TIL that the tumbleweeds commonly found in the American West are Russian thistle. They are an invasive species from Asia that adapted well to the dry, open landscapes of the western U.S.
It's kind of funny, I think, that a plant so closely associated with America is actually not native at all.
And then you have horses, which originated there, migrated to Eurasia, went extinct in the Americas, and then were reintrouduced thousands of years later.
It's theorized this is partially why a lot of indigenous societies in the Americas simply didn't use wheels in larger contexts. We've found perfectly engineered wheels in a lot of archaeological sites here in North and South America, but they're almost always on toys. The theory is that civilizations like the Aztecs and various Native American and First Nations peoples invented wheels just fine, but since North America particularly lacks any form of native, easily-domesticated draft animal, wheels just didn't make sense or save anyone significant enough time to really bother with in larger forms like carts or chariots.
Haha, I literally just watched that a few days ago. For a brief second, I saw this post and jokingly thought, "so when did Lemmy start snooping on my search history?"
But seriously, it's a really bad problem. It's crazy how widely they've spread and become such a massive pain in the ass in so many areas.
Sure, but the same applies to so many foods in so many cultures. What was Italian food like before they had access to tomatoes? Eastern, Central European, or Irish before potatoes? Chinese, Southeast Asian, or Korean before they had chili peppers?
Now each of those countries have dishes we associate with them but which use those non-native ingredients.
I was about to say, there isn't just one tumbleweed. There are a bunch of plants that evolved to grow in a roundish shape, dry out, and unroot. I don't even know them by name, but my area has at least 3 distinct plants that could be considered tumbleweeds
I hate to say it, but ð is likely the wrong character for that sound, you'd be better with þ. Ð is never used at the start of a word, and þ has a long history in English as being used in abbrieviations for words like "the" and "that" (see "uses" in this article https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorn_(letter)). Your use of ð is correct for the Icelandic use of the sound, though, so I absolutely see where you're coming from.
Unless you're using the IPA ð, in which case ignore me.
(sorry for the rant, I used to be very passionate about returning þ to common use in English)
Ð use of þ in ðat manner suggests it as a historical spelling dating to a lack of distinguishing of ð sound in English prior to ð letter being codified in written English.
Ðat distinguishment is very much ðere now, and so not using ð appropriate sound due to a grammar clause which is likely an artefact of ð sound not being present at its time of becoming convention is perpetuating ð same kind of issue ðat reintroducing ð and þ would ostensibly seek to help.
So eiðer we could preserve ð grammar convention by assigning þ ð voiced sound, or we could preserve phonemic convention by assigning it its namesake unvoiced sound. Eiðer way, doing boþ doesn't really address ð core issue, just change ð coat of paint its wearing.