M.a.i,f.rat.e tu im.i es.ti,/A.de.va.rat e scris/Tu cern.eala t.i.-o as.te.rni/L.a m.in.e p.e h.artie/Da.r nu m.ai fi inf.umu.rat,/Ca.ci nu este bin.e,fra.te!/F.i ve.sel,zam.b.itor/A.sa,cu.m e sor.a mea car.t.e.
The oddness of the sentence is not syntactic or grammatical, but semantic:
Happiness is something abstract so you would not say you ate a bowl of happiness, which is why the sentence is grammatically correct but it is semantically odd.
It is also odd to say a plate of juice because you would normally use a glass of juice not a plate.
<h3>What are semantics?</h3>
Semantics is the study of meaning. If you study semantics, you analyze the meaning of words and the relation between words.
In this case, you have to explain why the sentence given is semantically odd, which relates to the use of the words in a specific context where you would not normally use them.
Check more information about semantics here brainly.com/question/873851
#SPJ1
Mention the narrator's attitude towards the professional ascent of the ox, Referring to the second stanza of the text
That's the question up there y'all
1. All life is suffering because it will come to an end (the noble truth that all good things will end because they are immaterial).
2. Countering that, not all life is suffering because we can make the most of it and whilst we are happy, we are not suffering.
3. People may argue that that is not true happiness. True happiness is reaching Moksha.
4. Living in the present is a philosophy used by many, why worry about the happiness ending. That in itself is suffering.
5. It could then be argued that if worrying about suffering is what people do, then life is suffering.
