Is Barbelith Dying II - Words and phrases

13:50 / 18.11.02

As a companion piece to Sax's inspired "which thread titles make your ears water?" thread, this one asks which words or phrases make you wish you could send flensings by private message.

I was thinking that I'd kick off with "PC Brigade/Political Correctness gone mad/PC Nazis", but actually I'm increasingly realising that they don't make me angry. They are actually quite useful words, since as soon as anyone uses them without irony you can identify them as idiots and behave accordingly.

So, I'm going to go for the phrase "I'm loathe to". Because if you are going to use ten-dollar rooty-poo Fauntleroy phrases, it boots little not to take the time to learn how to fucking spell them. I know, it's petty and pusillanimous but there we go.

Anyone else?

13:57 / 18.11.02

nice topic. an oldie but a goodie:

best expressed as a formula:

[(old school) feminists such as Greer/Dworkin] + [do/say/hate]+ [x/y/z]

Because there are almost no contexts within which Greer and Dworkin agree on anything.

The formula can be used in lots of discussions, replace G&D with names of two other people broadly within the same field but utterly different.

I hate this because it professes to offer comment on a subject whilst simultaneously demonstrating no knowledge/desire to acquire knowledge on said subject.

I've thought about this too much, haven't I?

Sax

14:07 / 18.11.02

This is going to sound really awful and snipey, but this is a personal opinions thread and I hope those who are quite happy to do this sort of thing and quite happy to read it don't think too badly of me, but...

Anything beginning: "Hi! My name is --------- and I'm from Wyoming/Birmingham/Belgium! My favourite book is The Anarchist's Cookbook! I love the Yeah Yeah Yeahs! etc etc.'

It's completely irrational because if I was in a pub and someone walked up and joined in a conversation, I'd probably want them to introduce themselves first. But on Barbelith I'd prefer them to just jump in without the preliminaries.

No disrespect meant to those who are actually doing this at the moment. Just one of those things for me.

Carry on.

14:14 / 18.11.02

The made-up words, "hir" and "ze." They only work in written form, suggest an Anglocentric view of the world and, in the end, will only be appropriated by the other side. What's wrong with using "them" and "they"? Sorry, Deva and others. It's not what you're actually saying, it's just those words.

14:17 / 18.11.02

"I haven't read the rest of the thread but..."

Only when used on relatively serious/well-thought-out and long threads. Go for it on the cheese/superhero threads...

So, you haven't read it, there are four pages of discussion and you're absolutely sure you've come up with a new spin on the topic? (Hint: You. Haven't.) And by starting your post with this, you endear yourself?

"You don't understand where this person is coming from" usually followed by "this is why they're right."

Used by posters who know each other well offline to leap in and rescue each other. If we can't get it from the thread, it doesn't matter, the poster should be able to explain without help from hir cheer squad.

14:18 / 18.11.02

Ha. And we turn into a self-reflexive, performative 'piss me off' thread. Quel choque.

14:23 / 18.11.02

What's wrong with using "them" and "they"?

Um...they're plurals?

14:27 / 18.11.02

"I can't be bothered to explain this"

OK, I am at times guilty of variations on this theme, but usually only after I have tried to do so about ten times. More specifically, this phrase used in the formula "I can't be bothered to explain why you're wrong about (Peter Milligan/Grant Morrison/Jeff Whedon/Phil Hine/Peter Purves)'s intentions here". But you are. Because he's my best mate. And he told me exactly what he was doing. In the pub. Last Wednesday.

14:30 / 18.11.02

What's wrong with using "them" and "they"?

Because, um, it's wrong. The singular subject "somebody" or "a person" requires a singular pronoun. "Somebody who likes chocolate should be able to buy it wherever they want": just try diagramming that sentence.

And the alternatives--doing all gendernonspecific clauses in the plural ("People who like chocolate..."), using the second person ("If you like chocolate..."), or resorting to the use of "one" ("One who likes chocolate ought to be able to buy it wherever one wants")--both tend, eventually, to find the user in a corner where their use (the alternatives' use, not the user's: if I were employing the singular subject/plural pronoun convention, you couldn't be certain of that, could you?) proves unworkable and/or inelegant.

And I use "hir" in everyday speech, actually: the diphthong's not that hard--the word comes out somewhere between "her" and "here."

w1rebaby

14:32 / 18.11.02

"hir" I can just about live with, but "ze" is just ridiculous. I'm loathe to say it, but it's Political Correctness gone mad - Greer or Dworkin would have done that.

My real net hate thing is people quoting from Neitzsche, but that doesn't happen much here, there seems to be a lack of Tool fans. There's actually not a lot that annoys me here that's Barbespecific. I think a new word should be invented to replace "troll", though.

14:34 / 18.11.02

Um...they're plurals?

They're a little clumsy, but they read better than a made-up word. They're already used in this context. And they can be translated and used with speakers of English as a second language.

14:38 / 18.11.02

Who would not be confused at all by the sudden use of the plural pronoun to describe an agent parsed as singular earlier in the same sentence.

Just answering the question "what's wrong with 'they' and 'them'?" here. Jack does so more completely above. That is what's wrong with them. They are not grammatically correct when applied to an individual. To do so is "made-up grammar", just as "ze" and "hir", or indeed "s/he" or any other proposed gender-inclusive pronouns, are "made-up words".

14:40 / 18.11.02

And I use "hir" in everyday speech, actually: the diphthong's not that hard--the word comes out somewhere between "her" and "here."

O ... K ... Sounds clear enough.

Not trolling, honest.

Lurid Archive

14:41 / 18.11.02

I use they and them fairly naturally as singular pronouns - I'm not sure if it is my norf london upbringing or just a general disregard for grammar. It does sound clumsy if used consistently, but I think it is workable.

14:42 / 18.11.02

"hir" I can just about live with, but "ze" is just ridiculous. I'm loathe to say it, but it's Political Correctness gone mad - Greer or Dworkin would have done that.

I can't be bothered to explain why you're wrong.

A new word for "troll", though, is a genius idea. New thread!

Regrettable Juvenilia

14:42 / 18.11.02

Could anyone give me an example of a word that's not made-up?

14:44 / 18.11.02

The other alternative, of course, is to use "he or she/him or her/his or her/his or hers," but that gets to be a fucking drag reeeeeeeeeeeal fast. And in some cases they're not really appropriate--for instance if you're talking about a single person, not a general type, and that person presnts an identity that is sexually neutral or ambiguous or nonbinary: using "he or she" in that situation makes it sound as if you're speculating.

If "ze," "s/he," and "hir" are "made-up words," I think it's about time. English needs gender-neutral singular pronouns besides "it".

If they're not real, then they bloody well should be.

William Sack

14:45 / 18.11.02

"hir" I can just about live with

It's things like this that made me acquire a couple of full stops, though if you're ever in South London, fridge, mi casa su casa...

I used to get in a bit of a lather about misuse of "ironic", but now I love its misuse. Especially from the man who put the "ron" in ironic - Big Ron Atkinson.

w1rebaby

14:45 / 18.11.02

Made-up is fine but they should sound good. Seriously, Jack, can anyone tell the difference between you saying "her" and you saying "hir"? Or do they just assume you're using the female all the time?

14:46 / 18.11.02

Zure, Ai 'c' ior poynt nah.

Grammar's flexible, vocabulary not so.

14:52 / 18.11.02

I'm starting a Head Shop thread on non-gendered language - watch this space. Well, not this space, but the space in the Head Shop. Where the thread will go.

14:53 / 18.11.02

'Semiotic'/'Semantic'.

As in, 'that's just a 'semantic' distinction, it doesn't matter'

As opposed to Semiotic, and Semantic. (Which are by the way, not interchangeable.)

Regrettable Juvenilia

14:55 / 18.11.02

15:00 / 18.11.02

How to rule the world?

15:01 / 18.11.02

That's just semantic/semiotic quibbling to try to conceal the fact that you're wrong, Flyboy.

On a related topic, not just the conflation of semantics and semiotics, but the use of "semantic" to describe an argument that somebody would like to discredit, but cannot, thus: "You're just arguing semantics", with "arguing semantics" equalling nitpicking or obstructiveness.

This is particularly annoying, but surprisingly common, in threads about semantics.

Lurid Archive

15:03 / 18.11.02

Am I to understand that no one else uses "they" as a substitute for "he/she"?

Also, isn't using "ze" and "hir" a change in grammar as well as vocabulary? Not quite as large a grammatical change as "they", perhaps.

15:04 / 18.11.02

"Grammar is flexible, vocabulary not so."

I would argue exactly the reverse.

English vocabulary is constantly expanding, through neologisms, portmanteau words, foreign borrowings, among othger sources. Literally thousands of new words have been coined in just the last hundred years: admittedly, vocabular expansion primarily affects nouns and verbs--but even pronouns must change, albeit slowly: the word its was unknown in Shakespeare's day, and how would we get along without it now?

A hundred years from now we'll all wonder how we got along without hir and ze. We're just ahead of the curve.

15:11 / 18.11.02

That's right: a language's vocabulary is a rigidly defined set of words and *never* mutates and shifts from region to region or time to time. Yes. Historical fact. God knows what they thought they were teaching me at University...

It takes two to do the language tango. My point was that you should at least try to use steps your partner may have seen before.

Hey, that was sarcasm, wasn't it? Or were you being ironic? I can never tell the difference. ;-) At my university (it was an ex-poly so it probably doesn't deserve your capital), using the third person plural was considered acceptable and was suggested as a solution to the problem.

15:12 / 18.11.02

Fridge: From "A Practical English Grammar", Thomson and Martinet (hee!):

They is used as subject only. They can mean "people":

they say = people say, it is said

They say it is going to be a cold winter.

They can also mean "the authority concerned", i.e. the government/local council/one's employers/the police etc.

they want to make this a one-way street

I chose Thompson and Martinet because it is aimed at Ignatius' foreign language students rather than native speakers.

15:13 / 18.11.02

Robbing a bank is a solution to the problem of poverty. Doesn't mean you should do it, though.

15:15 / 18.11.02

hey Lurid - I use 'they', but like you it's local (bastardised cockney) accent again....

But don't tell anyone, see?

15:17 / 18.11.02

"Grammar is flexible, vocabulary not so."

Yoda. R2D2.

15:24 / 18.11.02

Ignatius: I don't think you understand where Haus is coming from. But ze's right.

Eloi Tsabaoth

15:34 / 18.11.02

I use they, but my grammar is especially sloppy. Even for an English student.