Which one is correct? I always thought many go with plural countable nouns while much go with uncountable ones. And "is" is used for singular nouns, so i think "there is too many" is incorrect, because "many" already means the implied noun is plural.
The thing is i hear many natives say "there is too many"...
Help! Ths.

1. If you're a native English speaker, have you ever played Mad Libs? Or at least, do you know what they are? I'm not actually sure how well-known they are.
2. If you're a native Polish speaker, have you ever seen a similar thing for Polish?

For those who don't know, Mad Libs are games where you have a pre-written story with blanks labeled by parts of speech and you ask someone to give random words to fill in the story. For example,

The _________ house has an old ______ in it. adjective noun There are also five _____________ nearby. noun (plural) 

You would ask your friend for "an adjective, a singular noun, and a plural noun" and write in whatever words they suggest. Then you both read the story, and the result is often quite funny.
As the second sentence illustrates, a Mad Lib usually tells you what grammatical changes to make to the words, and it occurred to me that a Polish version would be terrible if it tried to fully describe the grammar of each word: instead of just "singular noun" as in English, it would be something like "singular, masculine, accusative, inanimate noun". Granted, it could just say "noun" and then the person writing in the supplied words would make whatever grammatical changes were necessary. My point is that you couldn't just put "dog" in a sentence that's missing a noun because

• It is a book. → To jest książka.
• I have a book. → Mam książkę.
• I don't have a book. → Nie mam książki.
• I am writing in the book. → Piszę w książce.

are all slightly different. So a Polish Mad Lib would need more editorial work while playing than an English Mad Lib does. Maybe that means they're less likely to exist? And maybe I'm over-estimating how common they are in English too.

I have a question about the semantics of generics. I know the most common approach is to understand the genericity of certain bare plurals in terms of some kind of modifier. E.g., Americans are patriotic means: In general, Americans are patriotic; or Americans normally are patriotic; or Americans tend to be patriotic. But I have a vague sense that sometimes such a bare plural is understood/treated as ascribing a property, patriotic-ness, to an entity of sorts, one denoted by Americans. This is just a vague sense. I haven’t done much thinking about how this would go; I just figure someone has tried this approach. So: does anyone know of any researchers who have tried to give the semantics of generics by treating the plural noun as referring to a singular entity?

Hello! I am trying to translate a scholium on Aristophanes Frogs. It is numbered 330.
Internet Archive Link - It is on page 284/5.
Here is my copy pasted transcription, I'm worried not everything has been copied correctly:
στέφανον μύρτων : λυρσίνῳ στεφάνῳ ἐστεφανοῦντο οἵ μεμυημένοι, οὖὗχ, ὥς τινες νομίζουσι, χισσίνῳ. δὲ ᾿Απολλόδωρος χαὶ τοὺς θεσμοθέτας φησὶ διὰ τοῦτο μυρσίνῃ στέφεσθαι, ὅτι οἰχείως ἔχει πρὸς τὸ " τὸν ἣ θεὸς χαὶ ὅτι τοῖς χθονίοις ἀφιέρωτο. ---- ἣ μυρσίνη φχείωται τοῖς χθονίοις θεοῖς, Διονύσου δεδωχότος. ὅτε ἀνήγαγε τὴν Σεμέλην. τρία γὰρ αὐτῷ ᾧχείωται, κισσὸς, ἄμπελος, μυρσίνη. μυθολογοῦσι δ᾽ ἐν Σάμῳ μόνη θεῶν μὴ προσφέρεσθαι τὴ ρα. ἐπεὶ γὰρ; ὥς φασιν, ἐξητεῖτο τὴν ψυχὴν τῆς Σεμέλης τοὺς χάτω θεοὺς, χαθάπερ ἦν ἐπηγγελμένον, ὑποσχέσθαι λέγουσιν αὐτῇ τὸν Ἄδην τοῦτο δράσειν, τοῦ Διονύσου τῶν μάλιστα τερπόντων αὐτῷ ἀντίψυ χον ἀντ᾽ ἐχείνης πέμψαντος" τὸν δὲ Διόνυσον πυθόμενον τὰ παρὰ τῶν χάτω θεῶν ἐπεσταλμένα σοφίσασθαι πρὸς ταῦτα καὶ τριῶν ὄντων αὐτῷ μάλιστα ἠγαπημένων, τοῦ τε χισσοῦ χαὶ τῆς ἀυπέλου χαὶ τῆς μυρσίνης, ἀποστεῖλαι τοῖς κάτω θεοῖς αὐτήν. δηλοῖ δὲ χαὶ Ἰοφῶν ὃ τραγιχός. Υ.
My translation so far: (my questions are in the parentheses):
Crown of Myrtle: The mystics are crowned with myrtle crowns (Why is this singular? As in, they are each crowned with a myrtle crown?), not, as they say, with ivy crowns (again, singular, same reason?). But Apollodorus and the lawgivers they crown (themselves? can I add that?) with myrtle (dative of reference? possession?) on account of this: That the goddess has (οἰχείως - domesticity?) towards nature and that it is a dedication (αφιεροτα - as a noun?) to the Chthonic ones. The myrtle (ψχσιωται? φχείωται? ωχσιωται? I am not sure what the first letter or second letter (kappa or chi) of that word is.) to the Chthonic gods, Dionysus gave, when he brought up Semele. Because he (ωχσιωται, the word again) three things: the ivy, the vine, and the myrtle. And so they tell the tale in Samos that one of the gods attacked Hera (this doesn't make sense in context, and so I think it is wrong). Because after, as it is said, he sought (εξητειτο?) the soul of Semele (from? can I add that?) the gods below, just as he promised not present? they chose (to do? δρασειν?) Hades, of Dionysus one of the things he delighted in most of all (αντιψυχον? something he loved?) before he would send the woman (up? can I add that?). And so convinced, Dionysus (παρα? what is that doing here?) the gods below (επεσταλμενα?) (σοφίσασθαι? to be wise?) for this and of the three things most of all he loved, of both the Ivy and the vine and the myrtle, sending her (it?) to the underworld gods. And he also sends Iophon the tragedian.
Thanks for any help!

It has been a while since I have come across a Youtube video that is so terrible as to move me to write a post here, but lo and behold. Knowledgia (whom I mentioned before in another post) attempts to explain the historical reasons for the decline of Christian groups in Anatolia within a measly 12 minutes, which is typically the harbinger of bad news as far as historical accuracy is concerned. After watching it, I can indeed confirm that it is not only inaccurate, but also astoundingly bad through and through.
The video begins by trying to establish just how Christian Anatolia used to be, and in this attempt it makes the first of its errors. They claim that two of the most important cities in the history of Christianity are Constantinople and Antioch which lie within Anatolia. This is of course false; Constantinople (before being transformed into a transcontinental city by the Ottomans) lied solely on the European side at what is now the Fatih region of Istanbul, while Antioch - while being a part of Turkey - is not geographically within Anatolia. The term "Anatolia" may fluctuate in meaning based how one uses it, For example, we can view the Turkish "Anadolu" as analogous to the earlier toponym "Rum" whose borders were more nebulous and not as well-defined. However, in modern terms (and especially in English), Anatolia is a much more well-defined geographical region which does not include those two cities. It does include numerous others of significance in Christian history (some of them being early cradles of the religion, and mentioned in John's Revelation), but Knowledgia completely omits them over the course of the video, albeit they do correctly mention that Anatolia was home to early Christian communities more broadly.
The next mistakes in Knowledgia's narrative come when they try to explain the splitting of Christianity during the Great Schism and how that manifested in the demographics between east and west. The initial description (albeit an abrupt jump from the previous section without adequate explanation) is decent at summarizing it, with the only minor mistake being calling Constantinople the centre of Orthodox Christianity which is not true, or at least not in the same manner as Rome was for Catholicism. This owes to the much more decentralized structure of the Orthodox church and the fact all leaders of autocephalous regional churches are seen as equals. Rather, the mistake comes from claiming that while western Europe was uniform religiously, with Jews facing restrictions and discrimination, Byzantium was "multicultural". There is a debate to be had about just how truly multicultural Byzantium really was in an ethnic or linguistic sense, with an expected plurality existing even as late as the 11th century when the Great Schism occurred. However, there is no question about religious affiliations, with Byzantium being no more multiconfessional than other European states.
Jews (contrary to what Knowledgia claim) were not more numerous in Byzantium than in western Europe, and geography certainly didn't play any part in this. Said Jews also faced discrimination and occasional persecution by the Byzantines, albeit arguably to a lesser degree than in western Europe. Muslims were never a substantial population within Byzantium, which had laws and social conventions heavily favouring Christians at the expense of heathens. Constantinople itself had only one mosque which was primarily intended for Muslim diplomatic envoys, merchants and travelers. And of course deviant forms of Christianity were often deemed heretical and persecuted. This often included the Miaphysite Armenians; themselves a native Christian population of Anatolia.
And how could any self-respecting pop history video about the Byzantines possibly omit the posterboy of bad historical takes that is the battle of Manzikert. Knowledgia regurgitate all major myths about the battle: they overstate its significance while not mentioning the internal strife in the imperial court and deposition of emperor Romanos Diogenes, they mention how it had an immediate "massive demographic impact on Anatolia", and they confidently claim that "many historians" believe this to be the beginning of the end of the Byzantine empire. The first point is crucial in understanding how the vying for power within the Byzantine camp was the catalyst of destabilization rather than the battle itself, with Seljuk conquests often happening with cooperation from local Byzantine lords. The conquest indeed brought Turkmens and other peoples as settlers to Anatolia, but there is no indication of any large-scale demographic replacement within such a small amount of time, especially for a region like Anatolia with millions of native inhabitants. And even then, many descendants of Turkmen or offspring of mixed Roman-Turkic marriages became Christians and served as mercenaries in Byzantine armies for the next several centuries (the so-called Tourkopouloi/Turcopoles).
The most egregious claim however is the last one which plays into the classic "sick man" trope of an empire in perpetual centuries-long decline that stems from one singular event. The Byzantines clearly weren't destabilized to the point of no return, nor were they doomed after the loss at Manzikert. Alexios Komnenos and the Crusades (which Knowledgia mention only in passing) were indeed crucial in a gradual stabilization of the Byzantines and eventually the reconquest of most of Anatolia from the Seljuks. In addition, Alexios' inquiry to the west for soldiers was not a sign of inability to deal with the Seljuks alone, as the video seems to imply. The Byzantines at that time had been facing subsequent invasions by the Pechenegs over the Danube and the Normans in the Balkans, both of which posed an existential threat. The request for aid itself was not unusual for a Byzantine emperor, given that Byzantine armies had always incorporated foreign mercenaries to supplement their own native forces.
Within two generations by the reign of Manuel Komnenos, the Byzantines were once again the most powerful state in the region and the sultanate of Rum was by all means a minor power within the Byzantine periphery. It was the political strife following the reign of the tyrannical Andronikos Komnenos (who earlier pushed the Constantinopolitan mob to commit the massacre of the Latins of the City), the highly incompetent rule of Isaac Angelos, and then the events of the fourth crusade - culminating in the 1204 sack of Constantinople - which drastically weakened the Byzantine empire and allowed for the Turks to reemerge as a major power contender in Anatolia. Many Byzantine territories were lost to the Latins, and others split into competing successor states claiming to be the legitimate Roman empire. The empire of Nicaea centred around western Anatolia would emerge victorious and restore much of the Byzantine empire, but not as powerful as it once was. Subsequent civil wars within the last century of the empire's life were the terminal point of decline; around 300 years after Manzikert.
Knowledgia also imply that the Ottomans somehow arose out of the Rum sultanate without explaining anything about the intervening period. The Rum sultanate ceased to exist as an independent entity before the Byzantines recovered Constantinople from the Latins, as the Mongols invaded Anatolia and defeated the Turkish armies, turning them into vassals of the Ilkhanate. The Byzantines avoided this fate by instead entering an alliance with the Mongols. When the power of the Mongols started to wane in the region around the late 13th century, it was then that we get the first truly independent Anatolian beyliks, and more would start forming over the course of the 14th century. It is within this context that the Ottomans came into being.
These of course don't necessarily explain how or why the Christian population of Anatolia was affected. The aforementioned events are broader political changes that do affect demographics to an extent, but it's not trivial to deduce the decline of the local population just from these. Crucial aspects which are ignored are the demographic impact of the Black Death which killed a substantial portion of the Anatolian Christian population, the Turkish ghazas (raids) into Byzantine territory and across the borders over centuries which contributed to the destruction of major urban centres and depopulation of the countryside, as well as the social influence of Sufi orders who had been instrumental in the spread of Islam in Anatolia since the very beginning of Turkish presence in Anatolia.
What follows is arguably the most ridiculous historical mistake in the video. Knowledgia (after incorrectly claiming the capital was renamed "Istanbul" by the Ottomans which is incorrect, as the that was only a colloquial name) claims that each religious group belonged to a "self-governing community" called a millet. They go as far as to draw distinct borders on the map, and to claim they could conduct their affairs free from Ottoman interference, with the "Rum" (Orthodox Christians) using Roman law from the time of Byzantium.
Literally every single thing about what they claim is blatantly wrong. The millet system was only relevant after the 19th century, and in no way constituted a system of self-governance or freedom from the Ottoman rule of law, let alone the adherence to the code of Justinian. The millets had no set geographical boundaries, and the figureheads merely acted in the interests of their communities by being their representatives, often cooperating with Ottoman authorities for the purposes of local administration and tax collection. In fact, the geographical boundaries give the impression that a) there were exclusively distinct contiguous majority Christian regions throughout the empire, and b) the choices they make reflect much later (or even modern, as in the case of Cyprus) geographical divisions.
The social disadvantages the video mentions later were also definitely crucial in incentivizing many locals to convert, however the figure they give about less than 20% of the empire being non-Muslims is misleading. This figure depends on the exact point of the 19th century we're talking about, and the veracity of many of the censuses published both by the Ottomans and other sources (e.g. the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Constantinople). In addition, it doesn't make it clear whether Anatolia specifically had such a percentage or not. More modern studies such as [1] in the bibliography below do seem to suggest that the Christian population by the end of the 19th/beginning of the 20th century constituted a percentage in the 15-20% range in Anatolia.
Later on when talking about nationalist movements fighting for independence from the Ottomans, they incorrectly show Bosnia as a distinct entity. Bosnia was conquered by the Austro-Hungarian empire before that, and in fact it is the Serbian nationalists within it looking for unification with Serbia that were the catalyst to World War I.
Furthermore, when talking about the expulsion of Armenians from Anatolia, the Ottomans are mentioned alongside the Soviets as the instigators. The Soviets did invade independent Armenia in the 1920s, but that wasn't with nationalist incentives that lead to a depopulation of Armenia, nor was that geographical region part of Anatolia. The near-eradication of Armenians from Anatolia is the result of decades-long persecutions that started with the Hamidiye massacres in the 1890s and of eventually culminated in the Armenian genocide over the course of WWI. It wasn't between WWI and the Turkish war of independence, since the latter only started after the conclusion of the former. This flawed timeline fails to mention the massacres at the expense of other Christian groups such as the Assyrians and the Pontic Greeks, both of which also occurred over the course of WWI.
Finally, the last significant demographic shift which sealed Anatolia as a well-nigh exclusively Muslim region was the population exchange between Greece and Turkey following the conclusion of the Greco-Turkish war in 1922. close to 1.2 million Greeks left Turkey (almost exclusively from Anatolia) for Greece, and around 400.000 Turks left Greece for Turkey. This significant event is mentioned almost as an afterthought at the very end of the video, dubbed as "a large shift in population", rather than a foundational part of the history of the republic of Turkey.
Overall, Knowledgia's video is wholly inadequate in explaining the very topic they sought to explain. Major events are overlooked or brushed over, bad history tropes and common misconceptions are taken as fact, important factors are never analyzed, and their own claims remain unexplored.
Bibliography:

1. S. Mutlu (2003), "Late Ottoman population and its ethnic distribution", Turkish Journal of Population Studies, 25, 3-38
2. W. Treadgold (1999), "A History of the Byzantine State and Society"
3. A. Kaldellis (2019), "Romanland"
4. G.N. Shirinian (2017), "Genocide in the Ottoman Empire: Armenians, Assyrians, and Greeks, 1913-1923"
5. C. Kafadar (1995), "Two Worlds: The Construction of the Ottoman State"
6. A.C.S. Peacock and B. De Nicola (2015), "Islam and Christianity in Medieval Anatolia"

Hyaneian has three grammatical numbers that nouns are indicated for: singular, dual, and plural. Singular is the default number, and thus a word is not inflected for singular.
~ Dual ~
Dual number conveys that there are exactly two of something. The suffix <-dan> (pronounced /dɑn/) is the dual suffix. If, in a rare circumstance, a noun word ends with a consonant (rare in Hyaneian), the suffix <-adan> (/ɑdɑn/) is used instead.
Dual and plural numbers both affect the tone on the last syllable of a word, applying a high tone on the last vowel or removing one if it is already present. If the second-to-last syllable of a word has a tone, that tone is usually shifted to the final syllable.
yeva > yevádan (/jɛvɑ/ > /jɛvɑ˦dɑn/)
"feather" > "[two] feathers"
pum > púmadan (/pum/ > /pu˦mɑdɑn/)
"lip" > "[two] lips"
~ Plural ~
Plural, conveying more than two of something, uses the suffix <-(a)di> (/(ɑ)di/). It affects tone in the same way Dual number does.
qa'o > qa'ódi (/qaʔo/ > /qaʔo˦di/)
"cloud" > "clouds"
úbe > ubédi (/u˦bɛ/ > /ubɛ˦di/)
"toe" > "toes"
~ Irregularities ~
Hyaneian does have irregular plurals/duals, whether they are through irregular suffixing or tone, due to sound shifts over time:
háva > hávadi ~ hávadan (/hɑ˦vɑ/ > /hɑ˦vɑdi/ ~ /hɑ˦vɑdɑn/)
"person/hyena" > "people/hyenas ~ [two] people/hyenas"
[*Not "havádi ~ havádan"]
a > ai (/ɑ/ > /ɑi/)
"I" > "we"
[*Not "ádi"]

Hi! I was doing the British Council English Online course and I came across this exercise. In each gap I had to choose between "so", "such" and "such a". I'm having trouble understanding why the first sentence is marked wrong.
I read that one should use "such" with plural nouns, and "such a" with singular nouns (like "group"), even if there's an adjective before the noun. Maybe the correct answer would be "we are such AN united group" because "united" starts with a vowel, but it wasn't part of the options.
Is there anything I'm missing? I would really appreciate some help.
https://preview.redd.it/1lllxqjajz1d1.png?width=909&format=png&auto=webp&s=5aa3dec0a5d4f7c447562ef3ed1f3fec59f84ce5

English Standard Version, Galatians 2:16a

yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ,

faith πίστεως (pisteōs) Noun - Genitive Feminine Singular Strong's 4102: Faith, belief, trust, confidence; fidelity, faithfulness.
in Jesus Ἰησοῦ (Iēsou) Noun - Genitive Masculine Singular Strong's 2424: Of Hebrew origin; Jesus, the name of our Lord and two other Israelites.
We have two genitive nouns in apposition. The English preposition "in" is supplied by the genitive case and is not explicitly present in Greek.
Alternatively, Berean Literal Bible:

nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by works of law, except through faith from Jesus Christ

BLB translated it according to the genitive of origin, i.e., faith originated from Jesus.
Moreover, King James Bible:

Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ

KJV used the genitive of identification, i.e., Jesus is the faith and faith is Jesus. NKJV updated it to "faith in Jesus Christ".
Let's continue, Galatians 2:16b:

so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ [πίστεως Χριστοῦ ] and not by works of the law

have believed ἐπιστεύσαμεν (episteusamen) Verb - Aorist Indicative Active - 1st Person Plural Strong's 4100: From pistis; to have faith, i.e. Credit; by implication, to entrust.
in εἰς (eis) Preposition Strong's 1519: A primary preposition; to or into, of place, time, or purpose; also in adverbial phrases.
Christ Χριστὸν (Christon) Noun - Accusative Masculine Singular Strong's 5547: Anointed One; the Messiah, the Christ. From chrio; Anointed One, i.e. The Messiah, an epithet of Jesus.
Now we have the Greek "in". No translation controversy here. It is explicitly required because the accusative does not supply it.
The next part, "faith in Christ" [πίστεως Χριστοῦ ] is again in genitive apposition.
To be consistent with part a, KJV part b:

even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ

Overall, I like the KJV's "faith of Christ" for this verse, which indicates genitive of origin and identification.
For the whole verse, King James Bible, Galatians 2:16:

Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ,

i.e., the faith that comes from Jesus and that identifies with Jesus, and not the faith from ourselves

even we have believed in Jesus Christ,

Yes, we have the responsibility to believe in Jesus as an action actively. (John 6:29)

that we might be justified by the faith of Christ,

However, justification is from Christ and of the person of Christ.

and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

It's the works of God that matter. See He remains faithful.
This is one occasion where I favor KJV over ESV :)
See also JUSTIFICATION by works, grace, or faith?.

I was asked to post this here, probably so that this subreddit could dissect exactly what the title states. I have not researched "non-duality" to the point of a complete understanding of it, though from what I can understand it is similar to Buddhism, which in turn is similar to Christianity, though expressed differently.
To prefix before I go into this post, I want to say that I go by the biblical texts directly, and do not believe any religion is the answer. Instead, these authors understood that all of life is a singular, and that as such, we should work together, rather than be divided. In the New Testament, Paul makes this clear, by stating that where there are divisions, we are not acting like God.
The God these authors describe, is not a deity-like God, but rather God is one. God is beginning and end. God who was, and is, and is to come - past, present and future. God is through all, and in us all. This description sounds more like a combination of monotheism, pantheism, and deism. Buddhism calls it "karma", these texts call it "blessings & curses". Buddhism calls it "enlightenment", these text call it the "sabbath", or the seventh-day.
The authors also indicate a belief in evolution in various spots. Ecclesiastes states that we are like animals. The revelation states that all creatures will bow down to the completion. That said, the text is leading us to our final evolution, in which the mind is complete. Before the text, the body was complete, in humanity. The beginning and the end of the text are the formation of the mind. The beginning is teaching us choice, in which, we did not choose good. The end of the text is when we choose good. This is the Tree of Life.
The four horseman of the story are: disease, famine, war and death. With this, we can easily understand why knowledge is objectively good, and the opposite is objectively evil. This will lead us to the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, but we will go over Adam & Eve below. Having understanding grants us the choice. What we do with that, makes it good or evil. The disease is meant to be cured. The famine is meant to be automated away. War was meant to be overcome by love. And death, we will eventually understand and overcome.
Knowledge is our only salvation, and it leads us to many things which are good. Without understanding, we cannot overcome problems. With that said, it is about choice, because God chooses life. It has to be our choice all the same, because otherwise, we cannot be like God.
When God creates the man, God said: "Let Us make man in Our image according to Our likeness". God is plural, because God is all things as a singular, creating everything simultaneously. We are made in the image of understanding.
Adam & Eve:
The man is knowledge, the woman is truth. The garden is an evolving existence around us, for us. Eating is understanding.
God said that every tree was good for food, and for us. In the garden, were two trees, and both were good for food. The two trees are the same tree, but two perspectives.
Up until this, life was operating solely under the choice of the Universe, or God. This is the beginning of choice, and as such the possibility of the wrong choice.
It was only the man in the garden when God said: "Eat this" or "Do not eat that". This is the cause of the splitting of the woman, or the truth. Knowledge was split from the truth. However, in the end, knowledge shall be joined to truth and they shall be one flesh. Knowledge is truth, and the truth is knowledge.
They were naked and unashamed - or rather, they were living in error, and unaware. By not freely choosing to eat from everything in the garden, they were not choosing life. And so, the truth needed to be deceived, which is why Eve eats first. The tree that they ate from was the law - or rather, the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. It covered them up from their error.
However, the law is not of life, and is evidently not God's desire. We were created in choice. And so, it created death, because we cannot be complete by laws. It's about choice. We are not choosing life by needing laws. With new knowledge, we will always have the choice to use it for good or evil. We will not always have laws to prevent evil, and so we understand the need to choose life, which is the other tree. By not understanding of everything, we cannot find the cure to death.
Adam falls because his choice was not to understand from everything in existence. In understanding, we have our salvation. We cure diseases, automate away famines, end wars, and eventually will overcome death. Knowledge does all of these things, and more, creating soaps, cars, computers, etc. Sin is just a word that leads us away from knowledge, as a whole.
In choosing knowledge, it is not about being the smartest person, but rather, understanding that everyone contributes to understanding in some way, shape or form. It multiplies together.
We will cure death much faster, by having the nearly 8-billion people simultaneously reaching for understanding at full capacity, rather than oppressing some, or while others are starving.
Knowledge is truth, and the truth is knowledge.
God is like the spec of paint, the painter, and the canvas all simultaneously, painting it's own painter. Evolution is the strokes of paint. We are evolving away from creature, towards God. God chooses knowledge.

I understand that traditionally it is said 2 bitcoin, not 2 bitcoins. But recently I have seen Wikipedia state that "bitcoins" is the correct plural form.
We have words like water. It is never "waters". You never say "pass me the waters", or "I drank too much waters". It even sounds funny. We use water for both singular and plural.
Gold is just gold in plural so is silver.
I believe the best way to settle this debate regarding plural in bitcoin is to refer to the way Satoshi Nakamoto defined the plural expression of Bitcoin in his emails. Does anybody know how Satoshi Nakamoto used the plural form in his emails?
For me it sounds just wrong to say Bitcoins!

Hej hej Swedes of reddit, I'm trying to learn Swedish and I've run into problems with grammar. What is the difference between referring to a singular noun with "en" Before it as apposed to "ett". (I.e en flicka, ett äpple). I know it isn't gendered because "en man" and "en kvinna" are both grammatically correct, is there a rule I'm missing here? I've asked my mum, uncle and cousin (who are all native Swedish speakers) this and they all said they didn't know. Please help me. Swedish sentence structure and grammar has been a pain for me to learn.

Hindi, one of the most widely spoken languages in the world, is rich in history and linguistic intricacies. Its grammar is systematic and follows a well-defined structure, making it accessible for both native speakers and learners. This article explores the core components of Hindi grammar, including its script, phonetics, morphology, and syntax.

The Hindi Script: Devanagari

Hindi is written in the Devanagari script, which consists of 11 vowels and 33 consonants. Each character in Devanagari has a specific phonetic value, and the script is written from left to right. The vowels can be written independently or as diacritics attached to consonants, modifying their sound.
For example:

• अ (a) is a standalone vowel.
• क (ka) combines the consonant क (k) with the inherent vowel अ (a).

Phonetics: Vowels and Consonants

Vowels (स्वर): Hindi vowels are divided into short and long forms. Short vowels include अ (a), इ (i), and उ (u), while long vowels include आ (aa), ई (ii), and ऊ (uu).
Consonants (व्यंजन): Hindi consonants are classified based on their place and manner of articulation. These include:

• Plosives: क (ka), ख (kha), ग (ga), घ (gha)
• Nasals: म (ma), न (na), ण (ṇa)
• Fricatives: स (sa), श (sha), ष (ṣa), ह (ha)
• Approximants: ल (la), र (ra), व (va), य (ya)

Morphology: Word Formation

Nouns (संज्ञा): Nouns in Hindi are gendered (masculine or feminine) and can be singular or plural. For instance:

• लड़का (laṛkā) – boy (masculine, singular)
• लड़की (laṛkī) – girl (feminine, singular)
• लड़के (laṛke) – boys (masculine, plural)
• लड़कियाँ (laṛkiyā̃) – girls (feminine, plural)

Pronouns (सर्वनाम): Pronouns also reflect gender, number, and formality.

• मैं (maĩ) – I
• तुम (tum) – you (informal)
• आप (āp) – you (formal)
• वह (vah) – he/she/it

Verbs (क्रिया): Verbs conjugate based on tense (past, present, future), aspect (simple, continuous, perfect), and mood (indicative, imperative, subjunctive). For example:

• खाना (khānā) – to eat
• मैं खाता हूँ (maĩ khātā hū̃) – I eat (present, masculine)
• मैं खा रही हूँ (maĩ khā rahī hū̃) – I am eating (present continuous, feminine)
• मैंने खाया (maine khāyā) – I ate (past, masculine)

Syntax: Sentence Structure

Hindi typically follows a Subject-Object-Verb (SOV) order:

• मैं सेब खाता हूँ (maĩ seb khātā hū̃) – I eat apples.

However, variations can occur for emphasis:

• सेब मैं खाता हूँ (seb maĩ khātā hū̃) – Apples, I eat.

Postpositions: Unlike English, which uses prepositions, Hindi uses postpositions that follow the noun:

• मैं स्कूल जा रहा हूँ (maĩ skūl jā rahā hū̃) – I am going to school.

Tenses and Aspects

Present Tense:

• Simple: मैं लिखता हूँ (maĩ likhtā hū̃) – I write.
• Continuous: मैं लिख रहा हूँ (maĩ likh rahā hū̃) – I am writing.
• Perfect: मैंने लिखा है (maine likhā hai) – I have written.

Past Tense:

• Simple: मैंने लिखा (maine likhā) – I wrote.
• Continuous: मैं लिख रहा था (maĩ likh rahā thā) – I was writing.
• Perfect: मैंने लिखा था (maine likhā thā) – I had written.

Future Tense:

• Simple: मैं लिखूँगा (maĩ likhū̃gā) – I will write.
• Continuous: मैं लिख रहा होऊँगा (maĩ likh rahā hū̃gā) – I will be writing.
• Perfect: मैंने लिखा होगा (maine likhā hogā) – I will have written.

Hindi grammar, with its structured approach and clear rules, offers a rich field of study for linguists and language learners alike. Understanding its fundamentals, from the Devanagari script to complex verb conjugations, is essential for mastering the language. With practice and immersion, one can appreciate the beauty and depth of Hindi, unlocking new cultural and communicative possibilities.
Know More: https://mycoaching.in/hindi-grammar

This is part 5 of a list of feminine primarch names and my reasoning for these names.
Please see the below link for an explanation of this project, my methods, and my intent.
I will keep the first post updated with links to the later posts to make referencing them easier.
Link to first post: https://www.reddit.com/PrimarchGFs/comments/1ctd7ot/primarch_names_and_etymologies_part_1_iii/
IX: Sanguinia (Sanguinius):
“Sanguinius” appears to be a corruption of the Latin “sanguineus,” meaning “like blood,” or “bloody.” The name appears to be a combination of the Old French “sanguin” (like blood) and the Latin suffix “-ius,” which is used to make Latin nouns into masculine adjectives. The suffix “-ia,” however, is used in Latin to make first declension feminine abstract nouns from adjectives ending in “-us” or “-ius." Therefore, Sanguinia is a corruption of already corrupted Latin (Old French).
In 40k, the fictional language of the upper class within the Imperium is High Gothic. It is described as a bastardization of multiple real-world languages resulting from millennia of human knowledge fading into obscurity. Outside the lore, it allows for Games Workshop to get away with making up words that sound cool and often vaguely Latin. Therefore, Sanguinius / Sanguinia is very on-brand for the setting.
X: Ferrosa Manus (Ferrus Manus):
It is commonly pointed out that “Ferrus Manus” is simply Latin for “Iron Hand,” and Ferrus Manus leads the Iron Hands space marine chapter, and Ferrus Manus has actual iron hands (technically necrodermis, but you get the idea). However, this isn’t quite correct.
“Manus” is indeed Latin for “hand.” However, “ferrus” is not Latin. “Ferrus” sounds like the word “ferrous” which is English for “of or containing iron.” “Ferrous” is derived from the Latin “ferrum,” which means “iron.” Interestingly, “ferus” with one R is Latin for “fierce” and “untamed,” which suits Ferrus Manus’s lore.
I could have gone with “Fera,” which sounds like the name Farrah and means “wild animal,” in Latin. However, I settled on “ferrosa,” which is the feminine singular of the adjective “ferroso,” which means “ferrous” in Italian, Portuguese, and Spanish. I feel this name hits the association with iron and also evokes the sound of the English word “ferocious,” which hits the aggressive nature of the character. “Ferocious” is also descended from the Latin “ferox,” which is a synonym for the Latin “ferus.”
XI: REDACTED: S-SIGIL-LITE L-EVEL AU-AUTH-AUTHOR-OR-OR-OR-Ǫ̶̠̘̩̬̍̉̐̎̊͊Ŕ̸̢͂̀̈́͐̆ ̷͍̪̣̪̳̆ͅA̶̧̦̮̽͋R̵̛̦̿̽͊̀̏Ȇ̶͉̂̽̚ ̴̱́͐͜Ȁ̴̩̰̉̈́̾L̶̳̗̤̄̇͂͒͊͑L̴͓͈̆ ̷̲̻̦͇̩͌̇̇Y̴̛̻̞͍̣̔̈́̊O̴͉̗͉͍͗̌͂̒Ṷ̶̹̀͛͋R̵̢̳̜̠̿͌ ̴̮͈̰̬̳̼̃C̶̞̊͊̾̿̀H̷̢̢͖̩̝̘͗̎̾͠Í̵͔̻͇̲̩̯̓̊͋̾L̶̨͈͈̬̉̎̀̎̚͝D̶̺̅̓R̸͖̉Ḛ̴͐̇̇͛Ń̶͔̉̌̀̐ ̸̹͐̅S̷͈̬̯̊̌O̶͖͒̈́̍͜ ̶͖̗͒Ẁ̶͇̬̝̈́̀͛̿̎Ḛ̷͛̑̓͝ͅÃ̵̛̭̠̿̂̃K̵̼͓͕̽́͋͌̓͜ͅͅ?̷̡̪̞͔͓̘̎͠
XII: Angerona [An-Ger-Ro-Na] (Angron):
Sometimes simple names can pose tricky problems when re-imagining them. I’m pretty sure the name Angron is simply the English word “angry” combined with the “-on” suffix used in English scientific naming conventions for elements and particles. Therefore, Angron is akin to meaning “the element of anger,” or “anger made manifest.” It could also be from the Spanish suffix “-ón,” which usually alters the meaning of the word it is attached to into a more intense version of the same thing. For example, “boca” is Spanish for “mouth.” “Boca” + “-ón” = “‎bocón,” or “big-mouth.” Therefore, Angron could suggest “big angry.”
Taking the Spanish “-ón” theory, “-ona” is the feminine equivalent of “-ón.” I might have settled on Angrona, but then I stumbled on Angerona, the Roman goddess of suffering and silence. Angerona could both induce and relieve anguish and fear. Angron had the ability to absorb the negative emotions of others to relieve their suffering before being implanted with the Butcher’s Nails. I’d like to imagine a noblebright Angron would retain this ability in spite of the Butcher’s Nails. I decided the name Angerona would draw more attention to this ability while maintaining the word “anger” in the name.
Thought of the day:
Brave are they who know everything yet fear nothing.
Feel free to leave a comment on these submissions and this project generally. I look forward to sharing more with you next time~

On both DebateReligion and this subreddit u/Informal_Patience821 (Exion) has been making a series of posts that make claims about translations of the Hebrew Old Testament. On DebateReligion there were enough people who know enough about Hebrew to debunk Exion’s claims showing both Exion doesn’t know Hebrew and is an unreliable source of information. Unfortunately is seems most people on this subreddit aren’t familiar enough with Hebrew to see the problems in those posts so I will be addressing them. I’ll start with a summary of a just a few issues from their earlier posts and then dig into their most recent post on Haggai 2.
In https://www.reddit.com/DebateReligion/comments/1c9e54z/songs\_of\_solomon\_are\_prophesying\_muhammad\_moses/ they cited the first word of Songs of Solomon 1:2 as ביִשָּׁקֵ֙נִי֙. The problem is the first word doesn’t have the Hebrew letter ב, that’s actually the verse number. To illustrate how bad this is it would be like copying an alphabetized list with an entry “b chicken thighs”, removing the space making it “bchicken thighs”, and then trying to translate bchicken as if it’s a real English word. In that post several comments noted this issue, and Exion acknowledged it. However, when copying their post to https://www.reddit.com/Quraniyoon/comments/1chuul3/songs\_of\_solomon\_prophecies\_of\_muhammad\_moses\_and/ they failed to fix this known issue.
This also isn’t the first time they’ve done this. In https://www.reddit.com/DebateReligion/comments/1c0x8sp/revisiting\_isaiah\_53\_the\_prophecy\_of\_the\_false/ they made claims about the meaning of ישוחח. They also cited a Hebrew dictionary to defend their claim. The problem I noted in my comment was their source listed two different verb forms which had slightly different meanings. Exion took the meaning of the Qal form but the word was actually in the Polel form. This is problematic enough because even with basic Hebrew one should know to use the meaning for the correct verb form since it changes the meaning. However after acknowledging my command the next day they copied the post to https://www.reddit.com/Muslim/comments/1c2onfa/the\_old\_testament\_says\_because\_they\_will\_think/ without fixing the error.
Another problem is their citation of a fictitious source. u/c0d3rman, u/arachnophilia, and myself tried to find the citation, weren’t able to, and pressed Exion on this. Exion claimed to have the book in their possession but refused to take a pic of the citation to prove it’s real after being called out on the citation not existing. Details can be found at https://www.reddit.com/DebateReligion/comments/1cae1we/comment/l0tr043/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button, https://www.reddit.com/Quraniyoon/comments/1ccdm3z/comment/l18l6v9/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button, https://www.reddit.com/Quraniyoon/comments/1chuul3/comment/l25i39p/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button, and https://www.reddit.com/Quraniyoon/comments/1cjbaue/comment/l2nm56j/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button. Since they won’t provide proof of the source and no one else can find it it’s clear the source doesn’t exist.
Another issue from previous posts is they don’t understand how possessive suffixes on nouns work. There are several comments explaining this, https://www.reddit.com/DebateReligion/comments/1cae1we/comment/l0ueou2/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button, https://www.reddit.com/DebateReligion/comments/1cae1we/comment/l0rt0q7/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button, https://www.reddit.com/Quraniyoon/comments/1ccdm3z/comment/l17gxya/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button, and https://www.reddit.com/usec0d3rman/comments/1cd80ho/an\_explanation\_of\_possessive\_noun\_conjugation\_in/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button. Despite the lengthy explanations and even a pic of a Hebrew grammar book they insisted we were all wrong. However, they never offered a full explanation of how possessive suffixes work on Hebrew. To get at this issue I asked them to translate his thigh, his thighs, their thigh, and their thighs into Hebrew but they’ve refused.
Time for their latest post, https://www.reddit.com/Quraniyoon/comments/1cw5vq2/i\_discovered\_a\_new\_biblical\_prophecy\_about\_islam/.

"Now, pay attention from this day forward, before setting God's stone in the temple of Yahweh."
Obviously the the Kaaba and the Back stone. However, the Masoretes, added diacritics and transformed the phrase "אל" (which means "God") into "אֶל" (which means "to") and had successfully covered up this prophecy. It originally says "God's stone" when omitting the diacritics

The first obvious problem is they never explain why we should accept their diacritical marks over the Masoretes ones. No justification from the context of the text, or any reference to either pre Masoretes on post but non Masoretes influences sources that agree with Exion’s translation.
More importantly, Exion ignored that “stone” in the Hebrew occurs twice. If we take אל to be God and take it as the construct state (the ‘s) then it would be “before setting stone’s God’s stone”. That doesn’t make sense hence why Exion dropped the first occurrence of אֶ֛בֶן in their translation.

while it is today saying "Before setting stone to/upon a stone," a statement that makes very little sense.

It makes perfect sense with the rest of the verse “in the temple of Yahweh.” It’s talking about before the building of the temple which involved setting stone upon stone.

Verse 23 says: "And it shall be from new moon to new moon, an end to His Sabbath shall come. All flesh shall come to bow down before me, said the LORD."

That’s not Haggai 2:23, it’s Isaiah 66:23. Sure it’s 23rd verse of its chapter but it’s a different chapter in a different book.
It’s also an untenable translation. In the Hebrew even without diacritical marks we have “מדי חדש בחדשו ומדי שבת בשבתו”. This is two parallel phrases “מדי חדש בחדשו” and “ומדי צשבת בשבתו”. The second phrase begins with ו which is the Hebrew conjunctive indicating the two phrases are connected. They also have parallel structure. The first word is the same in both. Both are followed by a second word with 3 consonants with those same consonants appearing in the third word but with the prefix ב and suffix ו” This parallel combined with the conjunctive tells us the phrases should be interpreted similarly. The traditional translation “from new moon to new moon and from sabbath to sabbath” keeps the parallel but Exion’s translation breaks it showing they aren’t being consistent with their translation.
A more serious problem is they take Sabbath as the subject of the verb. This isn’t possible. To make the consonants שבת the verb to cease it would be the Qal perfect third person MASCULINE singular. However, the noun Sabbath in Hebrew is feminine. The gender of the subject and verb need to match but since they don’t we can’t take שבת as a verb.
Another issue is their translation has “shall come” twice but the verb only occurs once in the Hebrew.

The phrase: "שבת בשבתו יבוא" is literally translated as "An end to His Sabbath shall come." But they interpreted "שׁבת" as "Sabbath" and also (for some weird reason) the term "בשבתו" simply as "Sabbath" as well, while it grammar speaks a different story:

The problem is Exion translates the first phrase as “from new moon to new moon” which has the same prefix and suffix on the noun. Either it’s a problem for both phrases or neither. Since Exion takes it as not a problem for the first phrase but a problem for the second they’re wrong about at least one of those cases.
It’s actually the second phrase they’re wrong about. Yes there is a 3ms possessive suffix on the second instance of sabbath that isn’t translated. The reason is because the phrase is an idiom. In the case of idioms it’s typically better to translate the meaning of the idiom rather than the literal words so that people reading the other language not familiar with the idiom understand what is meant. We know it’s an idiom because the phrase starts with the compound preposition מִֽדֵּי, which Exion mysteriously doesn’t translate. The BDB explains under the entry for דַּי “Combined with בְּ, כְּ, and especially מִן, ‎דַּי (דֵּי) has a tendency to form compound prepositions, used idiomatically in certain applications … c. מִדֵּי out of the abundance of, hence as often as;—(a) sq. inf. 1 S 1:7 מִדֵּי עֲלֹתָהּ = as often as she went up, 18:30 1 K 14:28 (= 2 Ch 12:11) 2 K 4:8 Is 28:19 מִדֵּי עָבְרוֹ as often as it passeth over, Je 31:20; (β) sq. subst., Je 48:27 מִדֵּי דְבָרֶיךָ בּוֹ as often as thy words (are) of him; and in the idiom. phrases מִדֵּי שָׁנָה בְּשָׁנָה = yearly (a combination of מִדֵּי שָׁנָה and שָׁנָה בְּשָׁנָה: v. sub שָׁנָה) 1 S 7:16 (v. Dr) Zc 14:16 2 Ch 24:5; and מִדֵּי חֹדֶשׁ בְּחָדְשׁוֹ Is 66:23 as often as month (comes) in its month (i.e. in its own time: חֹדֶשׁ made more precise by the add. of בְּחָדְשׁוֹ; cf. the phrase דְּבַר יוֹם בְּיוֹמוֹ): so מִדֵּי שַׁבָּת בְּשַׁבַּתּוֹ ib.; (γ) as conj., with the finite verb (אֲשֶׁר being understood: cf. בַּעֲבוּר etc.), Je 20:8 מִדֵּי אֲדַבֵּר as often as I speak” (Emphasis added). The BDB only addresses the first phrase about the new moon but the second phrase regarding the sabbath has the same grammatical structure starting with the same compound preposition. A literal translation would be “as often as Sabbath (comes) in its Sabbath” where the “its” is the possessive suffix and it refers to the previous noun, i.e. Sabbath. The meaning of the idiom in English is better captured by the phrase “from Sabbath to Sabbath” or “from week to week” since the Sabbath marks a week like the new moon marks months. Exion ignores the compound prepositions which indicates an idiom and then tries to translate the rest of the phrase literally (with their adjusted diacritical marks), though they only do that for the second phrase. The first phrase they pick up on the compound prepositions and don’t offer a literal translation but instead use the clearer English “from new moon to new moon”.
Edit: there is one other issue with Exion’s translation of Isaiah 66:23 I forgot to mention. There is another parallel between those two phrases. The new moon tracks months and the sabbath tracks weeks. The parallel is that both track time. It’s an idiomatic way of saying “from month thanks month and week to week”. Exion’s translation breaks this parallel.
Edit 2: understand the context of Haggai helps. The initial Jewish temple was destroyed by the Babylonians and the Jews were taken into exile. They were eventually allowed to return to rebuild the temple. Construction had begun but was halted after some opposition arose. This is when Haggai started to prophecy and his focus was on get the Jews to resume construction on the new temple. The house in Haggai 2:9 is talking about the temple. There is also a parallel to Haggai 2:15 in Haggai 2:18, “Consider from this day onward, from the twenty-fourth day of the ninth month. Since the day that the foundation of the Lord’s temple was laid, consider:” Exion is picking verses out of context to twist their meaning but it’s clear from the context Exion’s interpretation is false. I encourage you to read Haggai with the historical context in mind. It’s only 2 chapters and it’s clearly about rebuilding the new temple.
Edit 3: Exion’s theory is that the Masoretes changed the meaning of the text from what it originally said when they added the diacritical marks. If true then pre Masorete sources should match Exion’s proposed meaning not the Masorete one. I checked the Septuagint which is the Greek translation of the Old Testament and pre Masorete. Greek writes both the consonants and vowels not just the vowels so there is no ambiguity. For Haggai 2:15 it has λίθον ἐπὶ λίθον which means stone upon stone not God’s stone. For Isaiah 66:23 it has σάββατον ἐκ σαββάτου which means Sabbath to Sabbath not an end to his Sabbath. In both cases this pre Masorete source aligns with the Masorete diacritical marks not Exion’s ones which is the opposite of what we should see if Exion is correct. The more I fact check Exion’s claims the more issues I find.

ἱερός
So how are such words, which end with a 'c' translated?
Hiero or Hieros? Or is it singular and plural?
Because the meaning for both the words (Hiero and Hieros) is 'Holy'

1 minute grammar

1. Use the definite article correctly: https://youtube.com/shorts/SKPI4vLKqVk?feature=share
2. Five noun types for noun countability: https://youtube.com/shorts/Y0lcoVS17sk?feature=share
3. Use countable nouns correctly: https://youtube.com/shorts/s6XVICbNFwg?feature=share
4. Three types of countable nouns: https://youtube.com/shorts/EENBQxEJTZs?feature=share
5. Three types of uncountable nouns: https://youtube.com/shorts/UuCDCRmMDM4?feature=share
6. How to talk about quantity with uncountable nouns: https://youtube.com/shorts/WpsqHMATes0?feature=share

Long grammar lectures

1. Rule 1: Noun-determiner agreement: https://youtu.be/vlJtsxBUbVc
2. Distinction of countable and uncountable nouns: https://youtu.be/SesnD3ymTAQ
3. Use “the” for specific things: https://youtu.be/3yLJssZHb9o
4. Singular countable indefinite quantifiers:https://youtu.be/GJXgto8e3Do
5. Plural countable indefinite quantifiers: https://youtu.be/VCchH-W1yiM
6. Nationality of a person and people: https://youtu.be/dhVGpGIJS6A
7. Uncountable indefinite quantifiers: https://youtu.be/ripAqfYlK_Y
8. Plural and uncountable indefinite quantifiers: https://youtu.be/x6a9vsf5gQg
9. Types of Determiners: https://youtu.be/86wM27qxxnM
10. Determiner order (pre-main-post):https://youtu.be/D-9oF2MBwzw

Argument number 1
P1) If mental aspects of the world are declared to be essential properties of the world, then each single entity or phenomena in the world(token) is an instantiation of mental properties(there are no mental aspects of the world, but all aspects are aspects of mental substance; singular mental type)
P2) If each single entity or phenomena in the world is an instantiation of mental properties, then each property of the world is a mental property so there is no such thing being a non mental thing in the world
C1) If mental aspects of the world are essential properties of the world, then there is no such thing being a non mental thing in the world
P3) If there are no non mental things in the world, then all things in the world are mental things
P4) If all things in the world are mental things, then panpsychism is false
C2) If there are no non mental things in the world, then panpsychism is false.
Argument number 2
P1) If panpsychist accepts that consciousness is fundamental, then he accepts the view that there are ultimately no non conscious things
P2) If he accepts that there are ultimately no non conscious things, then he accepts that there is only consciousness in the world
C1) If panpsychism accepts that consciousness is fundamental, then he accepts that there is only consciousness in the world
P3) If a panpsychist accepts that there is only consciousness in the world, then his view is idealism
P4) If his view is idealism, he's not a pansychist
C2) If panpsychist accepts that there is only consciousness in the world, then he's not a panpsychist.
Argument number 3
P1) If panpsychist claims that consciousness is fundamental but he rejects idealism, then he's commited to ontological pluralism(non panpsychism)
P2) Panpsychist is not an ontological pluralist(Panpsychism is monism)
C1) Therefore rejection of idealism commits panpsychist to reject panpsychism
Argument number 4
P1) Panpsychist claims that consciousness is ontologically fundamental
P2) Panpsychist argues that even subatomic particles possess experiential properties(panexperientialist) or cognitive properties(pancognitivist)
P3) If experiential(panexperientialist) or cognitive(pancognitivist) properties are instantiated in virtually any entity or a system, then there is no such thing as non experiential or non cognitive property in the world
C1) From P1 and P3 it follows that panpsychism is in fact idealism(interpretation)
C2) From P2 and P3 it follows that panpsychism is idealism(interpretation)
The global conclusion is that panpsychism is just idealism blurred by involving technical terms from scientific theories, and therefore, we have no clear distinction between these 2 views except by switching from ontological to epistemological analysis and talking about technical terms from scientific theories. That's of course a red herring. In that sense, it seems that panpsychism is just idealism masquerading as panpsychism in virtue of scientific talk on entities in empirical theories, which are by the way irrelevant for any of philosophical theses that deal with ultimate questions.
Arguments are attacking both cognitivist and experientalist versions of panpsychism. No matter if thought or experience or both are fundamental basis of the world, it still follows that there is no such thing which is something else or above mind. That smells like idealism, so I don't understand what does pansychism do to escape being sucked into idealism account. If we just focus on ontology, it is clear that pansychism ought to involve pluralism in order to escape being just another idealism account, and by doing that pansychism becomes trivially false.
Panpsychist dilemma is to make a choice between admitting that pansychism is idealism, or invoking metaphysical pluralism to save panpsychism. Both options make pansychism false. In fact, even trying to take a dual aspect or neutral monism framework to make a distinction from idealism, seem to refute panpsychism. I might latter propose an argument to demonstrate that any attempt to save pansychism by borrowing frameworks from other ontological theses will immediatelly destroy the view.