Of course there is. Illegal use of "they."Jaaaaaa wrote:Nothing ungrammatical bout it tho.JonathanaTegire wrote:I see what you mean...I thought Zomp was better at grammar than that.Space Dracula wrote:Whoa man, that sentence is "messing" with my brainzompist wrote:Someone shouldn't, unless they're me.Guest wrote:Back to the topic of this thread, someone should make some zompist.com merchandise and sell it on http://www.cafepress.com
:ch
A new way of advertising Almea
- JT_the_Ninja
- Sanci
- Posts: 50
- Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2002 1:54 pm
- Location: Nowhere
- Contact:
Meh, I don't see anything wrong with that... I've used it in the same paper as "Yea verily"JonathanaTegire wrote:Of course there is. Illegal use of "they."Jaaaaaa wrote:Nothing ungrammatical bout it tho.JonathanaTegire wrote:I see what you mean...I thought Zomp was better at grammar than that.Space Dracula wrote:Whoa man, that sentence is "messing" with my brainzompist wrote: Someone shouldn't, unless they're me.
- JT_the_Ninja
- Sanci
- Posts: 50
- Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2002 1:54 pm
- Location: Nowhere
- Contact:
It should be, "Someone shouldn't, unless he's me."Jaaaaaa wrote:Meh, I don't see anything wrong with that... I've used it in the same paper as "Yea verily"JonathanaTegire wrote:Of course there is. Illegal use of "they."Jaaaaaa wrote:Nothing ungrammatical bout it tho.JonathanaTegire wrote:I see what you mean...I thought Zomp was better at grammar than that.Space Dracula wrote: Whoa man, that sentence is "messing" with my brain
That could be regarded as sexism.JonathanaTegire wrote:It should be, "Someone shouldn't, unless he's me."Jaaaaaa wrote:Meh, I don't see anything wrong with that... I've used it in the same paper as "Yea verily"JonathanaTegire wrote:Of course there is. Illegal use of "they."Jaaaaaa wrote:Nothing ungrammatical bout it tho.JonathanaTegire wrote: I see what you mean...I thought Zomp was better at grammar than that.
- JT_the_Ninja
- Sanci
- Posts: 50
- Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2002 1:54 pm
- Location: Nowhere
- Contact:
True, at one point, it was proper to refer to a woman as 'he' or 'him' in the accusative. What English really needs is a gender-nuetral third person singular pronoun to refer to humans. There is 'xe', but no one uses it. I don't believe it's even recognised by the OED.JonathanaTegire wrote:Not really. Not only is Mark a he, but the general English pronoun is traditionally "he."
- Drydic
- Smeric
- Posts: 1652
- Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2002 12:23 pm
- Location: I am a prisoner in my own mind.
- Contact:
We've got one: [DeI], only it happens to be homophonous with the plural. Context usually separates the two.Xeon wrote:True, at one point, it was proper to refer to a woman as 'he' or 'him' in the accusative. What English really needs is a gender-nuetral third person singular pronoun to refer to humans. There is 'xe', but no one uses it. I don't believe it's even recognised by the OED.JonathanaTegire wrote:Not really. Not only is Mark a he, but the general English pronoun is traditionally "he."
I hate to bring this up, but...
See also this. It may not seem related to the current discussion at first, but you should know the reason why I linked to that certain topic...
~Tayanrai
See also this. It may not seem related to the current discussion at first, but you should know the reason why I linked to that certain topic...
~Tayanrai
[url=http://www.spinnoff.com/zbb/viewtopic.php?p=127442#127442]If you want to know where I've been and what I've been doing lately, please click this.[/url]
Not to mention it's etymologically blegh...Xeon wrote:True, at one point, it was proper to refer to a woman as 'he' or 'him' in the accusative. What English really needs is a gender-nuetral third person singular pronoun to refer to humans. There is 'xe', but no one uses it. I don't believe it's even recognised by the OED.JonathanaTegire wrote:Not really. Not only is Mark a he, but the general English pronoun is traditionally "he."
What's "xe"?Jaaaaaa wrote:Not to mention it's etymologically blegh...Xeon wrote:True, at one point, it was proper to refer to a woman as 'he' or 'him' in the accusative. What English really needs is a gender-nuetral third person singular pronoun to refer to humans. There is 'xe', but no one uses it. I don't believe it's even recognised by the OED.JonathanaTegire wrote:Not really. Not only is Mark a he, but the general English pronoun is traditionally "he."
http://www.veche.net/
http://www.veche.net/novegradian - Grammar of Novegradian
http://www.veche.net/alashian - Grammar of Alashian
http://www.veche.net/novegradian - Grammar of Novegradian
http://www.veche.net/alashian - Grammar of Alashian
Nobody knows about it either.Maknas wrote:What's "xe"?Jaaaaaa wrote:Not to mention it's etymologically blegh...Xeon wrote:True, at one point, it was proper to refer to a woman as 'he' or 'him' in the accusative. What English really needs is a gender-nuetral third person singular pronoun to refer to humans. There is 'xe', but no one uses it. I don't believe it's even recognised by the OED.JonathanaTegire wrote:Not really. Not only is Mark a he, but the general English pronoun is traditionally "he."
I thought it was something like "nth", where you replace the "x" with another sound... (eg, xe > he, she, ... me?)Jaaaaaa wrote:Nobody knows about it either.Maknas wrote:What's "xe"?Jaaaaaa wrote:Not to mention it's etymologically blegh...Xeon wrote:True, at one point, it was proper to refer to a woman as 'he' or 'him' in the accusative. What English really needs is a gender-nuetral third person singular pronoun to refer to humans. There is 'xe', but no one uses it. I don't believe it's even recognised by the OED.JonathanaTegire wrote:Not really. Not only is Mark a he, but the general English pronoun is traditionally "he."
http://www.veche.net/
http://www.veche.net/novegradian - Grammar of Novegradian
http://www.veche.net/alashian - Grammar of Alashian
http://www.veche.net/novegradian - Grammar of Novegradian
http://www.veche.net/alashian - Grammar of Alashian