You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
What is the most preferable and scientific way to distinguish between fake and authentic text? Language.
@guardian has posted small extract from the Kremlin document presumed to be authentic. I have counted 4 linguistic errors and a couple of dubious instances of word usage. /1 https://twitter.com/Andrew__Roth/status/1415612757815308289 …pic.twitter.com/S5QVMG4ovz
For example • a comma shouldn’t be used before ‘и может’ • ‘делегЕтимизация’ is spelled with an orthographic error • ‘провокация возникновения’ is not how native speakers say, even in bureaucratic language • ‘занимающих роль’ is a lexical mistake. /2
So, with a considerable degree of confidence I can assume this is either “Google-translated” text from foreign language to Russian or a text composed with help from an unschooled Russian speaker, or both. It would be interesting to look at other original “documents”. /3
A bit off-topic, in 2004 prominent Russian linguist Andrey Zaliznyak proved authenticity of Old East Slavic masterpiece ‘The Tale of Igor’s Campaign’ solely on the basis of language of the poem which is now considered a role model for linguistic verification of text authenticity.
Il y a longtemps que l'on ne peut plus accorder de crédit au Guardian sur la #Russie. Certains de ses journalistes ont trop de comptes à régler avec Moscou. Mais là, on passe de l'esprit de croisade, finalement assez répandu en Occident, à ce que le KGB aurait qualifié de "Deza".
Je trouve qu'il y a tout de même une grosse différence à entre Shaun Walker, qui était vraiment très bon, Andrew Roth, qui est intéressant aussi, et Luke Harding, qui semble oublier tout sens critique lorsqu'une source ou une rumeur vient alimenter ses idées préconçues.
Of course you have.
So the Guardian, got duped into, believing a fraudulent. Documentya. Right, yes?
I know no Russian. Authentic texts in any language can have lexical or grammatical errors. What you're saying is that these are errors that Russians would not have made, even if careless, drunk, etc? +
That would make sense. But, for instance, in the most certainly authentic letters of St. Paul in Greek,there are some wacko, even incomprehensible linguistic turns. It's part of the authenticity.(Ofc Greek wasn't fully his native language &these were informal,controversial texts)
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
