/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.20781443]

>they, them, their
so, do Anglos not know they can express neuter pronouns: it, itself, its?
the way 'they' is used, beside all the progressive hogwash so not necessarily this queer stuff with multiple pronouns, e.g. they as plural, but placing *it* out of the picture for even what *it* is used for, objects and the like, so animals etc.
I just read 'they the rabbit' which tripped me up to post this.

[Anonymous No.20783251]

>>20781443
Filtered

[Anonymous No.20783262]

>>20781443
I use "it" to address trannies

[Anonymous No.20784299]

>>20783262
transphobic faggot

[Anonymous No.20784319]

I think they should bring back having different subject and predicate words, as well as singular and plural, and masculine and feminine, for "you." It's so lazy that we just use "you" for every second person pronoun. It should be:

Ye/yim
Yigh/yer
Yous
Etc

[Anonymous No.20784426]

>>20781443
>so, do Anglos not know they can express neuter pronouns: it, itself, its?
It is used insultingly. "They" is used a lot because people already habitually use it to address individuals, especially ones they don't know.
We wouldn't have this stupid culture war shit if our language wasn't so gay.

[Anonymous No.20784755]

>>20781443
It's a mental illness of modern anglophones

[Anonymous No.20784829]

>>20781443
>they the rabbit
Have you never seen an animal called "he" or "she"? Nothing new about referring to a rabbit as if it's a person.

>>20784755
Using "they" for an unspecified person of known gender is nothing new, Shakespeare did it:
>'Tis meet that some more audience than a mother, since nature makes them partial, should o'erhear the speech.
It long predates use for specific people.
>their penis
Sloppy, but doesn't appear to be a native speaker. Comment history has mentions of being Ukrainian (even before current events).
>Blade-runner
Once you name a whale it's understandable to refer to it like a person.

[Anonymous No.20784884]

>>20784829
Here comes another patient
>but Shakespeare used it in a completely different way so it's okay!!!

No, no, no. Not the same at all. If you're speaking about a hypothetical person, a person who doesn't exist, a stand-in, then it can work:
>If someone came through this door right now, they would slip on this banana peel and fall

But people use it constantly to refer to specific people, existing people who have a sex in real life:
>I have a friend and they work a pharmacyst
This is grammatically retarded.

>doesn't appear to be a native speaker
Fair then. Sucks that he/she is learning from redditors rather than books, hence inheriting their mistakes.

>Once you name a whale it's understandable to refer to it like a person
No it isn't, if you don't know its sex. I don't know how easy it is for an onlooker to identify a wild whale's cock and balls, but if you can't, then just keep going with "it". Or just assume. Both options work and don't make you sound like a clown.

[Anonymous No.20784904]

>>20784884
Stop trying to be reasonable Anon, you're supposed to be seething over any use of the singular they because of a retarded sense of righteousness and indignation likely spurred on by a hatred of trannies that live in your head rent free masquarading as simply wanting people to follow grammatical rules.
Once grammatical rules are set they can NEVER be changed or played with in any way Anon, language is a concrete concept that cannot change over time, and no pronoun has ever gone from being plural to singular EVER, never in the history of English has it happened and it never will happen because language is concrete and arbited by an outside source to ensure consistency across regions, dialects, age-groups, and more and anyone who breaks linguistic rules or conventions for any reason is a stinky bad man or so swarthy they need reflective clothing to be seen at night.

[Anonymous No.20784922]

>>20784904
wow señor Quixote, you sure showed those windm- I mean giants!

[Anonymous No.20784924]

>>20784884
>No, no, no. Not the same at all.
It's the same as the first example (hypothetical person, a class of fictional character) and similar enough to the second example (referring to a class that contains exactly two fictional characters). I was replying only to those, maybe that wasn't clear enough.
>No it isn't, if you don't know its sex.
Yet surely you don't need to know its sex in order to think of it as a person? Un-personing it for the sake of grammar would also be a compromise, as would assuming a sex.
I personally find that title a bit awkward, a bit unaesthetic, but that's just, like, my opinion, man.

Singular they for specific people is indeed new (and I already said so in my last post), but language changes, it's fine. Modern singular they can be useful.

[Anonymous No.20784928]

>>20784904
>stop trying to be reasonable and instead turn into this deranged strawman that I've invented
Uhm no
>>20784924
>language changes, it's fine
It's fine when it's a natural change, not an artificial one brought on by an agenda

[Anonymous No.20784998]

>>20784928
>It's fine when it's a natural change, not an artificial one brought on by an agenda
Some languages (including Dutch, my native tongue) change spelling by fiat. A governmental institute deprecates a spelling or instates a new rule and everybody follows along.
Modern singular they is natural compared to that. People have to be convinced to use it. When somebody calls a whale "they" that can't be ascribed purely to political correctness, it's because they want to personify the whale but don't know its sex. Nowadays there's a tool to solve that problem, and so they use it.
It's rooted in politics, but it ultimately gets used because people want to use it. Some language is rooted in religion, but I won't reject it for that reason either. People are religious, so they use special capitalized pronouns for God and neurotically inject "Deo volente" when talking about the future. People are feministoid, and so they use gender-neutral language. These cases seem basically similar.

[Anonymous No.20785009]

>>20784998
>hen is

[Anonymous No.20785079]

>>20781443
Sometimes I'm deeply ashamed to be proficient in such filthy language

[Anonymous No.20785104]

>>20781443
>it, itself, its
'itself' is reflexive, you mong. The accusative form would just be 'it'

[Anonymous No.20785110]

>>20784928
>It's fine when it's a natural change, not an artificial one brought on by an agenda
I'm sorry to tell you, but the way you pronounce tomato comes from either anti elite propaganda, anti working class propaganda, or anti british propaganda. It's completely normal, the difference is that this time it happened during your life.