Title: pontos de trico 3ª edição. Page number ISSUU Downloader is a free to use tool for downloading any book or publication on ISSUU. By using. pontos de tricô | Gráficos e Receitas Mais Knitting Stitches, Knitting Needles, .. Loom Knitting pdf files on various instructions Round Loom Knitting, Spool. Title: Mag tricot layette n°, Author: Nese Ergun, Name: Mag tricot layette n° , Length: 95 pages, Page: 1 Cover of " pontos de tricô".
|Language:||English, Spanish, Japanese|
|ePub File Size:||27.67 MB|
|PDF File Size:||18.48 MB|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Regsitration Required]|
pontos de tricô. pontos de trico edição by Katia Priscilla - issuu . See more. Anônimo - PONTOS DE TRICÔ caite.info - Download as PDF File . pontos de trico 3ª edição Dicionário de pontos, montagens e arremates, aumentos Anônimo - PONTOS DE TRICÔ caite.info - Download as PDF File . Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd. Flag for . pontos - volte-o para a agulha e faça os dois juntos em meia pontos de trico.
Seyed Hamed Moosavi. On the one hand, it is linked to the geographi- cal range of the terms: The result still points towards a divergent evolution: Loanwords that keep their origi- nal form are indicated in inverted commas. We will study the question by means of a statistical analysis of a large- scale database with dialectological data for the Limburgish dialects of Dutch. Emphasis is on empirical usage-based variation research and as a natural corollary also on the methods of cognitive sociolinguistic inquiry.
If we do not find any name at all for a given concept in a given place, that could in principle have two reasons: With the restrictions that we applied, we can base our investigation on a database of tokens of lexical items, divided over concepts and geographical places. The explanatory variables The concept features that we will incorporate into the analysis are three- fold: Vagueness and salience are features that may be typically associated with prototype theory and a cognitive linguistic conception of lexical meaning.
Negative affect, on the other hand, is a more traditional semantic feature.
Vagueness and negative affect will be included in the form of a single operationalization, but salience will be measured in the form of three distinct factors which will be considered separately in the analysis: Let us now look at each of these five factors the three salience factors, vagueness, and negative affect in turn, and indi- cate why exactly we have included them and how we have tried to measure them. The lack of familiarity of a concept is relevant because we suspect that less habitual concepts increase lexical uncertainty among language users, and decrease the probability of uniformity across dialects.
If a concept is less common, it is communicatively less prominent, and the possibility or perhaps also the necessity for standardization is more restricted. Our oper- ational measurement of lack of conceptual habituality is relatively basic: The results we get on the survey are consistent and intuitively plausible. The inclusion of the number of observational gaps is motivated by the idea that a high number of places without responses may be an indirect indication of lack of familiarity with the concept: However, this reason- ing assumes that the concept was indeed included in the survey.
By restrict- ing the database to the questionnaires N10, N, N, N and N, we have tried to ensure that this is indeed the case, but we cannot be en- tirely certain about the observational systematicity of the materials. An observational gap, in other words, is ambiguous between actual unfamiliar- ity and an inconsistency in the survey procedure.
Some caution with regard to this factor will be in order, then, all the more so since there might be a mathematical effect on heterogeneity in the opposite direction of what we expect fewer measurements may lead to a smaller number of names, thus possibly reducing heterogeneity. In operational terms, the number of ob- servational gaps is quantified straightforwardly as the absolute number of places out of the total of places in which no names were given for the concept at hand.
The number of multiword expressions in the onomasiological range of a concept may be considered an indication of lack of salience for two rea- sons. Throughout the paper, we use the concept 'onomasiological range' to refer to the total set of expressions that occur as designations of the con- cept. If we take into account the relative frequency of those expressions within the onomasiological range, we talk about an 'onomasiological pro- file'.
First, the basic level hypothesis Berlin and Kay , Berlin suggests that cross-linguistically basic concepts are typically referred to with short words. Second, multiword answers may derive from the fact that people answer with a periphrastic description of the concept either because there is no name for the concept in their dialect or because they don't know it: As a meas- urement, we take the proportion at the token level of the number of mul- tiword answers in the total set of answers for a concept.
The vagueness of concepts is measured in terms of their lexical non- uniqueness: We quantify lexical uniqueness of a concept as the number of lexical types in the onomasiological range of that concept that also features in the set of expressions associated with a different concept. As an example, consider the following overview of the expressions found for the concept LIES 'groin'.
The first column lists the lexical expressions we find, the second the frequency with which they are found, and the third mentions whether the same lexical expression may also be found as expressing another concept. In this example, then, five out of nine types are non-unique.
Table 1. Some of the overlaps in the example, as in the case of vlim, do not constitute prime examples of the phenomenon that motivates the intro- duction of vagueness in the analysis. We are interested in the effect of vagueness because we assume that conceptual unclarity, like the fuzziness of the borderline between one concept and the other, may lead to lexical heterogeneity. If a workable criterion for singling out such cases can be found but see Geer- aerts , we will be able to investigate whether conceptual overlaps of the vlim type have a different effect from those of the lies type.
For the present exploratory purposes, however, we restrict the analysis to the course-grained measure described above. The inclusion of negative affect is motivated by the recognition that ta- boo leads to rich synonymy Allan and Burridge Given domains like procreation and defecation, taboo is obviously relevant for the lexical field of the human body.
Negative affect is not restricted to such obvious taboo areas, however. The dictionary contains many questions in which it is ex- plicitly asked to give pejorative terms for a certain concept, i. In practical terms, we did not start from these labels, but we used the same method for the identification of negative affect as for the identification of lack of familiarity: The results are again consistent and plausible: The response variable Lexical heterogeneity, the dependent variable in the investigation, is de- fined as a complex factor.
Heterogeneity, then, may be defined as the product of lexical diver- sity and geographic fragmentation. Geographic fragmentation, however, needs to be analyzed further.
On the one hand, it is linked to the geographi- cal range of the terms: On the other hand, it is linked to the dispersion of the terms within that range: Let us now have a closer look at each of the three relevant phenomena diversity, range, dispersion and their operationalization. Lexical diversity is straightforwardly defined as the number of different types including multiword expressions in the onomasiological range of a concept.
Figure 1. A schematic representation of geographical dispersion 2. The dispersion of a concept is illustrated by means of Figure 1: If we think of the dot- ted rectangle in the figure as the total area under consideration in our case, the Limburgish dialect area , then the solid line may be used to indicate that part of the global area in which a given concept appears.
In most cases in our database, the concepts appear in the Limburgish region in its entirety. A black dot indicates a place where we find an attestation for a given concept, and a white dot indicates a place where we get a null obser- vation for the concept, i. The situation on the left hand side of the figure is intuitively more dispersed than the situation on the right, but how can we turn that intuition into a quantitative measurement?
We express dispersion as a proportion between average distances. First, we take the distance from one observation of a term to the imme- diately neighboring observation, i. The distances are geographical distances, based on the latitude and altitude of the places. We do this for all other observations of the term and calculate the average distance to the immediately neighboring term obser- vation.
Informally, this is the average distance between a black dot and another black dot representing the same lexical item. Second, we take the distance from one observation of a term to the im- mediately neighboring observation of the concept, i. We do this for all other observa- tions of the term and calculate the average distance to the immediately neighboring concept observation. Third, for each term, we take the proportion of the two averages that we just described.
This measure yields the dispersion for a single term in the onomasiological range of a concept, but we are obviously interested in the overall dispersion for the concept. That is why we calculate a weighed av- erage of the measures of dispersion of the individual terms: The range of a concept is illustrated by Figure 2. Each of the solid boxes indicates the maximal geographical range of a given term for a given con- cept, regardless of the dispersion within that maximal area of occurrence.
The situation on the left hand side of the figure is more fragmented than the situation to the right: In practical terms, range is calculated in the following steps. First, we calculate the surface that is covered by the attestations of one term. Third, we calculate this proportion for each term in a concept and then take the weighted average proportion. As before, we are weighting terms by their token size within the onomasiological profile of the concept.
Figure 2. A schematic representation of geographical range Once we have a measure for diversity, dispersion, and range, we can go back to our earlier definition of heterogeneity as the product of diversity and geographic fragmentation. Because geographic fragmentation rises as dispersion increases, and diminishes as range increases, fragmentation may now be defined as the proportion of dispersion and range.
The overall for- mula for heterogeneity then takes the following form: Analyzing the data The response variable and the five explanatory variables are subjected to a multiple linear regression analysis. The results of the analysis are presented in Table 2. The abbreviations used for the predictor variables as follows. The results of the multiple linear regression analysis Coefficients: Estimate Std.
First, because the residual values are not normally distributed when heterogeneity as such is used as the response variable, the regression analysis is based on the logarithm of heterogeneity.
Second, to avoid cases of extreme data sparse- ness, we have restricted the analysis to concepts that are attested in at least ten places. This leaves us with of the original concepts. Third, two interactions need to be mentioned in addition to the basic results. For one thing, lack of familiarity enhances heterogeneity only in the case of low or medium non-uniqueness, but it has no effect in the case of extremely high non-uniqueness. The second interaction is similar: Because both inte- ractions do not substantially influence the analysis neither from a technical nor from an interpretative point of view , we consider it legitimate to simp- ly focus on the model without interactions in the rest of the discussion - even though the model with the interactions is intrinsically more accurate.
Fourth, we find 3 outliers and 19 influential observations in the data set. Leaving these 22 observations out of the analysis yields a slightly better model than the one presented in the table: Now, what can we conclude from the results as presented in the table?
With a significance value of less than 0. In the second place, all the factors that we included as explanatory variables ap- pear to have a significant effect. This is indicated by the significance fac- tors in the final column of the table. This is a crucial finding, because it corroborates our initial and fundamental assumption that concept features, and more specifically, heterodox concept features, influence lexical hetero- geneity.
In the third place, when we turn to the first column of figures, we observe that all factors have a positive effect on lexical heterogeneity, ex- cept for the factor 'missing places'. This means that heterogeneity increases as a concept is less familiar, exhi- bits more multiword answers, overlaps more with other concepts, and has a higher negative affect, but that heterogeneity decreases as the number of places with zero observations rises.
Except for the latter, these observations are entirely in accordance with the hypotheses that we put forward. The different behavior of the number of observational gaps is not a total surprise, however.
When we introduced the factor, we mentioned that ob- servational gaps could be ambiguous, to the extent that they could either result from an unsystematic survey technique, or from lack of familiarity with the concept. A calculation of the effect of the factors which we will not present in detail here shows that the effect of the number of observa- tional gaps is the weakest of all the factors considered, which we take as an extra indication that the factor needs to be scrutinized in more detail in the course of further investigations.
Suggesting further prospects The central conclusions to be drawn from our exploratory investigation into the sources of lexical heterogeneity in the Woordenboek van de Limburgse Dialecten are clear.
And as the influence of negative affect shows, concept features need to be taken into account more generally: On top of these theoretically relevant conclusions, there is an important methodological conclusion to be highlighted: Given the apparent fruitfulness of the approach illustrated here, we may conclude with the identification of prospects for further research. Quite a number of perspectives open up.
In the first place, we may try out alterna- tive forms of the study as it was presented here. As we indicated earlier, alternative operationalizations of the factors should be explored, like a to- ken-based rather than a type-based measure of lexical non-uniqueness, or similarly, a token-based measure of diversity.
The design may be varied in still other re- spects: In the second place, we may extend the study beyond its present limits by taking into account other regions: And even more appropriately, given our interest in semantics, we may envisage an extension towards other lexical fields, as represented by other installments of the dictionary: Heterodox concept features and onomasiological heterogeneity 37 References Allan, Keith, and Kate Burridge Euphemism, dysphemism, and cross-varietal synonymy.
LaTrobe working papers in linguistics 1: Berlin, Brent Ethnobiological classification. Lloyd eds. Hillsdale, N. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Their Universality and Evolution. University of California Press. Berthele, Raphael Learning a second dialect: A model of idiolectal dissonance. Multi- lingua A variationist account. In Dialectology Meets Typology. Wal- ter de Gruyter.
Geeraerts, Dirk Vagueness's puzzles, polysemy's vagaries. Cognitive Linguistics 4: The Clarendon Press. Prospects and problems of prototype theory. Meaning, Naming, and Context. Een onderzoek naar kleding- en voetbaltermen. Meertens Instituut. Goebl, Hans Recent advances in Salzburg dialectometry.
Literary and Linguistic Computing Goossens, Jan Strukturelle Sprachgeographie. Carl Winter. Kretzschmar, William A. Literary and Linguis- tic Computing CLR Moerdijk, Alfons, and Dirk Geeraerts Het systematische dialectwoordenboek en de lexicologische gebrui- ker. Taal en Tongval Nerbonne, John, and Peter Kleiweg Toward a dialectological yardstick. Journal of Quantitative Linguis- tics Travaux de l'Institut de Linguistique de Lund Schippan, Thea Lexikologie der deutschen Gegenwartssprache.
Nie- meyer. Sharifian, Farzad Cultural conceptualisations in English words: A study of Aboriginal children in Perth. Language and Education Heterodox concept features and onomasiological heterogeneity 39 Speelman, Dirk, and Dirk Geeraerts The role of concept characteristics in lexical dialectometry.
Interna- tional Journal of Humanities and Arts Computing 2: Speelman, Dirk, Stefan Grondelaers, and Dirk Geeraerts Profile-based linguistic uniformity as a generic method for compar- ing language varieties.
Computers and the Humanities Swanenberg, Jos Lexicale variatie cognitief-semantisch benaderd. Over het benoemen van vogels in Zuid-Nederlandse dialecten.
Szelid, Veronika, and Dirk Geeraerts Usage-based dialectology. Emotion concepts in the Southern Csango dialect. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 6: Measuring and parameterizing lexical convergence and divergence between European and Brazilian Portuguese Augusto Soares da Silva Abstract Following the model provided by the sociolectometrical and sociolexicological study that Geeraerts, Grondelaers, and Speelman performed for Netherlan- dic and Belgian Dutch, the present study investigates the relationship between the vocabulary of European Portuguese and that of Brazilian Portuguese.
Focusing on the lexical field of clothing terms and that of football terms, two main issues: European and Brazilian Portuguese, lectal variation, lexical sociolec- tometry, lexical variation, onomasiological variation, pluricentric languages, quan- titative corpus sociolexicology, synonyms 1. Introduction This paper aims to present the main aspects and results of a research study into the lexical relationship between European Portuguese EP and Brazil- ian Portuguese BP.
There are two main issues: Both issues involve a diachronic analysis, an external one for the former and an internal one for the latter. Other item-related and concept-related features will also be analyzed. Among the hypotheses about the relationships between EP and BP, it is conjectured i that there is an increasing influence of BP on EP and Afri- can varieties as a result of the popularity of Brazilian soap operas and football, as well as Brazilian emigration; ii that BP is more receptive to loanwords; iii that there is a greater distance between formal and informal registers in BP than in EP; and iv that despite the lack of clear hypotheses stated in the literature, a progressive and inevitable fragmentation of the Portuguese language is taking place i.
The present investigation is concerned with onomasiological variation involving denotational synonyms. The empirical background consists of several thousand observations of the use of alternative terms that designate 43 nominal concepts from the lexical fields of football and clothing. This corpus-based onomasiological investigation follows up on the original so- ciolectometrical and sociolexicological study that Geeraerts, Grondelaers and Speelman performed for Netherlandic and Belgian Dutch.
Simi- lar to Geeraerts et al. This paper is divided into six sections. Following this introduction, the second section provides the essential elements of the theoretical and me- thodological framework of this cognitive and quantitative sociolexicologi- cal study of the Portuguese language.
Special emphasis is placed on the mutual impact of uniformity and item-related features. Additionally, the fifth section gives some insights into the ques- tion of stratification. The conclusions and topics for further research are given in the last section. In this way, we hope to contribute to the develop- ment of Portuguese sociolinguistics and particularly to the issue of conver- gence and divergence between the European and Brazilian varieties of the language see Soares da Silva , a.
Lexical convergence and divergence in Portuguese 43 2. Background and methodology Differences between EP and BP exist at all levels of linguistic structure.
Innovative and conservative trends have emerged in both varieties, such that tradition is not the privilege of EP nor is innovation the privilege of BP. One example is the famous essay written by Brazilian linguist Bagno However, linguistic purism is growing stronger in Brazil nowadays. Recently, a Federal bill made provision for forbidding the use of foreign words and stipulated the payment of fines for those who breached the law see Faraco BP presents a situation of diglossia — there is a clear distance between the idealized and prescriptive traditional norm and the real norm or norms used in big city centers — and also a wide dialectal continuum Mattos e Silva , while an increasing standardization of EP has been observed since the democratic revolution.
BP is now facing two major chal- lenges: A population of million Brazilians is foreseen in the next 15 years, that is to say, a 40 million increase in population Castilho As mentioned in the previous section, the four hypotheses about lexical relationships between EP and BP are: As for the hypothesis of divergence, a well-known journalist wrote in a Portuguese reference newspaper: The object of study is a specific form of lexical variation, namely formal onomasiological variation Geeraerts, Grondelaers, and Bakema Onomasiological variation is formal when many different terms are used to refer to the same entity.
This variation is not due to a different conceptual classification of the same entity, but rather to the use of many different synonymous terms, i.
Formal onomasiological vari- ation is particularly interesting from a sociolinguistic point of view because the use of denotational synonyms generally gives some hints as to the rela- tionships existing between language varieties. Indeed, denotational syn- onyms are likely to reveal sociolinguistic differences, i. Formal onomasiological variation, of which contextual variation is an integral part, is essentially the most specific subject of sociolexicology and of this study.
A third lexical field is still under study — health. The empirical background of this sociolexicological study consists of several thousand observations of the use of denotational syn- onyms which designate 43 nominal concepts from football and clothing terminologies. Material was extracted from three different sources: All the materi- al from i and iii was manually extracted. The sub-corpus of football contains 2. The sub-corpus of clothing extends to 1. This corpus is structured according to geographical, diachronic and stylistic variables and has, at present, an extension of 4 million tokens from the formal register used in sports newspapers and fashion magazines and 15 million tokens from the informal register of Internet football chats and clothes labels.
The analysis was carried out for 21 sets of synonymous terms or ono- masiological profiles from the lexical field of football, which means that a total number of terms were studied in a database containing 90, observations of these terms used in sports newspapers and , obser- vations of their use in Internet chats. The analysis is also comprised of 22 onomasiological profiles of clothing items for men M and women F , which means that terms were studied in a database compiling 12, observations of their use in fashion magazines and 3, observations of their use in labels and price tags pictured from clothes shops.
All the pro- files including their denotational synonyms are listed in the appendix terms with a strong popular mark were excluded to avoid inflating differ- 2 ences. The name of each profile is translated into English. The profiles for football are: The profiles for clothing are: The quantitative methods used to measure convergence and divergence as well as other types of distances between EP and BP are uniformity U measures and featural A measures.
Both were developed by Geeraerts, Grondelaers, and Speelman The onomasiological profile of a con- cept in a particular language variety is the set of alternative synonymous terms used to designate that concept in that language variety, together with their frequencies. Uniformity is a measure for the similarity between the profiles in the different language varieties. For instance, uniformity be- tween two samples of data is obtained as follows: This result is obtained by making the sum of the lowest relative frequencies of each alternative term: Technically, the uniformity for a concept can be calculated with the fol- lowing formula see Geeraerts, Grondelaers and Speelman The relation between Y1 and Y2 — in the present study, between EP and BP — is accounted for from a pragmatic and communicative perspective rather than a structural one.
In fact, the attested occurrences of an onomasiological profile are an important factor for calculating the convergence or divergence between language varieties. Diachronically, convergence and divergence can be quantified through increasing or decreasing uniformity.
Synchronically, the greater the dis- tance there is between the standard and substandard registers, the smaller uniformity there is between these two registers.
This is a rule arbitrarily chosen to account for a statistical margin of error. These percentages equal the sum of the smallest relative frequency for each alternative term, i. The increase in uniformity between EP and BP from Another profile-based uniformity measure consists of calculating un- iformity within a single language variety. The internal uniformity reaches its highest value when all the speakers, in every circumstance, choose the same lexical item to denote a given concept.
The internal uniformity value will decrease the more terms there are competing to denote the same con- cept, and the more dominant some of these terms become. Table 2. This can be explained by the two factors which contribute to determine internal uniformity. First, P50 has a single term which is clearly dominant whereas B50 has two dominant terms. Second, there are more highly frequent alternative terms in B50 than in P The proportion of terms possessing a special feature, or A measure, is given in the following formulae.
Table 3. A P50 External diachronic analysis: The internal linguistic factors which may have played a role in the global evolution of the two varieties will be discussed in section 4. Three questions need to be asked: Is in- ternal uniformity greater in EP or BP?
Figure 1 systematizes the percentages obtained in the calculation of ex- ternal U and internal I uniformity for football terms: Table 4.
This means that convergence is found at the level of the most fre- quent concepts see Table 4. At the same time, the results show a great distance between the two varieties along the three time periods. These results, therefore, do not confirm the divergence expectation between EP and BP. There seems to be a convergence pattern in the first two pe- riods, but only at the level of the weighted measure. The convergence pat- tern is not very clear, since the difference between the percentages from both periods is not high.
It should be mentioned that all the phonetic and graphic variants were considered as alternative terms of the onomasiological profile in question. However, golo P and gol B , as well as chuto P and chute B , were not split into alternative terms, because they are intrinsic to their respective national va- riety. The results of four alternative calculations are the following: A similar stable situation is evi- denced by the result of the last alternative calculation.
This means that the inclusion or exclusion of a variant or of a single concept may change the picture entirely, which may pose some problems, particularly since the studied concepts were picked by hand and do not represent the entire lexi- cal field. However, the remainder of the calculations still indicates conver- gence between and Interestingly, the result is the same whether or not the phonetic and graphic variants are separated.
Furthermore, the concepts studied are representative of the lexical field of football and there is a balance between the more frequent and the less frequent concepts. The question of the preference for the weighted measure may be more problematic. Given the alternative calculations, we might in fact question whether the unweighted measure is not being given less attention than it may actually deserve.
We reiterate that, for the present study, the pragmatic perspective which integrates the differences in frequency of the concepts studied is more important than the structural perspective which attributes the same weight equally to every concept.
For this reason, and because the concepts studied are common, the unweighted cal- culation will continue to be used. Another issue in our discussion is the behavior of the profiles, i. The only common characteristic is the fact that some of the profiles relate to less frequent concepts, as Table 4 shows we will come back to this question at the end of this section.
In conclusion, the results seem to indicate a slight convergence between EP and BP between and However, this is a restricted conver- gence.
Furthermore, BP seems to have got closer to EP between and see the diagonal line: What the results clearly show is that internal evolution is stronger and faster in BP than in EP. We could infer from this result that the approach happens mainly in BP. This interpretation is problematic, though. On the one hand, the fact that BP undergoes many changes may suggest that it is recovering from a standardization underdevelopment in vocabulary related to football or in vocabulary in general , or that it wishes to conform to the standard EP variety.
On the other hand, the influence of Brazilian football is well known and many Brazilian players and technicians have come to Portugal. The expectation of the growing influence of BP over EP, particu- larly in relation to football, as mentioned earlier, would mean, on the con- trary, a greater shifting of EP towards BP, which is not confirmed by the results presented in Figure 1.
In order to interpret the results more thoroughly, the features of the terms studied need to be further analyzed. As we will see in the next section, there is a factor which may partly explain why BP exhibits greater changes, as well as the apparent approaching of BP towards EP in the first two periods.
This factor is the introduction of loanwords which have had a greater influence on BP. BP undergoes global and intermediate changes more clearly than EP. That change is directed towards a strong increase in internal uniformity. This may not always be the case, since if a variety changes a lot, such change may either increase or decrease internal uniformity. The increase in internal uniformity, which is stronger in BP, is due to the increase in inter- nal homogeneity derived from two factors: A growing internal homogeneity in the field of football is thus observed in both varieties between and , but the tendency is higher in BP than in EP.
At present, this homogeneity has similar percentages in both varieties, although BP exhibits a higher internal uniformity at the level of the unweighted measure — I B00 We can in- terpret this increase in internal uniformity as an indicator of standardiza- tion, in the sense that standardization can be seen as a process which reduc- es the internal formal onomasiological variation.
This interpretation is set in the context of the growing popularity and globalization of football over the last 60 years. The more popular and globalized football becomes, the more standardized its vocabulary tends to be. There can be onomasiological changes within a standardized linguistic situation; if this were not the case, linguistic change would be impossible in a standardized linguistic context. The results in Figure 1 show that there are also fluctuations in internal uniformity in EP, especially between and The theoretical hypothesis that EP reached a rela- tive standardization situation faster does not mean that within EP changes of onomasiological preferences ceased to take place.
Nonetheless, fewer changes are clearly observed in EP than in BP. Another reason not to use internal uniformity necessarily as an indicator of standardization is due to the fact that it is not possible to know how much internal variation is normal or acceptable to consider whether a given linguistic situation is standardized.
Shop Now. Knitting Patterns Thousands of knitting patterns featuring Lion Brand , Red Heart , Bernat , Cascade , and many more, plus hundreds of talented independent designers. Items per page 30 50 Add Buzzing Beehive Blanket to favorites. Add Sheep on the Hillside to favorites. Add Celtic Myths to favorites. Add Rabbit Toy in Noro Kureyon to favorites. Add Ted Bear to favorites. Add Whiskey Glass Shawl to favorites. Add Baby Elephant to favorites.
Add Easter Bunny to favorites. Add River Otter to favorites. Add Simply to favorites. Add Stuffy Owl to favorites. Add Tahesha the dragoness, a cabled dragon to favorites. Each time you open the app it will sync if the tracker is nearby, That is only about a third of the time you would. Lindeburg, FE Review Manual: Michael R. Lindeburg, -. The Actions Bar is customizable so you may or may not see all of the icons pictured above. Built — in Quality Control, dalam proses produksi maka pengawasan The Material Difference.