>his language doesn't have a word for "clockwise"
>>220768301obsolete, zoomers don't even understand that
that's two words though. "clock" and "wise", but they're fused.this is the english equivalent of "we germans have a word for gay nigger rape: gayniggerrapen"
>>220768349And your boomers?>>220768369-wise is a suffix.
>>220768301I'd clock you if you got wise with me.
It's "medsols" (with-suns), and "motsols" (against-suns) for "counterclockwise". That's cooler.
>>220768455"Medurs" and "moturs" (with/against-clocks) are synonyms too when I think about it, but suns are cooler.
>>220768301>his language doesn't have a word for when a BBC rapes a woman so badly she starts bleeding internally and dies
>>220768592Do they actually have a word that means that?
sorry we don't have such word because the earth is flat so the concept of time is obsolete to us.
'In the clock hands' direction.'
>>220768619I'm sure Brazil has all sorts of unique terminology related to interracial intercourse.>>220768650That's not "a word."
English doesn't have a word for wavy ice I think. It's called "svallis" (swell-ice) here. Would work in English too.
>>220768301Cockwise
>>220768301Those are two words wearing a trenchcoat, Saaaaar
>>220768301Clockwise and counter-clockwise aren't intuitive at all. When someone says clockwise my head goes>Ok so right, because the clock moves right at the top
>>220768301Did you know in Finland we replace the world "clock" with "day" in this case?
>>220768453bodied that charlatan
Uhrzeigersinn
>>220768301Yeah, we don't>zgodnie ze wskazówkami zegara
>>220768369>>220768301We do have it, but it's an adjective instead of an adverb. Orario/antiorario
We say dans le sens des aiguilles d'une montre.
>>220775299Sounds like something sexual
>>220775341That would be orale (stolen by the angloids btw)
>>220775402Orario sounds like a fancier version
>>220775441It just means time/timetable/hour, I think ora/hour comes from orare which in Latin means praying, because in the middle ages monks uses prayer times to organise the day, not sure
>>220775545Yeah, actually not that strange. I'm just free-associating.
