Aboitions are what prohibition-era goilfriends got for unwanted pregnancies.

Afaik, English grammar requires utterances with predicates to have a stressed element in those predicates. Contractions of only a subject and an auxiliary verb - ex: I am > I’m, he has > he’s, they will > they’ll - eliminate that independent auxiliary as a prosodic segment violate that grammar. A - “Who’s going to the store?” B - “I am.” [ok] or “I’m going.” [ok] (or “I am going.”), but “I’m.” is bad, obvs.

That makes sense. I should have specified that if/when the subjunctive shows up in speech, it should exist for largely the same purposes it serves in other languages… granted, even in that case, it’s less complex than in other languages.

There’s at least the wiki article on the English subjunctive. Personal disclaimer: To me (though I’m not a perfect reporter), (American) English feels like it barely has a subjunctive mood in practice anymore. If you’re familiar with the pragmatic application of the subjunctive in your own language or others, that may help, but YMMV for how often and how consistently you’ll hear it used in everyday English speech (at least in the US).

“Homosexuality can never… be justified.” is an odd choice, but I’m sure that’s what nets some positive responses in various cultures. I wonder how the reverse question would poll - “Homosexuality requires justification.”.

Could be lip service; like a superficial gesture to retain some basic standing in the political sphere. Idk why this should be a big deal to anyone.

Good lord, he doesn’t know how to be discreet about anything. Every topic is a chance for him to try to show off. No one likes a braggart, and no one takes a transparent braggart seriously.

Wait a sec, wasn’t the majority of that land in the western states claimed by New Spain and then Mexico? How is the maker of this map qualifying “land of native nations”?