RRID:AB_2750794

RRID:AB_2750794

Bloomington Drosophila Stock Center

RRID:IMSR_JAX:029847

JAX:007909

RRID:IMSR_JAX:024948

RRID:CVCL_8792

RRID:CVCL_8792

RRID:CVCL_2124

RRID:CVCL_2078

RRID:CVCL_0014

RRID:CVCL_0006

RRID:CVCL_2959

100845

50459

44362

44361

xCas9(3.7)-BE4

CBE4max-SpG

CBE4max-NG

ABEmax-SpG

ABEmax-SpRY

SPACE-NG

pMD2.G

psPAX2

12259

Addgene_12260

90195

plasmid_85588

plasmid_85589

plasmid_46886

plasmid_88900

plasmid_55172

plasmid_26702

plasmid_90189

plasmid_90196

60032

Addgene

12260

12259

69496

52961

63670

58766

63672

52535

plasmid 26064

pBiFC-bJunVN173

pBiFC-bFosVC155

80490

plasmid_48138

RRID:CVCL_0399

RRID:CVCL_0042

RRID:CVCL_1906

RRID:AB_2576208

RRID:AB_90264

RRID:AB_2687626

RRID:AB_823664

RRID:AB_626633

RRID:AB_2171223

RRID:AB_2118010

pGBW-m4134143

pGBW-m4133902

pGBW-m4252831

pGBW- m4133209

pSpCas9(BB)-2 A-Puro

17454

48138

RRID:Addgene_12679

RRID:SCR_003070

RRID:SCR_002798

RRID:CVCL_6782

AB_2752108

AB_1727475

RRID:AB_2738827

RRID:AB_398673

RRID:AB_2726261

RRID:AB_1645475

plasmid_60229

plasmid_35200

RRID:Addgene_39240

Addgene_190152

Addgene_68469

Plasmid_25989

plasmid_77531

plasmid_118018

plasmid_26477

her son was unable to help

. Tyrion had heard thatelsewhere along the Wall, between the three fortresses, thewildwood had come creeping back over the decades, that there wereplaces where grey-green sentinels and pale white weirwoods hadtaken root in the shadow of the Wall itself,

“Friend.”

“Most of my kin arebastards,

Help him, Tyrion.”

“Tell Robb that I’m going to command the Night’s Watch andkeep him safe, so he might as well take up needlework with the girlsand have Mikken melt down his sword for horseshoes.”“Your brother is bigger than me,” Tyrion said with a laugh. “Idecline to deliver any message that might get me killed.”“Rickon will ask when I’m coming home. Try to explain whereI’ve gone, if you can. Tell him he can have all my things while I’maway, he’ll like that.”People seemed to be asking a great deal of him today, TyrionLannister thought. “You could put all this in a letter, you know.”“Rickon can’t read yet. Bran ...”

“I know.” Jon sounded strangely sad.

“The watch commander tells me I must walk, to keep my bloodfrom freezing, but he never said how fast.”

The Royce boy

You might send youngSnow. He would be glad for a chance to see his brothers.”

Even his raven joined in, cawing loudly from abovethe window. “Duel! Duel! Duel!”

He hopped up on his chair and began poking at Thorne’schest with the tiny fork.

“War?” The fear was plain on Catelyn’s face.“It will not come to that,”

I have found you more than a friend. I have found a brother I’dthought lost.”

“As you say, my lord.” Catelyn lifted her face, and Ned kissed her.Her maimed ngers clutched against his back with a desperatestrength, as if to hold him safe forever in the shelter of her arms

You would be the last man I would willingly include in anyparty, Lord Baelish.”

The accusation is treason either way. Accuse the kingand you will dance with Ilyn Payne before the words are out of yourmouth.

Whatwas it that Jon had said when they found the pups in the snow?Your children were meant to have these pups, my lord. And he hadkilled Sansa’s, and for what? Was it guilt he was feeling? Or fear? Ifthe gods had sent these wolves, what folly had he done?

Inside, Catelyn was waiting. She cried out when she saw him, ranto him, and embraced him ercely.“My lady,” Ned whispered in wonderment.

“Your wife is inside,” Littlenger said.It was the nal insult. “Brandon was too kind to you,” Ned said ashe slammed the small man back against a wall and shoved hisdagger up under the little pointed chin beard.

He had only to look at Sansa’s faceto feel the rage twisting inside him once again. The last fortnight oftheir journey had been a misery. Sansa blamed Arya and told herthat it should have been Nymeria who died. And Arya was lost aftershe heard what had happened to her butcher’s boy. Sansa criedherself to sleep, Arya brooded silently all day long, and EddardStark dreamed of a frozen hell reserved for the Starks of Winterfell.

Of late I’ve had to turn to the Faith. TheHigh Septon haggles worse than a Dornish shmonger.”

Renly Baratheon laughed alou

“Here in the south, they say you are all made of ice, and meltwhen you ride below the Neck.”“I do not plan on melting soon, Lord Baelish. You may count onit.” Ned moved to the council table and said, “Maester Pycelle, Itrust you are well.”

“That was a grievous error, Lord Snow,” he said at last in theacid tones of an enemy.

“I’ll take that wager, Ser Alliser,” Jon said. “I’d love to see Ghostjuggle.”

Jon smiled at him. “I’m sorry about your wrist. Robb used thesame move on me once, only with a wooden blade. It hurt likeseven hells, but yours must be worse. Look, if you want, I can showyou how to defend that.”

Jon ran down the stairs, a smile on his face and Robb’s letter inhis hand. “My brother is going to live,” he told the guards. Theyexchanged a look. He ran back to the common hall, where he foundTyrion Lannister just nishing his meal. He grabbed the little manunder the arms, hoisted him up in the air, and spun him around in acircle. “Bran is going to live!” he whooped. Lannister looked startled.Jon put him down and thrust the paper into his hands. “Here, readit,” he said.

He realized he was crying.And then, through the tears, he found the sense in the words, andraised his head. “He woke up,” he said. “The gods gave him back.”“Crippled,” Mormont said. “I’m sorry, boy. Read the rest of theletter.”He looked at the words, but they didn’t matter. Nothing mattered.Bran was going to live. “My brother is going to live,” he toldMormont. The Lord Commander shook his head, gathered up a

kernels of corn. “I amtold you can read.” He shook the raven o,

Jon scarcely heard him. He brushed o Tyrion’s hand and strodeacross the hall. He was running by the time he hit the doors. Heraced to the Commander’s Keep, dashing through drifts of old snow.When the guards passed him, he took the tower steps two at a time.By the time he burst into the presence of the Lord Commander, hisboots were soaked and Jon was wild-eyed and panting. “Bran,” hesaid. “What does it say about Bran?”

His name day had come and gone, unremarked, afortnight past.

Once Castle Blackhad housed ve thousand ghting men with all their horses andservants and weapons. Now it was home to a tenth that number,and parts of it were falling into ruin.

nd west and vanishing in the far distance, immense and unbroken.This is the end of the world, it seemed to say

ou leave them nothing. You shame them.Does that make you proud?

In his dreams,she was beautiful, and highborn, and her eyes were kind.

little Rickon, bright eyes shining ashe begged for a sweet; Robb, his rival and best friend and constantcompanion; Bran, stubborn and curious, always wanting to followand join in whatever Jon and Robb were doing. He missed the girlstoo, even Sansa, who never called him anything but “my halfbrother” since she was old enough to understand what bastardmeant. And Arya ... he missed her even more than Robb, skinnylittle thing that she was, all scraped knees and tangled hair and tornclothes, so erce and willful. Arya never seemed to t, no more thanhe had ... yet she could always make Jon smile. He would giveanything to be with her now, to muss up her hair once more andwatch her make a face, to hear her nish a sentence with him.

As he watched his uncle lead his horse into the tunnel, Jon hadremembered the things that Tyrion Lannister told him on thekingsroad, and in his mind’s eye he saw Ben Stark lying dead, hisblood red on the snow. The thought made him sick. What was hebecoming? Afterward he sought out Ghost in the loneliness of hiscell, and buried his face in his thick white fur.

on wondered if hisfather had known what the Wall would be like. He must have, hethought; that only made it hurt the worse.

“Tyrion Lannister.”

Users of our plugin said they still visited Wikipedia directly and reported that when they knew the information they were getting from ChatGPT was coming from Wikipedia, they tended to trust it more.

The removal efforts were facilitatedby the fifteenth US Census, which in 1930 included “Mexican” as a racial categoryfor the first and only time in its history.

Here, we tested Nematostella interactions with the grass shrimp Palaemonetes sp. and the killifish Fundulus heteroclitus at egg, planula, primary polyp, and adult life stages (Table 1). Grass shrimps are reportedly predators of Nematostella (Kneib, 1985; Kneib, 1988), however, in our observations, when encountering the tentacles of adult polyps of Nematostella burrowed in substrate, shrimps immediately ‘jumped’ away from the tentacles (Video 2).

Venom is often studied because the compounds it contains have the potential to be developed into new drugs. The jellyfish and coral relatives of Nematostella may also produce different venoms at different life stages

I dont know if im hitting too hard or not. ( second image is the backup paper behind the actual one)

I'd agree that much of the time 'not prefer' is a perfectly adequate way of conveying the same sense as 'disprefer' (just as 'not agree' will for most purposes convey the same sense as 'disagree', and 'not like' the same sense as 'dislike'). However, they aren't strictly equivalent; I might neither prefer nor disprefer Coke to Pepsi, but rather be neutral between them. Possibly the purpose for which 'disprefer' is most useful is cancelling implications – 'I don't prefer it – though I don't disprefer it either'.

It's an interesting position and had me rethinking things a bit, but the way I look at it, the actions themselves are negative; it's their boundary conditions which are different. Take for instance embark/disembark. In pseudo-mathematical terms, I would tend to think they increment or decrement one's embarkedness, with an upper boundary of 1 (aboard), and a lower boundary of 0 (ashore). The non-existence of values >1 (super-aboard) or <0 (anti-aboard) shouldn't affect the relative polarity of the actions themselves. I think. Looking through the rest of the list, there's a variety of different boundary conditions. Prove/disprove would range from 1 to -1 (1=proven, 0=asserted but untested, -1=proven false), entangle/disentangle seems to range from 0 to infinity (because you can always be a little more entangled, can't you?), and please/displease is perhaps wholly unbounded (if we imagine that humanity has an infinite capacity for both suffering and joy).

her first remark upon embarking would no doubt be "on a scale from one to on a boat, we're on a boat!

snowcloning

It was enclosed in scare quotes, a sort of acknowledgment that the author knew it was non-standard, but was too apt for the purpose to resist. I remember reading it and trying to think of the “real” word that would be employed there, but could not find a satisfactory alternative. Since then, I’ve found myself unable to resist using the word when appropriate, due to its utility!

I'm surprised no one has mentioned disambiguate in this context. It sounds horrible and outlandish on first hearing, has a reasonably transparent meaning (which may shed some light on the semantics of dis-), and seems to be used almost exclusively by linguists.

I am disinterested and uninterested in this debate.

If you disprove something, you haven't necessarily proved the opposite. If you disprove something, you have indeed proved its negation. If you disapprove of an action, you do indeed approve of not doing that action (so, disapproving X is approving not-X).

(That is, when you disprefer that George be elected, you prefer the negation, that George not be elected, rather than just you do not prefer that George be elected, which is compatible with indifference.)

Who says it's not a word? Not a word, simply because lexicographers have not recognized it? When a lexicographer recognizes it, it has already been in use! Even Mr. Fiske says it is a word, although he obviously disprefers it.

I believe it is possible to disprefer something while either 1. not disliking it, or 2. liking it but not intensely enough to be the preference. As in, "I like tart apples, but I sometimes disprefer them as an ingredient on a green salad." It doesn't and hasn't, meant I would refuse to eat a salad with this ingredient included, but there are times when my preference would have been to have a salad without them.

idiolect

"Disprove" is fairly negative. "Prove" -> establish as true; "disprove" -> establish as false. I'd say "disprove" is like "disagree".

I think you linguists worry too much. It's a simple enough formation using a very common prefix, and while it is not clear whether "I disprefer" means "I do not prefer" or "I prefer something other than" or "I prefer the opposite of" or "I stop preferring", either it'll settle down to one meaning or it'll carry a range. So what? This is the first time I've heard the word but I don't find it particularly puzzling.

Poetry and children both have many interesting warpages and torsionings of language, all legal but serving to make the brain choke slightly, as the lungs do with a sudden whiff of ammonia or other unpleasant gas. 'Disprefer' is another good one!

'Disprefer' is another good one! It fits well with a wonderful pungent comment about some holiday meal by my nephew when he was about 10: Well, I don't love the parsnips …. Apparently it was a common construction for his classmates in 4th grade, a truth-in-humor bit of sass enjoyed by all. I'll introduce 'disprefer' to him as a high-falutin' possibility for his more grown-up years.

The problem with "object to" as an alternative to "disprefer" is it doesn't mean the same thing. And in the specific example, there's no evidence that people who commonly choose one word/phrase/construction over another object to the word/phrase/construction not chosen, so "object to" doesn't work.

I have become a dyed in the wool descriptionist because of Language Log, and have been known to cite entries here in battle against of the prescriptionistas of the Axis of Evil within the blogosphere.

on reasonable uses of "disprefer" — it's probably true that its meaning is not immediately apparent, and using it when addressing general audiences probably avoided (dispreferred?), but of course, it depends on the context I think. It is a term that has an obvious jargon aspect, but that doesn't seem to me to make it uniformly verboten. Other, DNA would never have entered the popular lexicon, or quantum… I'm sure those parallels are inapt in several ways, but my point, which I think still stands, is that while clarity to the broadest audience possible is often a laudable goal, this also doesn't mean it should be the only or always the chief goal. It seems to me technical words get disseminated and incorporated popularly through their use outside of strictly technical fora, and while several people said they did a double take or didn't immediately understand the word (or misunderstood its meaning), it's also true that this can happen with perfectly reasonable, standard vernacular constructions, especially reasonable standard constructions that are expressing a counter-intuitive (even if true) claim. Just sayin' — "can people understand this without giving it but a moment's thought" is a high (or ultra-low) car to hold all non-technical communication to. (That said, I also have a love for arcane words, shades of meaning, and being able to express certain moods/valences/concepts precisely. THAT said, I'm no linguist, and probably won't be using this word commonly for all my talk.)

To me, dis- negates in words like disagree, and displease. If you disagree with a position, that (generally) implies that you agree with the opposite position. If you displease someone, you make them angry or unhappy, you don't leave them feeling neutral.

On the other hand, I feel that dis- neutralises in words like disprove, disapprove, disenchant, disentangle, disembark, discharge, and so on. If you disprove something, you haven't necessarily proved the opposite. If you disapprove of an action, that doesn't mean you would approve of the opposite action. If you're disenchanted, it doesn't necessarily mean you now hate what you were formerly enchanted with. And clearly once you disentangle something it's back to zero; you haven't "anti-tangled" it.

The main problem with disprefer is that it violates de Buitléir's rule: If *I* use a word you're not familiar with, your education or experience is lacking. If *you* use a word I'm not familiar with, you're being a show-off or making up words.

I also like "infelicitous" for this purpose.

On lackey, more or less following up on Mark Liberman's comment above: except in period references (where it refers to 'a footman, esp. a running footman; a valet' — OED2, citations from 1529), the word now comes with a sneer.

So what's the problem here? The problem is that it's not a word except to small, relatively closed circles of specialists such as linguists (saving your reverences). And, pace those people who think its meaning is clear on first sight, it's not (and it's telling that some people's response to Amy's saying that she hadn't understood it was to chastise her rather than admit that perhaps they were wrong about its transparency). Hell, I have an MPhil in linguistics, and even I dislike it and would try to avoid it if possible. I think it's fine for use in the field, where you can expect that your readers will be familiar with it, but it's solipsistic verging on insulting to use it with the public at large; showing off specialist vocabulary (which this is) is not polite.

Having read this, it appears that there is a reasonable consensus and, given that, I will probably add it to my vocabulary as it does fill a niche – but I'll be careful where and with whom I use it.

I wonder what makes it so ugly — its newspeakiness?

rant against the horrible solecism, duck tape

The complexity of digital humanities as a “field” comes partly from its disciplinary and institutional diversity, and its multiple modes of engagement with information technology

The linguistic phenomenon of "a multi-use, customizable, instantly recognizable, time-worn, quoted or misquoted phrase or sentence that can be used in an entirely open array of different variants" was originally described by linguist Geoffrey K. Pullum in 2003.[2] Pullum later described snowclones as "some-assembly-required adaptable cliché frames for lazy journalists".[1]

technology

At the entry for irregardless, we provide a paragraph in which we note that the use of the word is still met with considerable objection, and we even go so far as to advise the reader to use regardless instead—which is about as close as we get to offering a usage prescription in our dictionaries.

Lexicography is the practice of creating books, computer programs, or databases that reflect lexicographical work and are intended for public use.

julgamentos dos mais de 6 mil processos que ainda temos até o final de 2026.

Memorial aos membros da comunidade USP vítimas do regime da Ditadura Militar. Foto: Marcos Santos/USP Imagens

lei de memória,

não se traduziu no ordenamento jurídico.

Foi e é memória

Uma lei de memória e não esquecimento.

portanto

Mutações do conceito de anistia na justiça de transição brasileira

Tenho pesquisado e produzido textos acadêmicos e orientado alunas e alunos do mestrado e do doutorado no Programa de Pós-Graduação em Direito (PPGD) da Universidade de Brasília, UnB, onde sou professora Associada desde 2009. Atualmente coordeno o PPGD e leciono na graduação e na pós-graduação. O trabalho na Comissão de Anistia é voluntário, não remunerado. Coordeno também um Grupo de Pesquisa sobre Justiça de Transição no mesmo PPGD.

Transitional Justice, Political Amnesty, Democracy, Memory

Move, pause, move through the rooms,White birch leaves shiver in breezesWhile guards watch the world,Helicopters making their long humming tripsTrading pollen and nectarIn the airof theSea of Economy,

Rivers that never give upTrill under the roadbed, over the bedrock

trash chair at the curb

sea anemone

Siren howls echoingThrough the gridlock of structures,Vibrating with helicopters,the bass toneof a high jet.

New leaves, “new green” on a rock ledgeOf steep little uplift, tucked among trees

Hollow honeycomb brain-buildings

Step out to the nightlife, good food, after work—

Equitable god, Celanese god, noble line,Old Union Carbide god,Each catching shares of the squared blocked shadow

A murmur of traffic approaching,

Empty eye sockets of buildings just built

sea anemone

Glass, aluminum, aggregate gravel,Iron. Stainless steel

keen-eyed

Rare people! Seen from a safe distance

Linguistic description is often contrasted with linguistic prescription

It is common sense that AI would hardly be perfect, especially in knowledge-rich domains, such as usability testing.Thus, it would be inappropriate to have the WoZ AI suggest all the ground-truth problems. To make the WoZ AI morerealistic, we randomly added 5 (18%) false problems (false positives) and removed 4 (14%) true problems (false negatives)in the two selected videos in total.

"Less favored" or "less preferred" may be the preferable word choice most of the time (because it's usually about degree of preference, not merely a binary "preferred or not")