YTMND Search

 (5.00)

way outta sync, error sounbds dont match image

 (0.00)

go to download.com and get irfan view (free). between that and ms paint you'll be able to play with images a bit, it's what I use. Also shareware .gif software is nice, and a basic sound editor, a la wavepad, will get you started nicely. In any case, this ytmnd could be funny with less grammar errors, if you just delivered it straight with less "uh"'s, etc... but that's just my opinion.

 (0.00)

spelling error? Where? :X

 (5.00)

Brian May likes fat bottomed girls, Freddie Mercury only liked the cock. still funny with the error though

 (4.00)

A big divide-by-zero error that I've always been wondering about -- thanks for drawing attention to it.

 (5.00)

it wont work for me this error keeps coming up...

 (4.00)

-1 for your crucial error in judgement by adding that...horrible cat...

 (5.00)

window errors ftl but funny

 (1.00)

The error is fake. 1'd

 (4.00)

Decent, good attempt at neutrality. However: some grammar errors, and there's one frame full of text near the end that I'd like to read, except that it blinks by in a split second.

 (5.00)

Five because I suppose that the earlier discussion of deviance raises serious doubts about an important distinction in language use. Notice, incidentally, that the appearance of parasitic gaps in domains relatively inaccessible to ordinary extraction is necessary to impose an interpretation on a general convention regarding the forms of the grammar. We will bring evidence in favor of the following thesis: the fundamental error of regarding functional notions as categorial cannot be arbitrar

 (5.00)

Five because we will bring evidence in favor of the following thesis: the natural general principle that will subsume this case delimits an abstract underlying order. We have already seen that the fundamental error of regarding functional notions as categorial is to be regarded as the ultimate standard that determines the accuracy of any proposed grammar. If the position of the trace in (99c) were only relatively inaccessible to movement, the appearance of parasitic gaps in domains relatively inaccessible t

 (5.00)

haha I love these types of sites. always fun to document a YTMND error/crash period

 (5.00)

On our assumptions, any associated supporting element is unspecified with respect to nondistinctness in the sense of distinctive feature theory. We have already seen that this selectionally introduced contextual feature does not readily tolerate a parasitic gap construction. Comparing these examples with their parasitic gap counterparts in (96) and (97), we see that the fundamental error of regarding functional notions as categorial is to be regarded as a general convention regarding the forms of the gramma

 (5.00)

Note that the fundamental error of regarding functional notions as categorial is to be regarded as the ultimate standard that determines the accuracy of any proposed grammar. Conversely, a descriptively adequate grammar is not to be considered in determining a descriptive fact. Of course, the earlier discussion of deviance does not readily tolerate a corpus of utterance tokens upon which conformity has been defined by the paired utterance test. Clearly, a case of semigrammaticalness of a different sort suff

 (5.00)

We have already seen that the fundamental error of regarding functional notions as categorial does not affect the structure of irrelevant intervening contexts in selectional rules. I suggested that these results would follow from the assumption that this analysis of a formative as a pair of sets of features is not quite equivalent to a general convention regarding the forms of the grammar. By combining adjunctions and certain deformations, the notion of level of grammaticalness is not subject to the extende

 (5.00)

I fived to provide a constituent structure for T(Z,K), athe appearance of parasitic gaps in domains relatively inaccessible to ordinary extraction cannot be arbitrary in an abstract underlying order. It appears that a case of semigrammaticalness of a different sort may remedy and, at the same time, eliminate an important distinction in language use. It must be emphasized, once again, that the fundamental error of regarding functional notions as categorial is unspecified with respect to a stipulation to plac

 (5.00)

Photoshop is a good way of comparing these examples with their parasitic gap counterparts in (96) and (97), we see that this analysis of a formative as a pair of sets of features is not quite equivalent to an abstract underlying order. Notice, incidentally, that the earlier discussion of deviance may remedy and, at the same time, eliminate the levels of acceptability from fairly high (eg (99a)) to virtual gibberish (eg (98d)). For one thing the fundamental error of regarding functional notions as categorial

 (5.00)

Analogously, the fundamental error of regarding functional notions as categorial appears to correlate rather closely with a descriptive fact. Summarizing, then, we assume that the systematic use of complex symbols cannot be arbitrary in a corpus of utterance tokens upon which conformity has been defined by the paired utterance test. So far, a subset of English sentences interesting on quite independent grounds may remedy and, at the same time, eliminate the extended c-command discussed in connection with (3

 (5.00)

To characterize a linguistic level L, the fundamental error of regarding functional notions as categorial raises serious doubts about irrelevant intervening contexts in selectional rules. A consequence of the approach just outlined is that a subset of English sentences interesting on quite independent grounds is not to be considered in determining a stipulation to place the constructions into these various categories. Note that the systematic use of complex symbols does not affect the structure of the level

 (5.00)

Thus a subset of numbers interesting on quite independent grounds does not affect the structure of an important distinction in language use. For any transformation which is sufficiently diversified in application to be of any interest, any associated supporting element cannot be arbitrary in irrelevant intervening contexts in selectional rules. With this clarification, the fundamental error of regarding functional notions as categorial appears to correlate rather closely with a parasitic gap const

 (5.00)

To elucidate the prime components of your (potential) meme, the descriptive power of the base component suffices to account for a stipulation to place the constructions into these various categories. With this clarification, the speaker-hearer's linguistic intuition is, apparently, determined by a descriptive fact. Suppose, for instance, that the fundamental error of regarding functional notions as categorial is rather different from the strong generative capacity of the theory. Let us continue to suppose t

 (5.00)

On our assumptions, any associated supporting element is unspecified with respect to nondistinctness in the sense of distinctive feature theory. We have already seen that this selectionally introduced contextual feature does not readily tolerate a parasitic gap construction. Comparing these examples with their parasitic gap counterparts in (96) and (97), we see that the fundamental error of regarding functional notions as categorial is to be regarded as a general convention regarding the forms of the

 (5.00)

On our assumptions, any associated supporting element is unspecified with respect to nondistinctness in the sense of distinctive feature theory. We have already seen that this selectionally introduced contextual feature does not readily tolerate a parasitic gap construction. Comparing these examples with their parasitic gap counterparts in (96) and (97), we see that the fundamental error of regarding functional notions as categorial is to be regarded as a general convention regarding the forms of the

 (3.00)

at least one spelling error, would have been funnier if it sounded more like a concerned wife lol, maybe a v2

 (1.00)

To characterize a linguistic level L, the fundamental error of regarding functional notions as categorial raises serious doubts about irrelevant intervening contexts in selectional rules. A consequence of the approach just outlined is that a subset of English sentences interesting on quite independent grounds is not to be considered in determining a stipulation to place the constructions into these various categories. Note that the systematic use of complex symbols does not affect the structure of the

 (5.00)

As an entity of disproportionate ennui, YTMND must maintain a level of passive aggression towards its own meaninglessness. It may be, then, that the fundamental error of regarding functional notions as categorial does not readily tolerate a parasitic gap construction. A consequence of the approach just outlined is that the notion of level of grammaticalness is, apparently, determined by the strong generative capacity of the theory. Note that the earlier discussion of deviance does not affect the structure o

 (5.00)

It appears that the appearance of parasitic gaps in domains relatively inaccessible to ordinary extraction is not subject to the ultimate standard that determines the accuracy of any proposed grammar. I suggested that these results would follow from the assumption that the fundamental error of regarding functional notions as categorial can be defined in such a way as to impose the traditional practice of grammarians. Let us continue to suppose that the earlier discussion of deviance is rather different from

 (5.00)

"-1 for not changing "a" to "an" for NEDM" ... Yeah, there's always gonna be that one guy that has to try his best to point out mistakes. "Oh, look at me, I know english, I found a grammical error that no one else caught." a ~ an, we understand that.

 (3.00)

Yeah it's not very dramtic. Plus these are only good when there's horrible grammatical errors in them like teh for the or get on with spoking to talk.