Post APlV1nAmRuPpjFZfSS by kacey@mspsocial.net
(DIR) More posts by kacey@mspsocial.net
(DIR) Post #APlV1jCPDvL5P8IuR6 by kacey@mspsocial.net
2022-11-18T19:25:59Z
5 likes, 9 repeats
Next time someone complains about singular "they" I'll point them to this 17th century rant against singular "you"
(DIR) Post #APlV1nAmRuPpjFZfSS by kacey@mspsocial.net
2022-11-18T19:28:40Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
(Basically my only tweet that ever "did numbers". Screenshot here for posterity.)
(DIR) Post #APlV1nHA4BWI32YlP6 by mansr@society.oftrolls.com
2022-11-19T15:04:21Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@kacey I'm having trouble reading that. It seems to be somehow corrupt.
(DIR) Post #APlV1oFmQo0d52vAtE by kacey@mspsocial.net
2022-11-18T22:28:52Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
The best thing about this tweet is it always gets me lots of new non-binary moots. I hope they appreciate my content, which is almost strictly cats and baduk.
(DIR) Post #APlYFGz3DxsloRCwHg by djsumdog@djsumdog.com
2022-11-19T15:40:24.379896Z
2 likes, 0 repeats
I was always under the impressions thou was informal and you was formal. Maybe this came later, with thou being singular.Honestly though, I take the writers stance. It's stupid we lost thou/thy and all its congregations if it was the distinction between singular and plural. I hate that ambiguity in the language.Singular they has evolved because writing "he or she" each time just get annoying, but it's still quite common in legal documents.
(DIR) Post #APlcUDlbrl5VzpIuG0 by polarisera@spinster.xyz
2022-11-19T16:27:58.332229Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@kacey Never let your morons dictate language, it the job of those who think and write, not the job of the grovelling and gnashing.
(DIR) Post #APlpuSNFTjpAETkXWS by fcktheworld587@social.linux.pizza
2022-11-19T18:58:20Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@djsumdog @kacey it's pretty typical of language for the second person plural to take the same form as the second person formal. Both French and German do it - and I'm sure other languages, which I don't speak, do, as well
(DIR) Post #APnmrqre3aQFlxxAo4 by djsumdog@djsumdog.com
2022-11-20T17:33:36.130648Z
2 likes, 0 repeats
Yea your example is grammatically incorrect. They should only be used if you don’t know which gender to you; as if it’s indefinite/could be anyone. You have a subject, Andrea, so it’s correct to use she. It was correct all through the 90s and up until about 5 minutes ago.Neo-pronouns are the absolute dumbest thing. Language takes centuries of natural evolution and it’s taking the reins of a closed class and trying to whip around the entire world in five minutes. I’ve written an entire detailed post about this back in 2019:https://battlepenguin.com/philosophy/perspective/preferred-gender-pronouns/The biggest problem with all this pronoun garbage is that it creates a way for people to be offended in the base language. That’s insane. Words have to represent things fairly well for everyone. If a word doesn’t represent something to the speakers of the language; if it depends on what is in one particular speaker’s mind, you’ve added insanity to the core language.
(DIR) Post #APoIGO1jVWPI9bqpJA by djsumdog@djsumdog.com
2022-11-20T23:25:22.566077Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
I realize you chose "Andrea" for that purpose, since it is ambiguous. The trouble is you use a specific name. The case where one uses a specific name and does not know who that person is, is rare and unrealistic. If Andrea is a girl, you would put she. Andrea as a boy is rare (It's Andre or André typically). But when you use a specific name in a sentence, you usually know the subject; so it's a bad example.> And it's a common occurrence for two people to understand the same word differently (even without linguistic change)This might be true for nouns or adjectives, but not for pronouns. These rarely change. English use to have gendered nouns and those were lost slowly over generations (mostly due to different waring groups combining and literally having differently gendered nouns for the same thing .. with nouns, the _gender_ usually was just a means of having a rhythm and flow to their sounds and nothing to do with the actual words; totally interesting in and of itself).> As for your article, you're right that words represent concepts, but those concepts aren't necessarily cleanly definable with regards to real-life edge cases. (There are lizards that look like snakes, for example.)And this is a part of the _insanity_ I'm talking about. We are in a world where people are only focusing on the edge cases. The 1% of people who are _Tyler Durden's Snowflakes_ (_Fight Club_), are now demanding particular language from everyone. It's so obviously the birth of religion and ideology and most of the hard-left dress it as reason and _science_. There is an entire chapter in _Moby's Dick_ debating if a whale is a fish or not .. but we're not talking about the classification of animals as mammals or birds. We're talking about very simple, fundamental building blocks of language.> But I don't see a problem with telling people what pronouns one goes by. That just clears up confusion ahead of time.We're going to just have to disagree here. If someone puts in an effort to look like a women when they're really a man, I'm not going to be an asshole. I'll call it a she. But if the individual puts in zero effort and expects that of people, that's a confusing disconnect.At the same time, it's not _hateful_ or _bigoted_ to believe that a person believing they were born in the wrong body is not a rational way to look at the world. Those who disagree immediately start screaming that's not true--call those who disagree bigots and Nazis. They scream at the top of their lungs at college campus lectures and debates, not allowing people to even speak or make a case.You can call someone what they look like, but not agree with their decision or view of reality and say so. We use to be able to have this discourse as humans. We often no longer can.> The only exception here is if someone specifically demands neopronouns for referring to themselves. That's unlikely to catch onOn this we can agree. I don't think it will catch on, but I also don't think _they_ will catch on either. Using _they_ for a known singular is super confusing. It literally sounds like you're talking about someone with _dissociative identity disorder_, and using it to refer to someone sounds like that disorder in my head. I don't like it and will always push back on it as a cultural norm.He or she makes sense to me and is what I will continue to push in my own speech. If a purple haired freak shrieks at me because I say he or she and it wants me to call it something else, I'm going to say no. If it continues to shriek like a harpies, I'm going to walk away. If one day people get arrested for this behavior, I am going to blame people like you who let this insanity happen. The UK has already started to walk back on a lot of this; the rest of the world needs to as well. The control of language, and making terms impossible to understand, is how cultures fall apart and evaporate.
(DIR) Post #AQlmqzICrCI021OFyi by coldacid@noagendasocial.com
2022-12-19T16:16:14Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@djsumdog @kacey yeah the formal/informal aspect is a mirror of the French use of the plural second person for formal speech; however, the French at least kept their singular second person whereas English has tried to pretend it doesn't exist outside of the KJV or Shakespeare.
(DIR) Post #ARjRiwuVv2406mtv2O by acousticmirror@post.lurk.org
2022-11-19T11:12:59Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@kacey @otfrom I always found this resistance to "pronouns" in English hilarious. All my lecturers at college, most of the academic literature we read, generally formal English used "they/them" all the time. There is nothing particularly new about it. If there is resistance, it's not premised on linguistics, it's premised on politics.
(DIR) Post #ARjRnGB4E6x31RhPPM by norootcause@hachyderm.io
2022-11-20T02:41:14Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@kacey Roses are red,violets are bluesingular “they” is olderthan singular “you”
(DIR) Post #ARjRrpdYKatI9kCebA by TMakarios@theres.life
2022-11-21T01:59:16Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@kacey There's also the use of singular "they" in the King James Version and earlier English Bible translations, though I think its use to refer to a specific named person is more recent.https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003572.html
(DIR) Post #ARjRw3ZiS3UuXiQHzc by hengymrohebwlad@mstdn.social
2022-11-19T10:37:27Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@kacey To be honest, it all started to go wrong when those crazy kids stopped using proper Anglo-Saxon dual pronouns....https://oldenglish.info/pro3.html
(DIR) Post #ARjwZfDdQKGzDBtfyy by Hyolobrika@berserker.town
2023-01-17T16:47:50Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@kacey To be fair, I don't like singular 'you' either.#BringBackThou
(DIR) Post #ARjwhqkSRQmLHo9Y24 by pureevil@functional.cafe
2022-11-19T18:29:52Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@kacey oh good! Finally someone sensible! Can we have “thou” back? This at least will rid us of annoying “y’all” that has spread all over teh internets. Both “you” and “they” used as singular suck hellishly.
(DIR) Post #ARjwhrB2qa2ucGamTQ by Hyolobrika@berserker.town
2023-01-17T16:49:18Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@pureevil @kacey #RetvrnToThou
(DIR) Post #ARjwvNVDyO72dWTjGq by Hyolobrika@berserker.town
2023-01-17T16:51:45Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@hengymrohebwlad @kacey It would be so cool if we still had the dual number.
(DIR) Post #ARk726dE61f9sg4Hwm by Moon@shitposter.club
2023-01-17T18:44:59.484803Z
2 likes, 1 repeats
@kacey we should go back to using thou