this post was submitted on 28 Apr 2024
1546 points (92.3% liked)
Microblog Memes
6664 readers
4518 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
'They/them' has been used for singular people for centuries.
https://www.oed.com/discover/a-brief-history-of-singular-they/?tl=true
So that means that's the best way for it to work in the future? Having a distinction between singular and plural is useful, so why *not adjust our language and repurpose the not useful gendered pronouns?
No one said you can't use gendered pronouns.
I understand that, my point is that they're not useful. Or at least it would be much more useful to have a singular and a plural pronoun, because that distinction is more relevant to modern speech.
Language is as useful as people make it and people have been happy to use the singular 'they' along with gendered pronouns for centuries. I don't see the issue.
You could use a similar argument to stop literally any innovation. Things don't have to be an issue to be able to be improved.
Language isn't about innovation unless it is an artificial language. People don't choose their words based on what is innovative.
Are we not intelligent enough to make language whatever we want it to be? We actually do that all the time with political correctness and ungendering words like policeman.
"We" are not under any obligation to make language whatever you want it to be.
Again, most people have no problem with the singular 'they.' You do. Why should they change to accommodate you?
I'm not obligating anything or asking for any accommodation. I'm trying to make an argument for a better system than what we currently have, whereas you just seem to be saying 'change is stupid'.
No, I'm saying you can't force people to change their language if they don't want to no matter how much better you personally think it would be some other way. You can ask, but I don't know why anyone would agree in this case.
Dude, we're probably the only 2 people on earth who are going to see this conversation, how am I trying to force anything? The responses you've given have made you seem like a very close minded person. If you don't agree with what I'm saying that's fine, but if you're going to engage in a debate then please address the things I'm actually saying. Otherwise I'm just going to stop responding.
Cool, I wasn't talking about this conversation and I was addressing what you were actually saying, so I'm guessing you'll have no problem continuing to respond.
Yes and languages evolve. I also worry that your same sort of historial logic can be used in favor of preserving gendered language and traditional gender definitions that is contrary to the goals here.
I'm arguing for a standard usage, he/her for everyone covers always having a singular standardized pronoun so that they/them can be used as plural pronouns without the potential confusion that you may be talking about more than one person in the same literal contextual frame of a discussion. Preciseness of language improves the quality of communication.
Even in that example, and perhaps the modern English translation is just incorrect in its wording, "Each man hurried... til they drew near" is still a plural representative form of usage, as 'each man' is an implied amount of more than a singular man.
To say "Each man hurried... til he drew near... where William and his darling were lying together" creates a confusion of singular subject and does not work since 'each man' and 'they' represents more than a single self identifying entity.
Cool. Good luck getting people to change language they've used for centuries because you want them to.
No, not cool. Languages do in fact change over time, regardless of what you or I may think, do or want.
I never demanded others conform to what I want, I argued in favor of an idea that has evolved over time from my own personal growth and life experiences, and it's a suggestion that is certainly open for discussion.
This was shared as a thought out consideration meant to improve on existing language in several ways, including:
I don't know if you just constantly see red when you go to reply on certain thread topics, but not everything is or needs to be a reactionary agitative internet fight. Have a nice day.
You can argue your idea all you want, but language doesn't change because someone has an idea that they think makes sense. That's not how things work.
That's exactly how things work.
Ideas affect change.
Not every idea brings change, but exploring new and different ideas is always worth pursuing.
Our entire civilization is built from, on, and around ideas put into actions.
That's great. Good luck with your media campaign. Or did you plan to change the language by talking to me on Lemmy?