1-viaje
2-I think is tomar un avión
Answer: The fights between gladiators in ancient Rome were brutal. It was not like a football game (American or otherwise) where it would be assumed that both sides would go home with just a couple of bruises. Death was a fairly common occurrence at a gladiatorial game, but that doesn't mean it was inevitable. One gladiator might be lying prone in the blood-absorbing sand of the arena, with the other gladiator holding a sword (or whichever weapon he was assigned) at his throat. Instead of simply plunging in the weapon and consigning his opponent to death, the winning gladiator would look for a signal to tell him what to do. The winning gladiator would get his signal—not from the crowd as illustrated in the famous 19th century painting by Jean-Léon Gérôme (1824–1904)—but rather from the referee of the game, the editor (or editor muneris), who might also be a senator, emperor or another politico. He was the one to make the final decisions about the fates of the gladiators in the arena. However, since the games were meant to curry public favor, the editor had to pay attention to the wishes of the audience. Much of the audience attended such brutal events for the single purpose of witnessing the bravery of a gladiator in the face of death.By the way, gladiators never said "Morituri te salutant" ("Those who are about to die salute you"). That was said once to Emperor Claudius (10 BC–54 CE) on the occasion of a staged naval battle, not gladiatorial combat.
<h2>
<em><u>Ways to End a Fight Between Gladiators</u></em></h2>
Gladiatorial contests were dangerous and potentially fatal, but not as often fatal as Hollywood would have us believe: Gladiators were rented from their training school (ludus) and a good gladiator was expensive to replace, so most battles did not end in death. There were only two ways that a gladiatorial battle could be ended—either one gladiator won or it was a draw—but it was the editor who had the final say on whether the loser died on the field or went on to fight another day.
The editor had three established ways to make his decision.
He might have established rules (lex) in advance of the game. If the fight's sponsors wanted a fight to the death, they had to be willing to compensate the lanista (trainer) who had rented out the dead gladiator.
He could accept the surrender of one of the gladiators. After having lost or cast aside his weapons, the losing gladiator would fall to his knees and raise his index finger (ad digitatum).
He could listen to the audience. When a gladiator went down, cries of Habet, Hoc habet! (He's had it!), and shouts of Mitte! (Let him go!) or Lugula! (Kill him!) could be heard.
A game that ended in death was known as a sine remissione (without dismissal).
Thumbs
Answer:
The correct answer is <u>C) changeable. </u>
Explanation:
Interpersonal communication skills are something we<u> learn, gain and practice</u> throughout our lifetime. We cannot say they are fixed because they <u>can improve and deteriorate </u>without any doubt, depending on if we work on them or not. They are not genetic due to the fact that every person can<u> learn </u>how to develop better interpersonal communication skills. We cannot treat them as impractical knowing that they <u>upgrade the relationship</u> we have with other people. So, the only correct and the only possible answer is <em>changeable.</em>
"The cassock is a very powerful ornament created by heavenly immortals and is only meant to be worn by a true monk.
"If it is worn, all demons are extinguished;
When donned it sends all monsters down to hell.
It was made by the hands of heavenly Immortals,
And none but a true monk should dare put it on."
<span>April 14-21, 2017:
i l0oked it up hahaha</span>
