this post was submitted on 17 Nov 2024
220 points (93.0% liked)

A Comm for Historymemes

1405 readers
1163 users here now

A place to share history memes!

Rules:

  1. No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, assorted bigotry, etc.

  2. No fascism, atrocity denial, etc.

  3. Tag NSFW pics as NSFW.

  4. Follow all Lemmy.world rules.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] PugJesus 93 points 1 day ago (6 children)

Explanation: Latin looks and sounds cool, but it is a Hell Language with infinite declensions and conjugations and other minor grammatical nuances. You want to learn someone’s pronouns in Latin? Best get a paper and pad, it’ll take a while. Pronouns aren’t as important in Latin, though, as it’s a pro-drop language. Context usually fills in for pronouns.

Also, mandatory statement that ‘they/them’ is a perfectly good singular gender-neutral pronoun and I will die on this hill.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 17 hours ago

Latin is like German in this regard, minus the exceptions, which make up around half the cases in German.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 1 day ago (2 children)

“Singular They” has been in use since at least Early Modern English.

[–] PugJesus 36 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

"Roses are red

Violets are blue

Singular 'they' predates

Singular 'you'"

[–] littlewonder 5 points 9 hours ago

I want this on a sticker lol

[–] GuyDudeman 10 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Right? I feel like I’m not taking my anti-crazy pills every time I hear people get mad about not using he/she. It’s just so easy to use “they” and it makes perfect sense. And we should just use it permanently for everyone.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago) (1 children)

My main problem with it is the namespace ambiguity, especially with respect to plurality. For simple statements it's fine, if you're saying something about one person it's going to be clear they are the one you refer to. If you're talking about their relationship to a group though, unlike a singular pronoun it is no longer explicit that you refer to them but not them, for instance. You compensate for this by making sure your meaning is clear in other ways and it can be made to work, but the fact you have to put in extra effort to make up for "they"'s relative lack of structural utility is a serious problem with the word.

I still use it for lack of a better way to avoid implying knowledge/relevance of gender, but it would be nice if some overtly singular gender neutral pronoun like xe would catch on.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 hours ago

Yeah as an example a simple sentence like "My daughter and her boyfriend went to a concert but she got ill so they had to come home"

Can't change to "My daughter and her boyfriend went to a concert but they got ill so they had to come home"

It loses its meaning.

My daughter and her boyfriend went to a concert but my daughter got ill so they had to come home" is extra "work"

It's not perfect

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

We might end up doing that after some time. It’s similar to why we use “you” instead of “thee/thy/thou.”

[–] GuyDudeman 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago

Since I don't know you, and I assume you don't know me, the way you have pointed your language at me demands that I challenge you to a duel.

"Thee/thy/thou" was the familiar or informal, while "you" was formal. You would use the informal with someone who was close to you, a friend or a romantic interest. You would also use the informal as an insult to people you didn't know well, as a kind of "I'm better than you, so I can use this intimate form to refer to you" thing.

Ultimately, "you" became standard in all cases, because it avoided the possibility of unintended insult. In similar fashion, I think we'll end up using "singular they" a lot more often, because of the rapidly increasing awareness about gender fluidity and wanting to avoid unintended insult, just like with "you."

[–] [email protected] 26 points 1 day ago (1 children)

My only comment is that at least you only have to learn it once (or, well, thrice), not for any given conversation.

He, she, or they works well enough for most circumstances. Do we really need to broaden it beyond that?

Once pronouns become unique and personalised instead of generic, you lose the advantages of having them in the first place, and may as well refer to everyone by name every time. It'd be less confusing, especially if you're re-using existing words as pronouns.

[–] PugJesus 11 points 1 day ago (1 children)

He, she, or they works well enough for most circumstances. Do we really need to broaden it beyond that?

I would say probably not. I expect (and hope, I suppose) that things will sort themselves out more or less that way. We live in a time of great reconsideration of gender norms, and it's not absurd to see experimentation in such a period. I use neopronouns (nounself style excluded) as a courtesy, because I understand it brings comfort to many who use them and it's not much trouble simply to do so, but they/them is what I hope we all eventually settle on as standard for NB gender identities.

[–] A_Union_of_Kobolds 7 points 1 day ago

I kinda love the conjugation and declensions in Latin, it's a language where once you learn the rules you know exactly how that word fits. You can almost throw sentence structure out the window. I find that neat, it must've been a fun language for poets.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Why does he also give the plural forms of his pronouns?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago

I have to study it as part of high school. 'Nuff said...