De Hoog-geleerde Dr. Antonio Magino, proffesoor en Matimaticus der Stadt Bolonia in Lombardyen.
Saudi Arabia isn’t an ICC member state, though, so they don’t have to comply with the warrant (probably part of why they picked Saudi Arabia).
If they want Europe to enforce the peace in Ukraine, a ‘deal’ without Europe is meaningless as well (you’d hope, anyway. Otherwise the European establishment would agree with America treating Europe like their bitch).
This can’t be the whole truth, though. What ivanafterall is describing is true for essentially the whole western world. Media (or at least high-brow media) feel they need to be respectable, and to be respectable you have to be perfectly neutral. Not just in America did established media feel the need trivialise Musk’s obvious Hitler salute, this happened all over. I follow Dutch and German media, and haven’t seen a mainline newspaper call it what it was.
Judging from this very polemic article by linguistic anthropologist Kathryn E. Graber, the argument is that a linguistic distinction that exists in Russian (and Ukrainian) is mirrorred in other languages using the definite article. ‘Na Ukraine’ on the one hand literally means ‘on Ukraine’, ‘v Ukraine’ on the other ‘in Ukraine’. Graber goes on to say that ‘In Russian, a person is “na” an unbounded territory, such as a hill, but “v” a bounded territory that is defined politically or institutionally, such as a nation-state.’ She would then probably also argue that the same, in English, goes for names like ‘the Congo’, being named after a river. The claim that this is a Soviet-era practice (if what she means by that is that it arose during the Soviet Union), is simply not true, though. In Google Books you can find plenty of titles with ‘the Ukraine’ from before 1900. The earliest mention I found in English (though I didn’t look very well) was from 1672.
It anyway strikes me as very performative. You can well argue that language influences the way we view the world (though, I think the way we view the world influences the language we use much more). Even so, there are obviously much bigger (concrete) threats to Ukrainian sovereignty than (to Ukrainians) foreigners using a definite article or not. Thus, it becomes less a matter of protecting sovereignty, and more a matter of simple respect to Ukrainian sensibilities. Ukrainians may take offence at you using the definite article, and you may want to prevent that by not saying ‘the Ukraine’.
I’m not sure what you mean here. As far as spelling goes, Dutch is far more consistent than English.
You’re mentioning some none-standard Dutch which is often perceived as incorrect (and it is indeed according to the rules of the standard language norm). Yet, if you were correct in your claim that ‘groter als jij’ was ‘never proper Dutch and sound[s] wrong to every native Dutch speaker’, no native Dutch speaker would ever use ‘groter als jij’. Native Dutch speakers do this often, though, and have been doing it at least since the seventeenth century (eg. this quote from 1670: ‘Zy [de vrucht ”Peci”] is niet veel groter als een kastanie …, vol sap en aengenaem van smaek: herder dan een gemeine appel, en een weinig zuurachtig,’ - ‘It [the fruit “Peci”] is not much bigger than a chestnut …, full of juice and pleasantly tasting: harder than a common apple, and a bit sourish,’).
Sorry to have gone so off-topic here, though.
EDIT: Woops, got confused myself
The plural -s in Dutch only gets an apostrophe if the stem word ends on an open vowel. So it’s cavia-cavia’s on the one hand, but kikker-kikkers on the other (and la[de]-lades). So even in Dutch this’d be incorrect ;)
This is it, and we (in the west) have gone so far to the right that the richest man of the world, with a powerful position (formally) near government can do the Hitler salute and the established media just shrugs.
Doing the Hitler salute used to make you a pariah. Now, it’s just a thing the extreme right does to ‘provoke’ (that word I saw used to describe Bannon’s salute in a German newspaper title). In a couple of years, it is normal that the right does this, and the established media doesn’t bat an eye anymore.
It’s clear that you still can’t trust established media to be a force against nazism. They’ll start analysing the nazi takeover as nazi only when it’s much too late, out of fear of not being ‘neutral’.