• DaddleDew@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    70
    ·
    8 months ago

    These little guys can chew their way through a crab’s shell. Don’t put your fingers near the business end.

  • Deme@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    43
    ·
    8 months ago

    It is a gender neutral pronoun.

    Also when talking about people, it would be nice if they was a lot more normalized even in situations where the gender of the person is known.

    • TheFriar@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      8 months ago

      But “it” is for inanimate objects. “They” is a gender neutral pronoun for living creatures.

      • casual_turtle_stew_enjoyer@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        8 months ago

        But “it” is for inanimate objects

        Not quite. “It” is a general reference pronoun with a function akin to “the”. It can be used to refer to anything that is a thing, even if said thing is animate and/or living.

        When referring indiscriminately to a specimen of fauna, “it” is a linguistically appropriate identifier whereas “they” would only really be entirely appropriate when referring to an individual or subset of individuals, regardless of species or animacy.

        Since this fish has no distinguishable identity apart from the cultural impact it may spawn, I reckon it’s more appropriate to use “it” but “they” could also work.

        I am not a linguist. But if you are, feel free to correct me. If you feel like pretending to be a linguist, go talk to an LLM cause IDC.

        • TheFriar@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          8 months ago

          I mean, it’s English. The “rules” work sometimes and sometimes they don’t. But we’re taught that they exist, and then told “well, in that case that rule doesn’t apply.”

          So neither of us is technically right, at least not in every case. But, generally, if I were teaching someone English, I would tell them, most of the time, “they” is for animate objects, “it” for inanimate—when we’re discussing a singular object or subject. Does it apply every time? No, and that’s still a loose rule. Some people call an animal “it,” but that is a little outmoded.

          No, I’m not a linguist either. We’re just two unqualified assholes talking on the internet.

          • casual_turtle_stew_enjoyer@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            Ok but you’re second paragraph raises a new issue, or moreso an angle to what I was originally being pessimistic of: is that really adequate linguistic knowledge to impart on the future generation?

            I wasn’t taught they for animate, it for inanimate, or at least not that I recall. Maybe for a young child it could serve as a good rule of thumb to be reshaped in school. But besides that, I feel like it would cause more confusion for a non-native English speaker trying to learn the language if you shared that knowledge with them and then they in turn sublimate it into their personal linguist theory for some indeterminate amount of time. Then it could cause language barriers and potentially lead native English speakers to think less of them for their lack of grasp on what we call our stupid language where the rules are made up and the points don’t matter.

            Then again, I can’t immediately conjure any examples of where this linguistic confusion may occur in this hypothetical English learner’s day-to-day life. But I personally wouldn’t be comfortable dispensing to a learner some less-than-entirely accurate disambiguation about our language, especially if I had reason to believe they could end up blindly parroting it.

            This kinda worries me because I don’t want to imagine immigrants and future generations alike being conditioned to ignore nuances in dialogue due to ambiguity introduced by some quixotic lesson they received under the notion it was “good enough”.

            Also, I hope you don’t mistake me for trying to argue, I simply enjoy the banter as that concern I shared is a very intriguing thought to me, and I appreciate your willingness to “debate”/discuss it. Otherwise: so true, the Internet was of course originally made so assholes could argue semantics, among optionally more productive things.

            • OrnateLuna@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              A point I want to raise is that if someone is gonna think less of a foreigner bc they use English slightly differently then well it was never the difference in the use of English, it was them being a foreigner.

              Also the more you learn a language the more nuance you understand and use, even if that scenario would result of them not noticing the nuance they will eventually learn it

        • zarkanian@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          8 months ago

          Having a different pronoun for non-human animals reinforces the belief that we’re separate from other animals.

          • mokosai@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            8 months ago

            Which we are, so that’s fine. It’s fine to have your opinion, but to assume it is so universal as to be part of the rules of grammar is a bridge too far.

                • zarkanian@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  I was taking about how the language we use reinforces belief structures. It’s like saying “illegal aliens” vs. “undocumented workers”. Both are valid grammatically, but your choice of terms indicates your biases.

                  I think if you view non-human animals as conscious beings, you’re more likely to call them “they” instead of “it”.

            • JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              What? No. It’s disrespectful to call any animal, Homo or not, “it”. Sexual creatures of unknown gender are “they”. Always.

        • TheFriar@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          8 months ago

          I mean, other people are saying this, but maybe this is an animal lover thing. Calling a dog “it” makes it seem like you don’t care about or like the animal.

          It’s something someone who beats their dog would say, you know what I mean? “Put that thing outside. It pooped on the rug.” Or “can you bring them outside? I’m allergic.” It’s like a respect for living creatures thing. This is just my sense. There are plenty of people who call animals “it.” I just think it sounds…shitty. I dunno. When I’m on a dating app and I see someone has a dog, I don’t say, “what’s its name?” I say, “what’s their name?”

    • A_Very_Big_Fan@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      8 months ago

      Also when talking about people, it would be nice if they was a lot more normalized even in situations where the gender of the person is known.

      Please!! As an enby person, I get so tired of reading “he/she.” Just say “they!” It means the same thing while including people who don’t identify as either.

  • A_Very_Big_Fan@lemmy.worldM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    8 months ago

    Can we also address that they wrote “is” instead of “are”, implying they originally wrote “it” and then erased it?

      • A_Very_Big_Fan@lemmy.worldM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        I was high af when I wrote that, I honestly have no clue how I came to that conclusion lol

        Edit: actually I think what I was thinking was it doesn’t work with “they”

        • Makeshift@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          8 months ago

          It doesn’t but at this point it should.

          It’s weird and confusing to pluralize a sentence when you’re still talking about a singular individual. We should normalize “Why is they so cute?” If we refuse to make a new non-demeaning word for a singular.

          I say non-demeaning because “Why is it so cute?” Is correct, but calling a living being “it” is objectifying.

          • randint@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            I used to think that too, until I realized that verb conjugation in English is not decided by whether the subject is singular or plural. “You” can be both singular or plural, yet we always say “you are” and never “you is”. Same for the pronoun “they”. It’s always “they are”.

            Unless you is also willing to normalize “you is”, I think “they are” is good enough.