tavajoh tavajoh , man motefavetam , yeki mano nega kone , sarta paye mano bayad tala begirin vayeee , cheghadr sakhte , daram divoone misham az in khas boodan , ;)
The different one was the same as others then it is has something in difference that others dont have. maybe it is because that it was really different at first [may be it was earlier]. so that it could get the worm and beome the winner [or the looser]
My dictionary says that it is used as a subject without an agent.
So that natural it was what it was and is continuing to be what it is.
As I get, it is used when you may not call it anything else.
So the correct answer would be that it is what it was. The only difference is the time they were. So it is the purpose which is consistent somehow not the quality which is improving [aggravating]
I was used to think that all its are the same until you mentioned that we are talking about two different its --thanks.
Now if it is the case, I should say that since the possibility that I thought of, was to be in future, you probably wanted to ask: "What that could be?" or at least: "What is that?" which in both, "that" instead of "it" would refer to the 4th question, thats why I was mixed up.
So, if I am right, I am supposed to answer this question: "What can be my [nazanin's] 4th question that I [external] would be embarrassed with?"
But answering that question would not be that easy because: 1) You have already asked your 4th question (evidently 4 != 5) 2) The answer to your question is innately a question itself. Since you may be interested in asking also that question, imagine what happens if the question and the answer turn out to be the same!
To make a long story short, by your 4th question I meant something with the theme of your third question, but deeper in time. I mean the time that I used to consider a weblog to be a public place rather than a close friends group in which any "external" visitor would be discovered easily. The time I was too embarrassed to answer even something like your 2nd question, despite of any [possible!] insists to know the answer. I mean the time that it [ur blog] was named AliveWorld.
Well, there are people reading here while I don't know them; like friends of friends, and friends of friends of friends and so on! But it is O.K; `cause if the blog owner did not want people read these, she would not post them here, huh? May be somewhere else.
So, after a long story the result is: "It is O.K!"
How do you know that this blog's first name was "Alive World"?!
Well, now that everything is OK, as an answer to your latest question I should say that: I am an older visitor out here [than what you may have guessed now]
Do you remember that " good parallel lines"? That was my first visit and comment if you are interested to know.
:D
:D:D
aslan doost nadaram.
fekresho bokon!
aslan dide nemisham
man motefavetam ,
yeki mano nega kone ,
sarta paye mano bayad tala begirin
vayeee , cheghadr sakhte , daram divoone misham az in khas boodan ,
;)
But with everybody?
hmmmm....
(A friend of Nasser Farzinfar... from whose weblog I saw your link)
Anyway, sorry I didn't mean to bother at all by not telling my real name.
Congratulations, Really nice blog you have.
Are'nt you that "alif" ?!
Yes that was me [I think so].
But I am really embarrassed [in advance] of your possible 4th question(s)!
Have a nice time.
if you wish so, Up to now I should say that "it is what it is".
and which it you mean to be what? Please elaborate more so that I can answer.
Didn't I told about your 4th question?:
"what was it?!",
I'm really confused. What does it refer to?
it in it is what it is?! or it in what was it ?!Don't be so confused! it is in it's nature!
So, what was it?! :D
So that natural it was what it was and is continuing to be what it is.
As I get, it is used when you may not call it anything else.
So the correct answer would be that it is what it was. The only difference is the time they were. So it is the purpose which is consistent somehow not the quality which is improving [aggravating]
I think we are talking about 2 different its. Anyone reading here will mix-up in such an strange way; Actually me too!
The it I said is not what it was, but what it is.
I was used to think that all its are the same until you mentioned that we are talking about two different its --thanks.
Now if it is the case, I should say that since the possibility that I thought of, was to be in future, you probably wanted to ask:
"What that could be?"
or at least:
"What is that?"
which in both, "that" instead of "it" would refer to the 4th question, thats why I was mixed up.
So, if I am right, I am supposed to answer this question:
"What can be my [nazanin's] 4th question that I [external] would be embarrassed with?"
But answering that question would not be that easy because:
1) You have already asked your 4th question (evidently 4 != 5)
2) The answer to your question is innately a question itself. Since you may be interested in asking also that question, imagine what happens if the question and the answer turn out to be the same!
To make a long story short, by your 4th question I meant something with the theme of your third question, but deeper in time. I mean the time that I used to consider a weblog to be a public place rather than a close friends group in which any "external" visitor would be discovered easily. The time I was too embarrassed to answer even something like your 2nd question, despite of any [possible!] insists to know the answer. I mean the time that it [ur blog] was named AliveWorld.
So, after a long story the result is: "It is O.K!"
How do you know that this blog's first name was "Alive World"?!
I am an older visitor out here [than what you may have guessed now]
Do you remember that " good parallel lines"?
That was my first visit and comment if you are interested to know.