Janus

Duolingo teaches the phrase: Norjalainen on viikini, ja suomelainen on velho. ( The Norwegian is a viking, and the Finn is a wizard.) Now while there is a storied event that this refers to, it is not a phrase that is likely to come up in normal conversation.

I seems like nonsense because it is. Objects do not "acquire" gravity, as they've always had gravity. The gravity of a single rock is just very, very, weak. Join two rocks together, and their gravitational fields add together. The more rocks added, the greater the sum of their fields.

Finnish: tyttö - girl ( base/subject) tyttöä/tyttön - girl(object)* tyttöt girls(subject) tyttöjä/tyttöt girls(object)* * I am looking at the girl - katson tyttöä I see the girl - Näen tyttön (Tyttön is also the possessive for girl, tyttön makki -A girl's dress) In the same way. I am looking at the girls- katson tyttöjä and I see the girls - Näen tyttöt

Yes, In addition, Finnish isn't even an Indo-European language, but is Uralic instead. Here is a map for the spoken "I" in different regions of Finland. https://forum.unilang.org/viewtopic.php?t=60834 In the birthplaces of my grandparents, they are Mää/Minä (right on the border between the two), mä, and miä. Now that's today, and I don't know how this differs from when they were born.( though since they didn't seem to have any trouble communicating with each other, it must not have been an issue.) 'Minä' is the formal/written form. However, they aren't used all that often. Verbs are conjugated according to the pronoun they are used with, so for example " I am going" = minä menen, while you are going is sinä menet. Because of this, the pronoun is often left out, and just menen or menet alone are used. A couple of peculiar things about Finnish are: No articles(the/a/an) Limited use of prepositions, but uses "cases" instead. (metsä= forest, metsässä = in the forest) Cases are applied to more than just the noun. ( for example; old forest = vanha metsä, while in the old forest = vanhassa metsässä

It would be hard to pull off "talking like native" as a tourist in Finland, largely because the common spoken language differs somewhat from the written/formal that you'd be taught in a language course. For example "minä olen"( I am) is "mä oon" or Kello on kakskymmenta yli yksi"( the time is 20 past 1) is Kello on kakskyt yli yks. (BTW, 'y' in Finnish is always a vowel and is pronounced similar to the 'u' in 'cute'.)

If you are asking another person in another country if they speak English, you are indicating that you want to converse in English, which is not going to help you in learning their native tongue. If you are truly interested in improving your language skills, you might try requesting that they speak in that language rather than English, even if they can. For example "Haluaisin puhua suomea." ( I would like to speak in Finnish.) If they say something you don't get, you could say "Anteeksi, en ymmärrä. Hitaasti, ole hyvä." (Excuse me, I don't understand. Slowly, please.)

This might explain the Finnish spelling. I heard that Finnish can act as a "freezer" of sorts for older words. If they borrow a word from another language, it doesn't tend to change, even if it later evolves in the mother tongue. So, if the Finn's borrowed it when it was in the 'taler" form, it stayed that way. An example is tuoli (chair) which comes for the old Swedish, "stuoli". Since then, Swedish for chair has become stol.

I'm sure both of you know 2 Finnish words, the other being 'sauna'. As far as "plate" goes, lautunen is the common Finnish word, so I'm going to assume 'talerka' is a loan word from Russian. I'm not exactly sure for the reason for the change in spelling for this one. With others, it's to compensate for sounds/letters that aren't in Finnish, or to make it compatible with the Finnish case endings. For example, 'siideri' for 'cider'.

These aren't homonyms, as they have distinct pronunciations. Though Finnish does have it's homonyms(kuusi = six or spruce tree. Voi = able to, butter, or "oh"), it doesn't have those like right,write, and rite. In Finnish, if the word is spelled differently( even slightly) it is pronounced differently. For example, Koira(dog) and Kissa(cat) are how you spell/say these words when they are the subject of the sentence, but Koiraa and Kissaa is used for when they are the object. The difference in pronunciation is that with the latter 2 you carry the ending a bit longer. And this slight difference can actually effect the meaning of a sentence. "Koira etsi Kissaa" and 'Kissaa etsi Koira" both mean that a dog is looking for a cat. The word order, unlike in English, doesn't matter here, So when spoken, the meaning relies on the subtle difference between the "a" and "aa" endings.

Or take kuka and kukka in Finnish, the first means who, and the second means flower. The only difference in pronunciation is that with the second, both ks are pronounced. Or vettä, viettä and viettää ( water, export, and "spend"/"celebrate"/ "lead" .)

For while now, I've been slowly trying to learn Finnish, since it was the natural tongue of all my grandparents. However this isn't going to be strictly about that but abut learning languages in general. They often start by teaching you a few simple phrases, that may come in useful, (hello, my name is... etc.) One of those phrases is often along the lines of "Do you speak English(or whatever language you normally speak)? For example, in Finnish, this would be "Puhetko* englanitia?" After some thought, I realized that there is no real reason you need to know how to say this. If you were in Finland and wanted to ask someone if they spoke English, you could just ask in English. If they do, they will understand you, and answer in English, and if they don't, they'll say something like "Ei"( no), or "en ymmärrä"( I don't understand), or give you some other indication that they don't. Either way, you've got your answer. Now, I can see where it would appear more polite to ask in Finnish( or in whatever the language is where you are), but in a purely logical sense. it is not strictly necessary. And of course, the one thing you definitely shouldn't do if you get the second response is to ask the question again, but LOUDER.... AND....SLOWER. *or "puhutteko" if you being formal or addressing more than one person.

Here are some equations that may help Where: t =Earth time T= ship time d= distance v = velocity a= acceleration For brevity: ch = hyperbolic cosine sh = hyperbolic sine th = hyperbolic tangent t=(c/a) sh(aT/c) = sqrt[(d/c)2 + 2d/a d=(c2/a) [ch(aT/c)-1] = (c2/a) (sqrt[1+(at/c)2]-1) v= c th(aT/c) = at/sqrt[1+(at/c)2] T= (c/a) sh-1(at/c) = (c/a) ch-1[ad/c2 +1]

I do know that, of as late, the pre-election polls have consistently predicted that Republicans would fare much better than they ended up doing in the election. So something does seem to be askew.

Just for fun, if you wanted the tidal influence to equal that now exerted by the Moon, you'd have to increase the orbit by a factor of 30, putting it somewhere in between the orbits of Himalia and Lysithea, with an orbital period of over 250 days.

If Earth orbited around Jupiter at the moon's present distance from Earth, then it would orbit Jupiter once every 1.43 days. Assuming it starts with its present rotation rate, then Jupiter would cross the sky every 3.33 days. However, it would be undergoing nearly 27,000 times the tidal forces it does now, and this would likely drive a great deal of geological heating and tidal braking, and tidal locking would be the eventual outcome. It wouldn't be a pleasant place to live.