Anywho, the whole thing of offering corrections....it's all in how it's done.
If I'm a dick about it or or seem like I'm trying to look smart or put others down over innocent mistakes, it's called grammar copping or being a grammar nazi. Who has time? We're typing on tiny phone keyboards here.
If it's presented as just for fun, or "for anyone who may happen to care", or as "nocop" (mere word info without judgment or sternness) then the intelligent people who frequent this site are normally very positive, open, and keen to learn fun new facts about their favorite language.
I usually don't edit email or message board text I write, so there are errors in my stuff on here as well. So what? :)
Actually, the subtly forced use of "they" with a singular antecedent weakens mental capacity. The mind can handle some contradictions, but not one that is used so frequently. It is also collectivist, taking an individual and dissolving him into a group plurality.
Ignorant and unstructured grammar leads to ignorant and unstructured thought, and the elitists know it. They are more sophisticated Stalinists.
I would respectfully disagree that singular they weakens mental capacity. I use it whenever it fits. There's an interesting historical justification for singular they, going back over 500 years.
Singular they, along with its inflected or derivative forms, them, their, theirs and themselves (or themself), is an epicene (gender-neutral) third-person pronoun. It typically occurs with an unspecified antecedent...The singular they emerged by the 14th century, about a century after the plural they. It has been commonly employed in everyday English ever since and has gained currency in official contexts.
wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they
As [Merriam-Webster] dictionary’s staff wrote...“English famously lacks a gender-neutral singular pronoun to correspond neatly with singular pronouns like everyone, someone, and anyone, and as a consequence ‘they’ has been used for this purpose for over 600 years.”
historians.org
The Oxford English Dictionary traces singular they back to 1375, where it appears in the medieval romance William and the Werewolf.
public.oed.com
I've always used it because euphony and common sense.
Euphony: Who doesn't hate the sound of stuff like "If the applicant would take his or her seat, and if he or she would take out his or her report that he or she plans to submit with his or her..." Gaaahhh!
Common sense: In a classroom full of females and one male student, it is "correct" by the rules of grammar but feels utterly ridiculous to say "Everyone needs to submit his final exam." The word "their" works so much better there, since "everyone" conveys the sense of a group of people even though it's technically singular.
"If anyone wants to leave themself liable for that, they're welcome to do it" doesn't look as good on the page as it sounds in casual speech, where this sentence about one unspecified male or female person would scarcely raise an eyebrow hair. (Spoken quickly, it almost sounds like the once-common "himself" for everything.)
Ignorant and unstructured grammar leads to ignorant and unstructured thought
In general this is super correct and accurate—and very concisely stated. Thanks for putting an important axiom out there.
wordnerd's rebuttal of the premise that the use of the singular "they" is harmful masterful. I think he makes a fine case.
For me, however, far more interesting is your basic premise that the mind can be overloaded and pushed into unproductive and increasingly dysfunctional trends, and that the satanists/stalinists know this. In this, you are spot on.
I heard a very interesting comment yesterday in a Seth Holehouse interview:
Regarding the myriad "regulations" that regimes have been implementing in preparation for the WHO-'health'-based power grab, he stated (something to this effect):
"These are not laws. This is all spell-weaving." Point being, as we have directly observed over the past 2 years, that even if what the Cabalites are pushing is unconstitutional, if people believe that it's somehow lawful, then those people respond as such, comply and so are controlled.
There is a powerful area of spiritual interface where the satanists are essentially creating spells to push the populations into trance and hypnosis, where they comply and submit and thus become slaves. A significant part of that interface is the language element, as you rightly observe. Although you refer only to an ignorant and unstructured thought, any hypnotist or (evil) spell weaver will tell you that this is part and parcel of the methodology of beguiling the target and mentally manipulating them.
That's one of the deeper dimensions of what is being done by who you so eloquently refer to as "The Illiterate Liberal Language Lords". On the surface, it's language manipulation in order to control the narrative and edge the population towards reduced mental capacity and clarity, but the more you dig into it, it's about opening people up (making them vulnerable) to spiritual manipulation by demonic spirits who essentially rely on weaving spells in order to enslave and dominate the hearts and minds of weaker humans (on Earth and in spirit).
Cheers, Rooks!
Anywho, the whole thing of offering corrections....it's all in how it's done.
If I'm a dick about it or or seem like I'm trying to look smart or put others down over innocent mistakes, it's called grammar copping or being a grammar nazi. Who has time? We're typing on tiny phone keyboards here.
If it's presented as just for fun, or "for anyone who may happen to care", or as "nocop" (mere word info without judgment or sternness) then the intelligent people who frequent this site are normally very positive, open, and keen to learn fun new facts about their favorite language.
I usually don't edit email or message board text I write, so there are errors in my stuff on here as well. So what? :)
/wordnerd
Same here. You get in a rush and sometimes best case is you make sure the misspellings don't change the meaning.
All good fren.
The Illiterate Liberal Language Lords.
Actually, the subtly forced use of "they" with a singular antecedent weakens mental capacity. The mind can handle some contradictions, but not one that is used so frequently. It is also collectivist, taking an individual and dissolving him into a group plurality.
Ignorant and unstructured grammar leads to ignorant and unstructured thought, and the elitists know it. They are more sophisticated Stalinists.
I would respectfully disagree that singular they weakens mental capacity. I use it whenever it fits. There's an interesting historical justification for singular they, going back over 500 years.
wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they
historians.org
public.oed.com
I've always used it because euphony and common sense.
Euphony: Who doesn't hate the sound of stuff like "If the applicant would take his or her seat, and if he or she would take out his or her report that he or she plans to submit with his or her..." Gaaahhh!
Common sense: In a classroom full of females and one male student, it is "correct" by the rules of grammar but feels utterly ridiculous to say "Everyone needs to submit his final exam." The word "their" works so much better there, since "everyone" conveys the sense of a group of people even though it's technically singular.
"If anyone wants to leave themself liable for that, they're welcome to do it" doesn't look as good on the page as it sounds in casual speech, where this sentence about one unspecified male or female person would scarcely raise an eyebrow hair. (Spoken quickly, it almost sounds like the once-common "himself" for everything.)
In general this is super correct and accurate—and very concisely stated. Thanks for putting an important axiom out there.
/wordnerd
wordnerd's rebuttal of the premise that the use of the singular "they" is harmful masterful. I think he makes a fine case.
For me, however, far more interesting is your basic premise that the mind can be overloaded and pushed into unproductive and increasingly dysfunctional trends, and that the satanists/stalinists know this. In this, you are spot on.
I heard a very interesting comment yesterday in a Seth Holehouse interview:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxKa4hOEp5o
Regarding the myriad "regulations" that regimes have been implementing in preparation for the WHO-'health'-based power grab, he stated (something to this effect):
"These are not laws. This is all spell-weaving." Point being, as we have directly observed over the past 2 years, that even if what the Cabalites are pushing is unconstitutional, if people believe that it's somehow lawful, then those people respond as such, comply and so are controlled.
There is a powerful area of spiritual interface where the satanists are essentially creating spells to push the populations into trance and hypnosis, where they comply and submit and thus become slaves. A significant part of that interface is the language element, as you rightly observe. Although you refer only to an ignorant and unstructured thought, any hypnotist or (evil) spell weaver will tell you that this is part and parcel of the methodology of beguiling the target and mentally manipulating them.
That's one of the deeper dimensions of what is being done by who you so eloquently refer to as "The Illiterate Liberal Language Lords". On the surface, it's language manipulation in order to control the narrative and edge the population towards reduced mental capacity and clarity, but the more you dig into it, it's about opening people up (making them vulnerable) to spiritual manipulation by demonic spirits who essentially rely on weaving spells in order to enslave and dominate the hearts and minds of weaker humans (on Earth and in spirit).
The World Help-Pharma Organization
Preppiette Eruption
They seek to create a mental vacuum, which can't sustain itself and must suck in the loudest and most frequent propaganda.
As for manipulation through false language, how can "clueless" (a richgirl Valley Girl invention) mean "stupid"? Here is its only logical meaning:
There was no evidence, nothing to go on. The detective was clueless.
Or the language is already fraudulent. Quantum grammar.