"Re said..." (1 Viewer)

[Rex Bachmann]

Ryan Wright wrote:

Quote:

While I tend to agree with the specifics of this statement, we part company at its underlying presupposition that you---and those who think like you---have some sole and exclusive right of arbitration over what is "legitimate" (or "proper") and what is not, whether it's language use or social policy, or anything else.
Language certainly cannot be legislated, either formally (by laws) or informally (through ossified rules passed on through social pressure). It never works. Never has. Never will. Not to promote wild innovations like re, ris (the push for which is informed by a sociopolitical agenda that itself is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of language and how it works), nor to preserve ossified relics set up by a ruling elite and also based on misunderstanding of linguistic facts, history, and behavior:

• "Language must not be allowed to 'decay' (i.e., change)."
• "written language = spoken language (i.e., written language is the language)."
• "Writing takes precedence over speaking "
• etc.

All garbage!

 

[DennisHP]

I'm impressed. :rolleyes

 

[Paul D Young]

I think we also need some good gender nuetral names as well so that you won't know if I'm a boy or a girl, for example, "Danky".

Consider the following example:
"When Danky was crossing the street, he/she/it got run over by a car because he/she/it didn't look where the hell he/she/it was going!"

If you notice, I have used a sly method to disguise the gender of the person (a careless reader might not even notice it) by naming the person Danky. Nobody has any idea whether Danky is a boy or a girl and therefore won't make any judgements on whether Danky was a lesser or a greater individual.

When you pick your gender nuetral name, make sure that other people of the opposite sex use it as well so that nobody can guess your gender by hearing it.

Also, by combining all the letters from he, she and it and not doubling up on any of them, we can form a nice gender nuetral pronoun: "sheit" (Pronunciation: 'shit, also 'shE-&t) which can be re-inserted to form the following sentence:
"When Danky was crossing the street, sheit got run over by a car because sheit didn't look where the hell sheit was going!"




By the way, Danky was a boy and he was a lesser individual.

 

[Ryan Wright]

While I tend to agree with the specifics of this statement, we part company at its underlying presupposition that you---and those who think like you---have some sole and exclusive right of arbitration over what is "legitimate" (or "proper") and what is not, whether it's language use or social policy, or anything else.

Well, if I - and those who think like me - are overwhelmingly in the majority, then we do have a sole and exclusive right of arbitration over what is legitimate. A person does not have to agree, but he shouldn't expect to prosper in our culture.
Example: Most people find it unacceptable to run around naked in public. So much so, in fact, that laws have been passed in the majority's favor on this issue. There are tribal cultures elsewhere in the world who do not share this belief and thus do not wear clothes. If I was one of these non-clothes wearing people, I could try to buck popular opinion and run naked through the streets of New York, but I wouldn't get very far.
Conclusion: Popular opinion does indeed have the right of arbitration over what is and isn't acceptable or legitimate, and the majority of us use what English scholars would consider "proper" English.

 

[DennisHP]

I found this on a news web site and though it appropriate;

On a bright sunny day, Chris went over to Sally’s house to play ball, but re forgot rees glove, so re went back in rees house and got it. When re came back, all erm friends were gone."

Who forgot their glove????

 

[Rex Bachmann]

Ryan Wright wrote:

artificiality[/I]]Quote:

Your conclusion is both false and invalid for the reasons stated above, and I might add---since your statement is inevitably political ("We got the power, so we alone decide.")---that on just such arguments Southern lynch-mob activity used to be justified.