Aremo Shitai Koremo Shitai Onna no Ko ni Mietatte

I get such a kick out of the prefix 'cis'

getting a book cislated: yup, still can't read it

cisition timeline: just a selfie

cisformation: make a bunch of super saiyan sounds and walk away

cisubstantiation: by the power of god this bread has remained bread

idk its just neat

cisformers: they're just cars

cisylvania: a region where no famous fictional characters lived

the best thing about understanding etymologies and things is you can be so very wrong with them.

once again stating that "dude" being gender-neutral is a North American English regional dialect variation (like people calling carbonated beverages "soda," "pop," "cola," or "coke" depends on where in the US or Canada you are). Specifically, Dude is strictly gender-neutral in Southern & Central California, and I *think* Hawai'i, as an outgrowth of surf culture (think Bill & Ted's very exaggerated 80s LA stoner/surfer dialect)

Dude is MASCULINE in much of the Southwest, Plains, & Midwest when you get into and over the Rocky Mountains, because *there* it's from cowboy culture/slang.

East Coast is weird because we got it from surf culture migrating to Florida & the Carolinas, but it kinda leans masculine, but it also kinda doesn't & depends on where you are.

Which is a long-winded way of saying -- Southern Californians especially are genuine when they're flummoxed by being told that "dude" is masculine, because in their dialect it genuinely isn't. It's also hard for them to stop because they say it almost on reflex, like a filler word.

HOWEVER, if 'dude' makes someone uncomfortable because in THEIR dialect it has other connotations, stop using it! That is polite! Or at least make a strong effort. I know it is very hard not to just spout out "aw bummer dude"

(Similarly, "Hon" in Baltimore and iirc Philly dialect is also completely gender neutral, but I get when people get uncomfy / feel misgendered when I say "aw hon I'm sorry")

Yeah, hon is gender-neutral in Philly. But you still don't use it if people don't like it.

Raised along the mountain region and dude being cowboy slang, while true, is not today's standard, hasn't been that way for a long time due to cultural influence from, you guessed it, southern California. Both in terms of pop culture and the biggest offender being they keep leaving socal to gawk at my mountains.

I'm just as flummoxed over the dude thing not being gender neutral, that's how I was raised, dude was for everyone and dudette got you made fun of for trying to use it (thank the OG TMNT movie for that one).

It's more that a lot of transfemme people feel actively misgendered by it, and if they do, they'd generally just like people to choose a different word rather than use dudette. It can get really upsetting that people (and I'm not saying this is you) feel like they should argue this to death rather than just say, "Oh yeah, totally, sorry about that!" & choosing another word.

A long time ago, someone pointed out (and I acknowledge it's a bit shitty, but I do feel it gets a point across) that if you approached a cishet guy on the street and asked him if he sleeps with dudes, the gender-neutral aspect of the word immediately evaporates.

I don't like being called Dude. I hate it, in fact. Usually if someone calls me Dude and I ask them not to, they respect it. Unless - unless! - they're from southern California. For some reason SoCal folk cannot just take the request and instead launch into a lengthy diatribe about how the word is actually gender-neutral, and how they call everybody dude, and how the word "dudette" isn't real. I've had the Good Burger song sung at me more than once when asking not to be called Dude.

I live in SoCal. Whenever someone calls me Dude, I have to weigh the discomfort of being called Dude with the frustration of having That Conversation every single time. It's exhausting, and I have come to loathe the word as a result.

Honestly, I don't mind the proliferation of emojis in casual online communication because it makes my favourite sort of bit much easier to pull off. Saying patently absurd shit in a perfect deadpan used to be hard to convey in pure text, and now all I have to do is punctuate and avoid using little cartoons.

It's actually kind of fascinating how expressing the formal register in textual communication has shifted over my lifetime. In spoken communication, the formal register is mostly about grammar and vocabulary, and this was once true of text as well, but these days folks will often use very formal grammar in casual text, counting on the fact that they're not captalising the starts of their sentences nor ending them with periods to establish that they're speaking in the casual register – and conversely, doing those things can establish a formal register even when one's word choices are conspicuously casual. We've basically evolved a formal register which is only intelligible in written form because it relies entirely upon orthography.

To the fluent speaker of contemporary textual communication, "fuck" and "Fuck." are completely different sentences.

It’s pretty well known that many English words meaning “bad” or “evil” ultimately trace back to the English-speaking world’s obsession with social class. “Villain”, for example, was originally just another word for peasant, and even the word “mean” simply meant “commonplace” before it picked up its connotations of brutishness and nastiness by association with, well, commoners.

Today, however, I learned one that maybe isn’t so well-known: apparently, the word “lewd” originally meant “not a priest”.

Like… I can see how you’d get from that original meaning to the one we have today, from an etymological standpoint, but it still raises several questions!

Realizing (perhaps entirely too belatedly) that people don't understand what grammatical gender is. Which is fine. Whatever. I'm not g-- I need you to understand that "grammatical gender has some influence on how we view things" does not mean entire swaths of people on this earth are literally pointing at cabinets and rocks and tea kettles and sand and going "Man. Man. Woman. Man"

I feel like every time I make a post about this stuff I end up slowly feeling my laughter taper off while I'm like... you guys are playing with me in my space right? We're all doing a bit together, right??

My favorite response to “that’s not a word” is “then why do you know what it means?”

-core as a suffix serves the exact same function as -esque and yet they throw tomatoes at me when i say something is kafkacore

kafkastuck

(the tomatoes stop midair and change direction) (they are now hurtling towards YOU)

#THESE ARE ALL SUBTLY DIFFERENT (via @brawltogethernow)

yeah it’s like—-

-esque means homaging or resembling the style of, or reminiscent of even if unintentionally; you can apply the -esque suffix without making any overt assertions about creative intent or your own interpretive lens

-core is about pursuing motif as theme; it’s designating the [thing] attached to the suffix as a core (lol) unifying conceptual or stylistic element, rather than a mere attribute. it implies lifestyle choices, maybe an attached subculture–to be thing-core an item must either be produced as part of or usable within a pursuit of the theme

-stuck is weirder because it derives from a subculture to begin with, but generally it’s more like [other thing] ‘in the mode of’ [thing]. thingstuck implies the application of a template to another template to create the fusion child thereof; appropriately has its roots in fanfic aus

holy shit that is all exactly right! i’d like to further suggest:

-punk indicates an ideological counterculture rebellion against current cultural norms in the direction of [thing], such as steampunk and solarpunk. kafkapunk would be something like defiantly embracing the option of turning into a hideous giant bug in lieu of participating in late stage capitalism. which, frankly, is a big mood.

I might quibble on this, because to me, while -esque is “vaguely like (thing)” and -core is “dedicatedly like (thing)” and -punk is “defiantly/proudly like (thing)” I would say that -stuck is “obnoxiously like (thing)”

I see the original post going around every so often and it saddens me a little that it's never accompanied by this thread explaining why it's completely understandable how a child would arrive at these spellings in accordance with english phonetics

samtaims ai vonder if inglis spiiking piipöl aar eiböl tu riölais thät ai äm äksöli vraiting in inglish rait nau bat tsast vith veri finnish spelling

sou if juu spiik inglish bat not finnish kän juu pliis reblog änd liiv ö komment on tis post tänk juu veri mats

Sammteims ei wonda iff inglisch schbieking pipel ahr ebel tu rieleis set ei ehm ecktschuli reiting in inglisch reit nauh batt schast wiss währi tschörmen schbelling

So iff ju schbiek inglisch batt nott tschörmen kenn ju plies riplock end lief eh kommänt on dies pust senk ju wäri matsch

tänk juu for joor tsörman kontribjuusson, ai äpprishieit it veri mats. änd it oolsou helps mii tu gräsp tö essens of tsörman äksent

Samtajms aj vonder if ingliš spíking pípl ár ejbl tu rielajz det aj em ekšuely rajting in ingliš rajt náv bat džast vit veri slovak speling. Sou if jú spík ingliš bat not slovak ken jú plís riblog end lív en koment on tiz poust tenk jú veri mač

Самтаймз ай вондр иф иньглиш спикинь пийпль ар эйбль ту риэлайз дзят ай эм экшуалий райтинь ин иньглиш райт нау бат джаст виць вейрий рашин спеллинь. Со иф ю спик иньглиш бат нот рашин кэн ю плиз риблог энд лив э комент ан дзис пост цянк ю вейрий мач

Samtæms æ wonda if ínglis spíking pípl ar eybel tú ríalæs ðet æ em ektsuali ræting in ínglis ræt ná bat dsast við veri æslendik speling

so if jú spík ínglis bat nott æslendik ken jú plís ríblog end líf a komment on ðis post þenk jú veri mats

Samtaims ai uonder if inglisc spiching pipol ar eibol tu rialais det i em acscualli raiting in inglisc rait nau bat dez uid veri italian spelling. sou if iu spic inglisc bat not italian chen iu plis riblog end liv a comment on dis post tenk iu veri macc’. 

sumtaimes ai wundère eef angliche peepole ar ébl tu rayolize zat i am actualie ritin en angliche rite nau bat dees iz veri french spélling. sau if u speec angliche bat nut french plis cun u reeblog end leev a commant en deez post tank u veri muche

somtajms ai wonde if inglisj spieking piepel ar ebel toe riëlais det ai em eksjelie wraiting in inglisj rait nau but djust wif verrie dutsj spelling

so if joe spiek inglisj but not dutsj ken joe plies rieblok ent lief uh komment on dis poost tenk joe verrie mutsj

Samtajms aj łonder if inglisz spikink pipul ar ejbul tu rielajs dat aj em akczueli rajtink in inglisz rajt nał bat dżast łif weri połlisz spelink

Soł if ju spik inglisz bat not połlisz ken ju plis riblok ent lif a koment on dis połst fenk ju weri macz

somtaghms aigh bhondar iobh iunglois spíocang píopal ár éabal ta ríalaghs dat aigh eim aicsiúlaí raghtuing in iunglois raght nadh bot diost bhot bhéirí aighris spoiling

sómh iobh dhiú spíoc iunglois bot nát aighris cean dhiú plíos ríoblág eand líomh a camoint án dus póst taenc dhiú bhéirí moit

sʌmtaɪmz aɪ wʌndɚ ɪf ɪnglɪʃ spikɪŋ pipl ɚ eɪbl̩ tə ɹilaɪs ðæt aɪ æm ækʃəli ɹaɪɾɪŋ ɪn ɪnglɪʃ ɹaɪt naʊ bʌt dʒʌst ɪn ði ɪntɚnæʃʌnl̩ foʊnɛɾɪk ælfəbɛt

soʊ ɪf ju spik ɪnglɪʃ bʌt nɑt aɪ pi eɪ kæn ju pliz ɹiblɑg ænd liv ə kɑmənt ɑn ðɪs post θænk ju vɚɹi mʌtʃ

ソムタイムズ　アイ　ワォンダー　イッフ　イングリッシュ　スピキング　ピーパル　アル　エーブル　ツ　リアーライズ　ザット　アイ　エッム　アックシャリー　ライティング　イン　イングリッシュ　ライット　ナオ　バット　ジャスット　ウイッス　ベッリ　ジャパニーズ　スペリング。

ソ　イッフ　ユー　スピック　イングリッシュ　バット　ノット　ジャパニーズ　プリーズ　リブロッグ　アンッド　リーヴ　ア　コメンット　オン　ディッス　ポスット　サンク　ユー　ベリー　マッチュ。　

samtaims ai uandăr if ingliș spiking pipăl ar eibăl tu riălaiz zet ai em ecșuali riating in ingliș rait nau băt giast uiz a veri rumeiniăn speling. său if iu spic ingliș băt not rumeiniăn chen iu pliz riblog end liv a coment on zis post senk iu veri maci. 

三台麼 愛 玩大 衣服 英理社 素皮請 皮破 二 誒波 圖 日來四 薩特 愛 啊麼 啊可圖啊哩 熱愛聽 音 英理社 熱愛牠 腦 吧特 加色特 五一特 誒 杯理 拆你色 色陪另。艘 衣服 雨 色皮哭 英理社 巴特 耨特 拆你色 看 魚 皮裡色 日一不落個 安的 哩不 誒 口們特 歐呢 紫色 破色特 三可 雨 杯裡 嗎車。

santaime ai wanda yifu yinglishe supiqing pipo er eibo tu rilaisi sate ai ame aketuali reaiting yin yinglishe reaite nao bate jiasete wuyite ei beili chainise sepeiling. Sou yifu yü sepiku yinglishe bate noute chainise kan yü pilise riyibuluoge ande libu ei koumente oune zise posete sanke yü beili mache.

I was gon say “I’m not smart enough to do this in chinese” and you absolute mad fuckin lad you did it

but also yifu,,,,YIFU,,,, AHSHSHSSH

im too slow for this

Reblogging with amazement and amusement.

This is when linguistics meets gymnastics. Or possibly origami. :-D

Spinster (honorific)

i hate languages

Wait wait I might actually have an answer

Tolkien wrote The Hobbit like waaaay before he even dreamed up the idea for Lord of the Rings, so when he DID dream up LotR, he had a whole bunch of stuff that didn’t make sense. Like plotholes galore

Like for example in the first version Gollum was a pretty nice dude who lost the riddle contest graciously and gave Bilbo the ring as a legit present and was very helpful and it was super nice and polite and absolutely nobody tried to eat anyone because this is a story for kids and that’s very rude

But that doesn’t work with LotR, so Tolkien went back and re-released an updated version of The Hobbit with all the lore changes and stuff to fix everything that didn’t work

This is the version we know and love today

BUT rather than pretend the early version never existed, Tolkien went and worked the retcon into the lore

If you pay attention in Fellowship, there’s a bit where Gandalf is telling Frodo about the ring and he mentions how Bilbo wasn’t entirely honest about the manner in which it was found

To us modern readers, this doesn’t make a ton of sense, so mostly we just breeze by it–but actually that line is referencing the first version of The Hobbit

The pre-retcon version of the Hobbit is canonically Bilbo’s original book. The original version with Nice Gollum is canonically a lie Bilbo told to legitimize his claim to the ring and absolve him of the guilt he feels for his rather shady behavior

Then the post-retcon version is an in-universe edited edition someone went and released later to straighten out Bilbo’s lies

So it’s 100% plausible that the in-universe editor who fixed up Bilbo’s Red Book and translated it from whatever language Hobbits speak was a human who knew about Christmas Trees and tossed the detail in to make human readers feel more at home, because that’s the kind of thing that sometimes happens when you have a translator editor person dressing up a story for an audience that doesn’t know the exact cultural context in which the original story was written

Tolkien was a medieval scholar and medieval stories are rife with that sort of thing, so like… yeah

There’s a good chance it maybe did cross his mind

@old-gods-and-chill LOOK AT THIS THAT’S SO COOL

Not only all that, but Tolkien was also working within a frame narrative that he wasn’t the real author, but a translator of older manuscripts; so, in-universe, the published The Hobbit isn’t actually Bilbo’s book, but rather Tolkien’s copy of an older copy of an older copy of an older copy of Bilbo’s book. So when errors and anachronisms came up, he would leave them there instead of fixing them, and he may have even put some in intentionally; what we’re supposed to get from the “Christmas tree” bit is that the first scribe to translate the book from Westroni to English couldn’t come up with an accurate analogue for whatever hobbits do at midwinter.

Yes. Another example of tolkien doing this is him using, for instance, Old High Gothic to represent Rohirric - not because the people of Rohan actually spoke that language, but because Old High Gothic had the same relationship with English that Rohirric had with Westron (Which is the Common Language spoken in the West of Middle-Earth). There’s tons of that stuff in the book.

Like, Merry and Pippin’s real names (In Westron) are Kalimac Brandagamba and Razanur Tûk, respectively (to pick just one example of this). Tolkien changed their names in English to names which would give us English-speakers the same kind of feeling as those names would to a Westron-speaker. Lord of the Rings is so much deeper than most readers realise.

tolkein’s entire oevre is just one epic in-joke with the oxford linguistics department imo

#i thought it was old english representing rohirric but i have read lotr one (1) time so

No that’s right! The basic point still stands and is neat but a lot of Rohirric names are translated as Old English, like Theodred and Eorl and so on. Another interesting thing is that he sometimes modernized them to modern English because, apparently, those names were intelligible to Westron speakers, either because Gondorians knew them or because the Hobbits recognized them from their dialects (they once lived near the Rohirrim and borrowed a bunch of words, including their name for themselves). Here’s a good link about it from Tolkien Gateway, it’s SUPER cool. 

Also if I correctly recall (it’s been a while so I might not) there was a draft of TTT where Tolkien intended for Theoden to greet Our Heroes in Old English. This was in The Treason of Isengard and I have a very distinct memory of reading it at about fifteen and being completely floored and baffled by the fact that he just…wrote an entire speech in Old English for Theoden to say. Like, can you even believe. I absolutely love how much flavor and care he put into the languages in LOTR.

#other than in respect of certain blind spots #the answer to ‘did tolkien even think about this’ #is almost always ‘the man spent twenty years overthinking it' #and it’s either a moving philosophical reflection or a dumb joke he put in to annoy cs lewis (via @simaethae)

Hot take: people who argue that saying “mood,” “same,” “F,” “oh worm?” etc. add nothing to a conversation don’t realize that they function the same way as aizuchi, i.e. signalling that you’re still paying attention to what the speaker is saying, which is harder to do when you can’t see the other person.  In this essay, I will

why does it matter if the definitions of bisexuality overlap with the definitions of pansexuality or polysexuality or other multisexual identities??

there are over 50 words that are synonyms for beautiful (or have similar but slightly different definitions/uses), but we don’t go around policing people for using words like stunning or gorgeous because “people might get confused and what you really mean is beautiful” 

“i’m sorry ma’am you cannot refer to yourself as beautiful when you are clearly gorgeous. stop erasing gorgeous ppl.”

*writes long blog post about how the term handsome sounds problematic because there is more to a person than their hands, and so I am superior because I refer to myself as gorgeous.*