Interesting and Humour - page 3191
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
And I do not deny at all the decision of the Potsdam Conference, according to which the northern part of the German province of East Prussia, together with its capital, Königsberg, was temporarily transferred to the Soviet Union.
And afterwards, at the signing of the treaty on boundaries, the Königsberg area was fully recognised as the possession of the Soviet Union.
I deny the phrase"ancient Russian".
Whose is it then? You should have written... the ancient Prussian? Exactly Prussian. not German, not Polish, not Czech.
You mean the non-existent state?
I deny the phrase"ancient Russian".
Are you suggesting that its antiquity should be abolished?
Or what are you suggesting? It is interesting to understand the motives for denial.
Linguistic nuances and errors in syntax and spelling...
I just think one should know and respect one's mother tongue. When I read many of the comments in this and other threads, I get the feeling that their authors are complete ignoramuses.
You're like Ivan Vassilyevich: "I have doubts again.
"It is inherent in man to err" -- there is an ancient Latin expression. Errors of syntax and spelling -- in a certain margin of error -- are normal.
As Muller said in the film "17 Moments of Spring" (close to the text): "I still don't know how to eat an apple correctly, with or without pips".
Are you suggesting that its antiquity should be abolished?
Or what are you suggesting? It is interesting to understand the motives for denial.
And if tomorrow, for example, Uzbekistan becomes part of Russia, are you also ready to call Samarkand an ancient Russian city?
Only not "city in Russia", but without "in" -- "city of Russia" (though it's the same thing).
And as long as "city is ancient" - "ancient city of Russia".
Russia is the successor of the USSR and the Russian Empire.
Königsberg was conquered at the end of World War II or World War II (whatever you like).
The fact that Russia fought wars and expanded its territories at the end of them is a fact and that's ok. If the USSR had not taken Königsberg, it would have gone to Poland or someone else, and Germany had been defeated.
It should be with "in" - in Russia, but not Russian. That someone fought wars is a fact, but it is not normal.
I suggest the only possible truth - a Russian city, an ancient city, but by no means an ancient Russian city.
And if tomorrow, for instance, Uzbekistan becomes part of Russia, are you also ready to call Samarkand an ancient Russian city?
Forum on trading, automated trading systems and testing trading strategies
Interesting and Humorous
Alexandr Saprykin, 2016.08.08 17:28
Whose is it then? You should have written. Ancient Prussian? Prussian. not German, not Polish, not Czech.
You mean the non-existent state?
I suggest the only possible truth - a Russian city, an ancient city, but not Russian in any way.
Are you denying the rules of logic?
You say that from a) "the ancient city of Königsberg" and b) "Königsberg -- a Russian city" -- it does not follow "the ancient city of Königsberg -- a Russian city"
That's exactly the "in" -- in Russia, but not Russian.
Whose city is it, then? It is in Russia, but it does not belong to Russia -- or what?
Whose is it then? You should have written... the ancient Prussian? Exactly Prussian. not German, not Polish, not Czech.
You mean of a non-existent state?