MoultonLava
Torch God
what's wrong here
The Last Post Wins!
- Thread starter Jetstreme ∞
- Start date
what's wrong here
Esther
Stardust Pillar
I need to eat something first
Here's my version:
[To be named]: Allows Navy/Fragment to create projections of attacks and spells they have a clear memory of . The projection functions identically to the original, but has weakened damage and/or effects.
Opinions?
Knight of Seriousness
The Destroyer
The Fun Gang isn't scared.
I think it would be neat if it had non-combat utility as well.
i.e; Navy microwaves some Oreos, remembering a time when Esther did so. With Quality, Navy is able to make an afterimage of the microwaved Oreos, and eats those as well. They taste half as good as the real Oreos, though they only have half as many calories.
Esther
Stardust Pillar
Could work, though technically the spells can also be utility-based.
I'll respond to the next message in this conversation tomorrow.
ThatMossCreep
Terrarian
This image is the cooler version
Noelle Gaming
CelebrationMK10
What would that even do?
Regardless that would be an extremely petty move and I can’t think of any way that “removing” a very important and highly used (you have used them at least five times in the two messages in which you said their removal should be considered) part of speech would be a good thing. Also, the US government doesn’t even control what is or isn’t part of English, I don’t think they can’t just remove a part of speech
Knight of Seriousness
The Destroyer
The purpose pronouns serve is to simplify language. If they do not serve that purpose, they will be useless.
I know how frequently I use pronouns, which is precisely why I believe that if they keep spiraling into disaster, they should be euthanized.
However, that time is not now, and if it happens, it will not be soon.
When I point at the end of a fork in a road and say we shouldn't go there, I'm not saying we should immediately start walking off the road and through the forest in the direction that the other fork leads.
Noelle Gaming
CelebrationMK10
That purpose is not under threat.
I’d still like to know what the government “removing” pronouns even means or what that would even do.
Last edited:
Cream Starlight
The Destroyer
[QUOTE="Jam
MoultonLava
Torch God
nothing wrong here
Cream Starlight
The Destroyer
?
IndigoGolem
The Destroyer
I'm pretty sure nothing. Some languages are formally regulated, i think German and Icelandic for example, but English very much is not. And it probably never will be because it's so widely used.
I like pronouns, personally. Pronouns and how they tie into gender is something i've given some thought (but not a whole lot). The gist is they're useful, and also folks who think we should get rid of them probably don't know what a pronoun is.
Pronouns are great. For emphasis, i'll underline all the pronouns in this post. I have imagined trying to speak English without pronouns. It's not easy. Suppose you want to ask someone a question about themself or something they've done. "Did you see the game last night?" "Yeah, I went with my wife. It was a good time." Without using pronouns, you'd have to use the person's name. Every time you would otherwise just say "you". "Did Bob see the game last night?" "Yeah, Bob went with Bob's wife. Being at the game was a good time." is a pronoun-free version of that same exchange, but it isn't grammatical so it sounds wrong. And suppose you don't know the other person's name. What are you going to do, just say "saw game?" It doesn't work.
I don't think anyone is actually against pronouns. Again, that's dumb. Some people are against other people changing their pronouns for different ones, or for ones that don't fit into the familiar set of "he/him/his, her/hers/she", or people using gendered pronouns that don't correspond with their biological sex.
The point of a third person pronoun is to indicate a specific person in conversation. For this, i think having more pronouns than just "they" for everyone is good. You say "Look at them!" in a context where you could possibly be talking about more than one person besides yourself and me, and then that's unhelpful because i don't know which person you mean without further clarification. If you say "Look at her!", that narrows it down to people who i know are women or whose gender i don't know but who look like women. This is why it's useful to separate people into groups (i believe the relevant linguistic term here is "classes") with different third person pronouns. Further divisions make it easier to tell who you're talking about but also require learning more pronouns. Take it too far and you might as well drop personal pronouns all together and just use people's names. I wrote a little about this some time ago on my 'net log entry on relative pronouns.
For purposes of referring to people without just using their names, i don't see that it matters whether a person wants to go by "him" or "them" or "xem" or whatever else, as long as it's consistent enough that people can refer to the person in question without too much confusion. I do, however, see that gendered pronouns are less useful in situations where you don't know a subject's gender. This is where pronouns based on something besides gender are increasingly useful as guessing someone's gender from just their appearance is unreliable. I assume plenty of languages have pronouns that aren't based on gender or sex, but the only one i know that does is American Sign Language (ASL). In ASL, you refer to a person by pointing to them. You refer to yourself by pointing to yourself. If you need to refer to someone who's left the room, you point to where they were.
I think it does make some sense for many languages' pronouns to be based on sex. It's something that can be easily and quickly determined just by looking at a person. Contrarywise, you can sometimes determine someone's sex, or more accurately their gender, from the pronouns people use for them. I think pronouns reflecting a person's gender is fine. I'm not sure i understand gender because i suspect that if i did i'd also understand why people care so much about it. Really, aside from informing me about a person's preferred pronouns i don't need to know their gender. Maybe that's why so many people think pronouns and gender are the same thing. Pronouns reflecting someone's sex strikes me as largely irrelevant. I can think of two situations in which i need to know that. I'm not a doctor and i'm not interested in seducing everyone i meet, so i have no reason to care if someone's pronouns correlate with their sex.
Pronouns as a whole part of speech don't need to go away. Common pronouns that aren't based on sex or even gender do sound good though. Again, relative pronouns sound silly but they might be worth a try.
I don't think anyone is actually against pronouns. Again, that's dumb. Some people are against other people changing their pronouns for different ones, or for ones that don't fit into the familiar set of "he/him/his, her/hers/she", or people using gendered pronouns that don't correspond with their biological sex.
The point of a third person pronoun is to indicate a specific person in conversation. For this, i think having more pronouns than just "they" for everyone is good. You say "Look at them!" in a context where you could possibly be talking about more than one person besides yourself and me, and then that's unhelpful because i don't know which person you mean without further clarification. If you say "Look at her!", that narrows it down to people who i know are women or whose gender i don't know but who look like women. This is why it's useful to separate people into groups (i believe the relevant linguistic term here is "classes") with different third person pronouns. Further divisions make it easier to tell who you're talking about but also require learning more pronouns. Take it too far and you might as well drop personal pronouns all together and just use people's names. I wrote a little about this some time ago on my 'net log entry on relative pronouns.
For purposes of referring to people without just using their names, i don't see that it matters whether a person wants to go by "him" or "them" or "xem" or whatever else, as long as it's consistent enough that people can refer to the person in question without too much confusion. I do, however, see that gendered pronouns are less useful in situations where you don't know a subject's gender. This is where pronouns based on something besides gender are increasingly useful as guessing someone's gender from just their appearance is unreliable. I assume plenty of languages have pronouns that aren't based on gender or sex, but the only one i know that does is American Sign Language (ASL). In ASL, you refer to a person by pointing to them. You refer to yourself by pointing to yourself. If you need to refer to someone who's left the room, you point to where they were.
I think it does make some sense for many languages' pronouns to be based on sex. It's something that can be easily and quickly determined just by looking at a person. Contrarywise, you can sometimes determine someone's sex, or more accurately their gender, from the pronouns people use for them. I think pronouns reflecting a person's gender is fine. I'm not sure i understand gender because i suspect that if i did i'd also understand why people care so much about it. Really, aside from informing me about a person's preferred pronouns i don't need to know their gender. Maybe that's why so many people think pronouns and gender are the same thing. Pronouns reflecting someone's sex strikes me as largely irrelevant. I can think of two situations in which i need to know that. I'm not a doctor and i'm not interested in seducing everyone i meet, so i have no reason to care if someone's pronouns correlate with their sex.
Pronouns as a whole part of speech don't need to go away. Common pronouns that aren't based on sex or even gender do sound good though. Again, relative pronouns sound silly but they might be worth a try.
Last edited:
Jam🌳
CelebrationMK10
IThinkQueenSlimeIsBad
Martian Saucer
Morning all
No school for me because I need an extra day to get rid of the lurgy
No school for me because I need an extra day to get rid of the lurgy
Cream Starlight
The Destroyer
Hate. Hate. Let me tell you ___
(Complete the paragraph)
(Complete the paragraph)
IThinkQueenSlimeIsBad
Martian Saucer
Gretig
Esther
Stardust Pillar
Cream Starlight
The Destroyer
oo ee ah ah eeh ah ee ooh ahh aahh
heya, how was your sleep?
I put on all-nighters last night due to some weird insomnia-like problem.
Esther
Stardust Pillar
From 1 to 12. I would say I slept alright.
Similar threads
