they quite about Uygur incarceration (See Imran Khan-army proxy, interview to AlJazeera — carefully hear what he says about Kashmir and what he says about Uygur muslims.)
-
What is Zoho.com?
Zoho is a web-based online office suite containing word processing, spreadsheets, presentations, databases, note-taking, wikis, web conferencing, customer relationship management (CRM), project management, invoicing, and other applications developed by ZOHO Corporation (formerly AdventNet Inc.), a California-based company. It was launched in 2005 with a web-based word processor. Additional products such as spreadsheets and presentations, were incorporated later into Zoho. Zoho applications are distributed as software as a service (SaaS).Zoho uses an open application programming interface for its Writer, Sheet, Show, Creator, Meeting, and Planner products. It also has plugins into Microsoft Word and Excel, an Apache OpenOffice plugin, and a plugin for Firefox.Zoho Sites is an online, drag and drop website builder. It provides web hosting, unlimited storage, bandwidth and web pages. Features also include an array of website templates and mobile websites. Create, Edit, Share and Collaborate and e-Sign documents online with Zoho Writer.Zoho Creator is a low-code platform to create custom web and mobile apps. It employs a drag-and-drop builder to create forms, reports, dashboards, and workflows—the basics of any app—and can be used to manage data, automate business process, and more.Zoho CRM is a customer relationship management application with features like procurement, inventory, and some accounting functions from the realm of ERP. The free version is limited to 10 users.In October 2009, Zoho integrated some of their applications with the Google Apps online suite. This enabled users to sign into both suites under one login. Zoho and Google still remain separate, competing companies.Source: Zoho Office Suite - Wikipedia
Trusted esignature solution— what our customers are saying
Get legally-binding signatures now!
Frequently asked questions
How do i add an electronic signature to a word document?
How to sign with pdf text editor?
Get more for Edit eSign Word Later
- How To Electronic signature Arizona Plumbing Presentation
- How Do I Electronic signature Arizona Plumbing Presentation
- Help Me With Electronic signature Arizona Plumbing Presentation
- How Can I Electronic signature Arizona Plumbing Presentation
- Can I Electronic signature Arizona Plumbing Presentation
- How To Electronic signature Arizona Plumbing Presentation
- How Do I Electronic signature Arizona Plumbing Presentation
- How Can I Electronic signature Arizona Plumbing Presentation
Find out other Edit eSign Word Later
- Account modification form
- Bacb pre experience checklist form
- Camelotintenationallearnerships form
- Wsib intent to object instruction sheet form
- Block plot diagram form
- Mapping the ocean floor lab answer key form
- Pre nursery syllabus form
- Lifelong kindergarten pdf form
- Gas pressure test form 21279242
- Viking longship form
- Duralast battery rebate form
- Dss 5015 100279618 form
- Prime warranty claim form
- Burger king direct deposit form
- Ekyc brac bank form
- Letter of consent from the employer granting permission for postgraduate study form
- Form wc 1
- Printable microneedling consent form
- Affidavit of heirship arkansas form
- Membership termination form upmc health plan