[ SECRET POST #1446 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #1446 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.


__________________________________________________



14.


__________________________________________________



15.


__________________________________________________



16. [repeat]


__________________________________________________



17.


__________________________________________________



18.


__________________________________________________



19.


__________________________________________________



20.


__________________________________________________



21.


__________________________________________________



22.


__________________________________________________



23.


__________________________________________________



24.


__________________________________________________



25.


__________________________________________________



26.


__________________________________________________



27.


__________________________________________________



28.


__________________________________________________



29.


__________________________________________________



30.


__________________________________________________



31.


__________________________________________________



32.


__________________________________________________



33.


__________________________________________________



34.


__________________________________________________



35.


__________________________________________________



36.


__________________________________________________



37.


__________________________________________________



38.


__________________________________________________



39.


__________________________________________________



40.


__________________________________________________



41.


__________________________________________________



42.


__________________________________________________



43.


__________________________________________________



44.


__________________________________________________



45.


__________________________________________________



46.


__________________________________________________



47.



Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 13 pages, 302 secrets from Secret Submission Post #207.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 1 - too big ], [ 1 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[dorknessrising.livejournal.com]

So...uh...don't read it? You have the option to scroll, you know.

For the record, using "they" when referring to a single person sounds way more retarded because it's actually wrong, but whatever. Different strokes.

[(Anonymous)]

Singular they is perfectly grammatical English, despite Strunk and White's claims to the contrary. It's been in use for hundreds of years. Language Log predictably has a lot to say about it (http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?cat=27).

[dorknessrising.livejournal.com]

So says you. Sorry, but I'll believe Strunk and White (along with every English and writing teacher I have ever had) over some anonymous person on the internet, thanks.

[relmneiko.livejournal.com]

English teachers teach you so much that is wrong about language. Most English teachers can't even correctly define a noun. Also learn the difference between prescriptive and descriptive grammar.

[dorknessrising.livejournal.com]

Maybe where you are. Which, of course, would explain why you think singular they is proper English.

[kitty-wake.livejournal.com]

Why not get off your high horse before you fall off it?

[(Anonymous)]

Ah, she already fell off it. Quite some time ago.

[(Anonymous)]

Lol believe me, using "they" to refer to a single person does not sound any more retarded than "ze." Even if it's technically incorrect, language has evolved to the point where hearing "they" in reference to a single person shouldn't cause anyone to raise their eyebrows.

[dorknessrising.livejournal.com]

Maybe. It still makes me twitch, though. Which is why I'd personally rather use "ze," or at the very least "him or her."

[(Anonymous)]

Fair enough. I would use "him or her" personally, but in the end whatever you chose to do is really up to you.

[(Anonymous)]

...so instead you use something that isn't even recognized as an actual word?

Whether you're personally willing to look into it or not (because, "Oh dear, internet strangers are trying to tell me things! As the Elite All-Knowing Matron of the English Language, I must dismiss off-hand everything they say!"), there is debate among grammarians/linguists about whether or not "they" can be used as a singular pronoun. There's not really any debate about "ze," however, because it's not a real word.

But oh well. You just keep right on making up words. I'm sure Strunk, White, and your English teachers would wholeheartedly support you.

[dorknessrising.livejournal.com]

I have looked into it, actually. And I'm on the side of "no, it fucking can't." I would rather use a nonsense word that may at some point in the future turn into an accepted word (because no language ever invents new words as they're needed, no siree) than use something that is absolutely, verifiably wrong.

[(Anonymous)]

... you're something special, you know that? Instead of accepting something (singular they) which is already centuries in the process of becoming an accepted use of the word, you're only happy if you're at the very beginning of the creation of a new word.
Also, you commited the 'appeal to authority' fallacy multiple times in this discussion. Especially when the other anon provided you with a reference and you refused to read it because 'these people I know are more trustworthy than whatever you can cook up'.
Using made-up pronouns because you prefer them over 'they' is fine, but don't claim you have some sort of higher ground from which to shout down to all the people who wrongly use singular they. The point of language is communication and 'they' does the job a whole lot better than 'zie' or whatever.

[(Anonymous)]

Okay, that wasn't the clearest I've written, so I'll try again: Why can 'zie' turn into an accepted word and singular 'they' can't?

[kitty-wake.livejournal.com]

And no language ever presses old words into new meanings which people feel are needed either, right? Right? No language ever changes its grammar. Ever.

Personally, I prefer to err on the side of common usage than use a neologism which still looks rather jarring. Who knows? Zie might become common in the future, but if the eye is currently drawn to the use of this new word rather than to the content of the writing... I say it's time to use singular 'they'.

That, and personally it reminds me too much of the German pronoun 'sie'.

original anon

[(Anonymous)]

You've looked into it, and yet you still deny the ambiguity? You still believe it's "absolutely, verifiably wrong," despite the fact that there are professional linguists who don't see it as wrong?

Ya know, you're right. New words are invented, and they do become accepted over time. But, here's the thing: the exact same phenomenon happens with grammar. Language is dynamic; when it ceases to fluctuate, it dies. If you are for the adoption of new words, then you cannot, with any degree of intellectual honesty, be for the stagnation of grammar. To be so is to be a hypocrite, and to also be for linguistic stasis.

[(Anonymous)]

Oh, and LOL at using genderless lingo but then calling something "retarded."

[dorknessrising.livejournal.com]

LOL at not knowing what "retarded" actually means outside of social justice arguments.

[wicked-seraph.livejournal.com]

Let me get this straight: you're concerned about not wanting to misgender someone (which is awesome), but you couldn't give two shits less about insulting those with disabilities?

It's not about ~social justice. It's about not being a douchenozzle. It's about recognising that words mean shit and that they can - and do - hurt people. Someone as passionate about the English language as you are should be well aware of this.

If you're not sure WHY that word is offensive (which, considering how pervasive it is in slang, is not a surprise), then I encourage you to read this (http://disabledfeminists.com/2009/10/16/ableist-word-profile-retarded/).

[(Anonymous)]

Well, then, LOL at not knowing what gendered terms mean outside of social justice arguments. Because, really, there's only one definition of "female," and only one definition of "male," and what LGBTQ people think doesn't actually matter.