theilleists

I tried to explain this near the time of the event, back when I was on reddit. For this I received mass downvoting, and a universal consensus that misgendering is perfectly appropriate as long as the target has done something evil. Even from trans people. "We don't claim her!"

It would be one thing if these same people also misgendered any given cis person who did wrong. But they don't, and that double standard is transphobia. "Of course I would never misgender Hitler. He was AMAB. He earned it. You're not AMAB? Then your right to be a man is contingent on your behavior. I'll decide if you've been good enough to deserve it."

We've got a long way to go culturally before people recognize that there is literally one and only one valid criterion for entitlement to a certain gender identity: claiming it.

"Should of" instead of "should have."

"Me and her went" instead of "she and I went."

"Flustrated" instead of "frustrated."

"To who" instead of "to whom."

"For all intensive purposes" instead of "for all intents and purposes."

"Aks" instead of "ask."

"Literally" to mean "figuratively."

"Shoe-in" instead of "shoo-in."

A semicolon instead of a colon.

Using a preposition at the end of a sentence.

Splitting infinitives.

Starting a sentence with a conjunction.

Each a simple "error" to remember. But there are thousands of them. None make an appreciable difference in understanding. None would ruin a business deal or a meeting except in terms of lost social standing for getting it "wrong." This category of errors is what I believe to be meant by "improper English." This is in contrast to "incomprehensible English."

As I said, successful transmission of the message is the only true test of linguistic legitimacy. You're absolutely right. People are instinctively aware of when their dialectical quirks are going to cause a problem communicating with outsiders, and they code switch. They simplify. Ironically, the less familiar the interlocutor is with English, the more "improper" a native speaker's English might become. "My name? John. Your name?" Yet in so doing, they become more compensable because they've dropped the complex cultural dance which they are so often required by the powerful to perform.

I have a degree in linguistics. The most important thing it taught me is that there is a widely believed fiction, almost like a religion, underlying prescriptivist grammar. For the sake of social advancement, if you have both the means and the talent, it's generally necessary to learn a list of arbitrary but extremely complicated prestige markers for your language, to earn the approval of the self-appointed priestly caste of grammarians, in order to rub shoulders with the rich and powerful. An overly complex shibboleth.

It's a mechanism to oppress the lower classes while maintaining the pretense of pure meritocracy, by declaring arbitrarily that the dialect which is already spoken and written in the homes of the upper class children is proper, and all other dialects are improper, then implying that the "failure" of lower class children to acquire the prestige markers is an intellectual shortcoming, rather than the absence of privilege.

Can you buy books and hire tutors to learn these prestige markers? Of course. Is there general agreement among members of this cult about what their own rules are? Sure. If you choose not to use them, is your English "improper"? Absolutely not. It's different but equal, as long as your meaning is clear. I would wager that more than 90% of people do not go even one day without saying or writing some example of "improper" English, which is nevertheless understood perfectly well by the recipient. Successful transmission of the message is the only true test of linguistic legitimacy. Everything else is performative.

By the way, while it doesn't change much about this more fundamental basis for my opinion that "standard English" is an offensive fiction, neither British nor American English actually have the backing of a nation state. This is in contrast to, for example, French, which does. According to this article on language regulators, "The English language has never had a formal regulator anywhere, outside of private productions such as the Oxford English Dictionary." Prompting my rhetorical question to you earlier: Who is the governing body? There is none.

I thought the same, friend.

It also doesn't help that the third person feminine is ambiguous. There's often no distinction between the accusative "her" and the possessive "her" (except when the pronoun appears in a different part of the sentence and becomes "hers" - fuck I hate English), so it could be interpreted as fitting either rule.

One year anniversary of having a baseball sized tumor removed from his liver. He had been so lethargic while he was sick, but ever since he fully recovered, he's been like a puppy again. We are still lucky enough to have this dog's company.

I don't care if it's not correct - I use "theirself" and "theirselves." It jibes with "yourself," "myself," and "herself."

"Himself" is a frustrating outlier, but I do know at least one person who says "hisself," and that's enough precedent for me.

For airborne contagions. Next question.

What is the opposite of a cat, then?

If your answer is, "it doesn't have one," then I nominate dog.

What is the governing body of your alleged "proper English"?

"Look how big this mole was! Surely it was so big we shall never have to play whack-a-mole again. Game over. Everybody go home. We've defeated moles."

We all know they would if they had the thumbs for it. Fuck bulls.