ALT TEXT:

  • Panel 1: A person with the text “Singular ‘they’” written on them smiling with open arms.
  • Panel 2: “Singular ‘They’” beaten up by others who said, “Singular they is ungrammatical. It’s too confusing,” “How can anyone use plural pronouns for singular,” and “Every pronoun should only have one purpose.”
  • Panel 3: “You” hiding from the mob who was beating “Singular ‘They’”
  • Panel 4: “German ‘Sie’” hiding with even more fear next to “You”
  • @samus12345@lemmy.world
    3•1 year ago

    It’s not change itself that I hate, it’s when the change makes language less useful. Example, “literally” meaning its opposite, “figuratively,” through common misuse. “It was literally the million-dollar question” used to mean that it was a question that, if answered, would actually be worth a million dollars rather than figuratively meaning it was an important one to answer. Now it’s unclear.

    • @MystikIncarnate@lemmy.caEnglish
      2•1 year ago

      I like you, you get me. Adapting the language to serve the common denominator isn’t great since the common denominator is generally an idiot. We, as a people, are fairly stupid on the whole. Codifying the literal opposite of a word into that words definition is reducing the clarity of the language, requiring further clarification for the uncertainty, suddenly a relatively terse statement becomes a long unwieldy mess of clarifications for all the idiosyncrasies of the words, since the words have so many contradictory meanings that the statement can be interpreted in any number of ways, instead of how it was intended.

      Over time, the common meaning of terms has been diluted to the point where most statements need clarifying context to even be correctly understood.