These little guys can chew their way through a crab's shell. Don't put your fingers near the business end.
this post was submitted on 28 Mar 2024
441 points (99.3% liked)
196
16582 readers
2244 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I now understand why they are affraid to misgender the fish.
Business in the front, party in the back?
Hi, I'm Troy McClure!
It is a gender neutral pronoun.
Also when talking about people, it would be nice if they was a lot more normalized even in situations where the gender of the person is known.
But “it” is for inanimate objects. “They” is a gender neutral pronoun for living creatures.
But "it" is for inanimate objects
Not quite. "It" is a general reference pronoun with a function akin to "the". It can be used to refer to anything that is a thing, even if said thing is animate and/or living.
When referring indiscriminately to a specimen of fauna, "it" is a linguistically appropriate identifier whereas "they" would only really be entirely appropriate when referring to an individual or subset of individuals, regardless of species or animacy.
Since this fish has no distinguishable identity apart from the cultural impact it may spawn, I reckon it's more appropriate to use "it" but "they" could also work.
I am not a linguist. But if you are, feel free to correct me. If you feel like pretending to be a linguist, go talk to an LLM cause IDC.
I mean, it’s English. The “rules” work sometimes and sometimes they don’t. But we’re taught that they exist, and then told “well, in that case that rule doesn’t apply.”
So neither of us is technically right, at least not in every case. But, generally, if I were teaching someone English, I would tell them, most of the time, “they” is for animate objects, “it” for inanimate—when we’re discussing a singular object or subject. Does it apply every time? No, and that’s still a loose rule. Some people call an animal “it,” but that is a little outmoded.
No, I’m not a linguist either. We’re just two unqualified assholes talking on the internet.
Ok but you're second paragraph raises a new issue, or moreso an angle to what I was originally being pessimistic of: is that really adequate linguistic knowledge to impart on the future generation?
I wasn't taught they for animate, it for inanimate, or at least not that I recall. Maybe for a young child it could serve as a good rule of thumb to be reshaped in school. But besides that, I feel like it would cause more confusion for a non-native English speaker trying to learn the language if you shared that knowledge with them and then they in turn sublimate it into their personal linguist theory for some indeterminate amount of time. Then it could cause language barriers and potentially lead native English speakers to think less of them for their lack of grasp on what we call our stupid language where the rules are made up and the points don't matter.
Then again, I can't immediately conjure any examples of where this linguistic confusion may occur in this hypothetical English learner's day-to-day life. But I personally wouldn't be comfortable dispensing to a learner some less-than-entirely accurate disambiguation about our language, especially if I had reason to believe they could end up blindly parroting it.
This kinda worries me because I don't want to imagine immigrants and future generations alike being conditioned to ignore nuances in dialogue due to ambiguity introduced by some quixotic lesson they received under the notion it was "good enough".
Also, I hope you don't mistake me for trying to argue, I simply enjoy the banter as that concern I shared is a very intriguing thought to me, and I appreciate your willingness to "debate"/discuss it. Otherwise: so true, the Internet was of course originally made so assholes could argue semantics, among optionally more productive things.
A point I want to raise is that if someone is gonna think less of a foreigner bc they use English slightly differently then well it was never the difference in the use of English, it was them being a foreigner.
Also the more you learn a language the more nuance you understand and use, even if that scenario would result of them not noticing the nuance they will eventually learn it
Yes but consider that not everyone is fortunate enough to grow up in diverse environments with exposure to other cultures. If everyone you've ever met from 0-18 is a redneck, how ya think they'll react to x accent. That's unfortunately your floor for expectable initial reactions from mutually non-impressed peoples. I'm not psychologist, figure you aren't either, but there is some principle that elaborates on this, keywords probably akin to cultural exposure in child development, environmental conditioning, and ventures out into other related principles. But idfk what I'm talking about, take this as the ramblings of a madman or whatever.
If you wouldn't call a human being "it", then you shouldn't call a non-human animal "it", either.
yeah no I'm not taking that bait, bud.
I'll call human beings "it" if that's what they prefer!
Why ever not?
Calling non-human animals “it” has psychological effects that help distance us from the atrocities we commit on them. It primes our brain to see them as objects/commodities instead of individuals that deserve consideration.
Think like a pet dog vs a farmed pig. The dog is called with pronouns like he/she/they while the pig is called it. The dog is loved as an individual, the pig is sent to a gas chamber with hundreds of others to be killed young and sold as commodity. If that were the dog who is referred to as an individual instead of an object, that would be considered abhorrent.
The language isn’t the only contributing factor, but does play a part in us being able to look past some horrible things we do by priming our brains to see living beings as just objects instead of individuals.
Oh, OK. We just disagree as to whether it's a good thing or not.
Funnily enough, in spoken Finnish "it" has all but replaced "they".
English is my second language but I learned that "it" was the pronoun used for inanimate objects and animals whose name/sex you don't know yet.
Both are acceptable. Always keep in mind that the American educational system has been under attack for sixty years.
Having a different pronoun for non-human animals reinforces the belief that we're separate from other animals.
Which we are, so that's fine. It's fine to have your opinion, but to assume it is so universal as to be part of the rules of grammar is a bridge too far.
What? No. It's disrespectful to call any animal, Homo or not, "it". Sexual creatures of unknown gender are "they". Always.
load more comments
(4 replies)
I thought it was also used for animals? The dog is running = it is running, and so on?
I mean, other people are saying this, but maybe this is an animal lover thing. Calling a dog “it” makes it seem like you don’t care about or like the animal.
It’s something someone who beats their dog would say, you know what I mean? “Put that thing outside. It pooped on the rug.” Or “can you bring them outside? I’m allergic.” It’s like a respect for living creatures thing. This is just my sense. There are plenty of people who call animals “it.” I just think it sounds…shitty. I dunno. When I’m on a dating app and I see someone has a dog, I don’t say, “what’s its name?” I say, “what’s their name?”
Just recalling how I was taught all the way back in the early 2000s, not in 'murica. 🤷♂️
except babies.
Also when talking about people, it would be nice if they was a lot more normalized even in situations where the gender of the person is known.
Please!! As an enby person, I get so tired of reading "he/she." Just say "they!" It means the same thing while including people who don't identify as either.
If who was a lot more normalized?
Me
You can just use "they". That's what it's for.
are you not afraid to misgender a fish?
I am not afraid to misgender a fish
I am also not afraid to stamp a fish to death
Can fish be mentally ill? Cuz technically u can misgender plants too.
i always feel terrible when i misgender animals so yes
Can we also address that they wrote "is" instead of "are", implying they originally wrote "it" and then erased it?
Are you not supposed to use "is" with "he/she/they"?
I was high af when I wrote that, I honestly have no clue how I came to that conclusion lol
Edit: actually I think what I was thinking was it doesn't work with "they"
It doesn’t but at this point it should.
It’s weird and confusing to pluralize a sentence when you’re still talking about a singular individual. We should normalize “Why is they so cute?” If we refuse to make a new non-demeaning word for a singular.
I say non-demeaning because “Why is it so cute?” Is correct, but calling a living being “it” is objectifying.
I used to think that too, until I realized that verb conjugation in English is not decided by whether the subject is singular or plural. "You" can be both singular or plural, yet we always say "you are" and never "you is". Same for the pronoun "they". It's always "they are".
Unless you is also willing to normalize "you is", I think "they are" is good enough.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Isnt this the carrot eating fish?
I don’t think so. The carrot eating fish was a puffer fish.
ah ye u right, different meme then maybe
"How dare you assume it's a fish?"
"Fish" is racist anyway. Putting them all in the same boat like that. smh
Its pronounced 'ghoti'
"it" is their pronouns
view more: next ›