Pet peeve relating to documentaries: refering to a predator hunting for food as sinister or using other words with similar connotatations in describing something that isn’t a herbivore, and thus painting any non-herbivore as inherently some level of evil simply for wanting to eat. Especially common if the predator in question isn’t a mammal, and/or tends to ambush/trap its food rather than chase it.

(Today’s iteration of it involves glow worms, and silk threads covered in mucus. Just because they’re pretty doesn’t mean that the hungry little bug on the end is evil.)

glumshoe:

anexperimentallife:

glumshoe:

rabbitclaw:

anarmyofawesome:

glumshoe:

glumshoe:

People easily mistake neurodivergent speech patterns and communication styles for run-of-the-mill pretentiousness.

I don’t want to get too specific right now, but a lot of people who are neurodivergent (namely autistic, but there’s lots of overlap) struggle with communication. To them, writing/typing may be far easier and more natural than speaking aloud, but it can still come off as unusually formal, overly precise, or more awkwardly structured than usual. Sometimes it’s interpreted as “pretentiousness” because it doesn’t have the same casual cadence many neurotypical writers may use.

This.

wait people consider this offensive?

Not offensive so much as irritating, I guess. It’s low-hanging fruit and easy to mock whenever people pick up on something “off” about you.

Other times, people assume that you employ formal language or “advanced” vocabulary because you’re trying too hard to sound intelligent or superior. What you intend to be clear and specific may be interpreted as condescension.

Ship, you just wrote about ten chapters of my life story. The flip side of this is when you take something someone else says at face value, but they meant something different than what you thought they did, and they’re like, “You knew what I meant; you’re just being pedantic.”

Oof, yeah. I can figure things out for myself and I can follow instructions, but vague/incomplete instructions throw me off tremendously… but I can’t always distinguish between someone’s neutral attempts to be informative versus a passive aggressive “hey, you stupid fuck, I bet you can’t even get the most simple directions right unless I spoonfeed you”. What is mockery, and what is establishment of a basic premise?

Knowing that other people will sometimes say things insincerely for the purpose of humiliating you, it’s easy to becomes suspicious of friendly comments. I met my friend Alexi because I responded to her compliment about my clothing with “fuck you” because it rang all my “this person is teasing you and will use your assumption of good will to hurt you” bells. Nope! She was sincere! I kept going over the interaction in my head until I decided that my initial calculations were incorrect and she was legitimately being nice to me. I found her again, apologized awkwardly, and we’ve been friends ever since. But that was face to face! There were other cues on the table, and the pressure of close proximity encouraging reconciliation. Think how often misunderstandings like that happen on the Internet.

*is very suddenly and unexpectedly reminded of the worst and earliest years of school*

(This is not a bad thing, despite the feeling of being punched in the chest, just. I am uncertain how to quantify what this means for me, to find that someone has been able to put into words one of the aspects of me that was targeted – my brain keeps saying caused, because I was blamed for being bullied – by the people who made my life miserable at school for five long years.)

websandwhiskers:

postcardsfromspace:

chicklette:

qlazzarusgooodbyehorses:

foxsgallery:

shinelikethunder:

can we please bring back “in poor taste” as a concept

Because at some point it got folded in under “problematic,” and now every damn thing that has Unfortunate Implications or deals with sensitive topics indelicately enough to raise hackles or gores somebody’s sacred cow is treated as a grave injustice or a threat to society. Online activism culture has lost the vocabulary to express “this deals with touchy stuff in a way many people might find inappropriate, and you should probably avoid it if insensitivity on this subject gets you angry/upset, but it’s not promoting hateful ideas or demeaning people or affecting anything but my opinion of the creator’s sense of tact.”

I think this really an important post.

We’ve fallen into such a rut of “everything is right or wrong, no inbetween” that stuff that’s merely in poor taste is conflated with things that are actually offensively malicious.

this is so well worded like i been trying to say this for awhile thank you

Damn. This is the thing.

Good, yes. This is a valuable concept.

 . . and while we’re at it, can “problematic” actually mean problematic again?  As in potentially but not definitely bad.  Imperfect.  Difficult to assess.  One person might find it hurtful and another might not.  If you think something is definitely bad, ‘problematic’ is not the word you want. 
Basically can we just have the general concept of gray areas back?

sanerontheinside:

norcumi:

thefreelancerdivision:

Mando’a word for niece/nephew

bu’vodu???

Thought process:

ba‘vodu (aunt/uncle, pl. bavodu’e)

ba‘buir (grandparent)

ba = one generation older?

bu‘ad (grandchild)

bu = one generation younger?

I am really bad at this. A bit of digging turned up a fan-term “ba’ad” (from here), but honestly your logic makes sense to me.

… you know I think there’s a chance they don’t have one, culturally—because of cooperative, clan-based raising of children rather than with family specifications? I mean, yes, parents (buir) and siblings (vode) are important, but you would raise children of the clan no matter whose they were, right? 

I don’t have much to back this, tho, buir’tsad means family lineage and the note put next to it in the Mando’a dictionary says it’s specifically a reference to biological lineage, and rarely used. 

that aside, tho: 

bah is the dative form of ‘to’, so a grandparent might have the shortened form of ‘parent to [your parent]’, ba’buir

it’s a little different with ba’vodu, because by the logic above, I’m trying to form ‘sibling to your parent’. …. now it’s more like ‘to [your parent] sibling’, which is interesting. 

Actually that makes sense, because dative means giving, so your parent was given a sibling, or given a parent in the case of ba’buir.
(it’s definitely within Mandalorian culture to be able to refuse/disown a parent, so I suppose while it’s expected that a parent will do their duty by their children, it’s also of term of respect for the grandparent who did their job right)

does the logic hold for ‘to [your child] children’ (i.e. grandchildren)? bu’ad: children are ade. The root of bu is likely buir, and most of that branch appears to imply responsibility (ex. buirkan). 

so, ‘to [your sibling] children’? vo’ad? lol.

@maawi halp

thebibliosphere:

raivex:

thebibliosphere:

Just while we’re on the subject of spelling and grammar, I do appreciate when people point things out to me. Sometimes I do make mistakes, sometimes it’s autocorrect. Other times it’s a pun (forever the curse of a pun lover) and it goes over other people’s heads. Other times I’m writing something off the cuff and in rapid fire and I’ll miss things here and there in the quick scan I do before moving on to the next thing I need to do on here so it feels like I am not ignoring people. 

But here’s the thing, people sending me “wow you’re an editor and you type like that? lol” messages? Is a dick move for several reasons and I’ll tell you why…

First of all: I am not at work when I am on tumblr. I might as well be my second full time job at this point, but I am not in actual fact on the clock when I am here.

I am not at work when I am texting someone unless I am texting them as a client. I am not at work when I am having conversations with people online, unless they are my client. 

You can correct my grammar or my spelling if you want, but don’t make some derisive comment about me being a writer and an editor and not being able to type and make it into a thing like “wow I guess  could be an editor too if it’s that easy” just because you’re being pedantic with someone you are having an informal conversation with. 

It takes more than the ability to spell and get your grammar right 100% of the time to be an editor. It is not an easy job to be an editor. Which is why when I am not at work, my typing goes to absolute shit because I don’t have the excess energy to expend on that level of concentration when I am not working. Or sometimes just plain don’t give a shit. Like, I do not care. My typing is imperfect when I am talking rapid fire, sometimes with multiple people over multiple platforms at once. Woopdiedoo.

And when you’re mean about it? When you say? “I can’t help it, I know it doesn’t matter but it annoys me when people can’t spell”? 

You’re not only admitting that you don’t care enough to regulate behavior which you know is rude to others, you are also being ableist and quite possibly racist as well. 

Not everyone finds it easy to write, and I don’t mean that in the creative sense, I mean that in the very basic sense that some people with learning difficulties struggle to read and write. 

This does not make them less intelligent than you. It does not make them less brilliant than you. It does not mean they give any less of a shit about something important than you do, or are any less deserving of your respect and civility than some asshole who is an asshole but who knows how to use an em dash correctly.

I’ve dropped clients who had good grammar and spelling, but I just plain couldn’t deal with their attitude, and stuck with the people apologizing over and over for how much work I have to do on their manuscript because they know. They know they’re not as good as everyone else and the social stigma around it is so overwhelming it undermines everything they will ever do.

Other people may also not come from the same culture as you, speak the same languages as you, or have had access to the same opportunities you have had. If their way of communicating is understood but doesn’t conform the views of intelligence, quite frankly instilled by White Nationalism and Colonization and you tear them down for not conforming to your limited world view of propriety? They’re not the problem here, you are.

Someone’s ability to spell does not indicate their value or worth, or even the time they have put into something. I see so many rebuttals on this hellsite and on other places, where people go out of their way to invalidate the words of other people simply because they mixed up “your” and “you’re”, even though it doesn’t stop their meaning from being understood (and honestly it’s most likely auto-correct and you know it), but hey I guess it’s just way easier to tear someone down based on an arbitrary and false idea of assigned intelligence and societal worth based on their use of English grammar than it is to come up with an actual rebuttal. Boy aren’t you a hero.

So just…like…I get it, I get you see something and it’s incorrect and part of you may niggle at it and yes there are times when “perfection” is not only expected but required and spelling and grammar is important (or else I wouldn’t have the job I am very good at). But just, I dunno, quit being a dick to people because you’re a pedantic asshole who wants to feel superior. 

At the end of the day we’re all just sentient atoms hurtling towards the same unknown. The least you can do is be kind.

I 98% agree with this. Only question I have is how is it racist? I’m not trying to be rude, I’m genuinely curious because I haven’t been able to think of a way that it is racist.

@raivex to answer your question, (and I apologize for the lack of sources and if this is poorly written, I am doing this from my bed via mobile so there’s no way in heck I’m going to do this justice) there are a lot of people, online and off, who ascribe to an idea of “Proper English” and perceive it as being a hallmark of intelligence and cultural…validity? I suppose? 

To give you an example of how this works, for me growing up in Scotland, I was always in trouble for “not speaking properly”, when in actual fact I was. I was just speaking Scots, which is its own dialect and some people do argue, own language, as it uses words rooted in our origin of culture that are not found in the English language which has different roots. So, what my teachers meant when I spoke and wrote in my native Scots, was “stop being a northern peasant and speak Imperial English” because English was and still is the perceived superior language considered to be a sign of superior class and intelligence. 

But only if you speak and write in a very narrow and rigid dialect of it which is not in fact native to a huge chunk of the populace in England itself. Amazing, I know.

People who do not speak or write in “Proper English” are often “othered” by those who do so as a means to justify not only their own social class standing above others, but also their support of social constructs which are built on class prejudice and racial oppression dating back to Western Colonization of well…everywhere. 

To give you a bigger and perhaps more recognizable example of this, I see this kind of thing a lot from people who say things like “well if they want to be taken seriously, they should stop speaking ghetto and learn to talk proper” when people use phonetic spelling or grammar as a means expression. (also emojis, emojis are included in this)

Often this argument is used derisively when referring to the use of AAVE (African American Vernacular English, for those unaware) either in written or spoken form, and is an incorrect assumption that AAVE is a purely a slang form of English created due to lack of culture and intelligence. 

This is both a) incorrect and b) based on racist propaganda that is deeply ingrained in White culture from our days of sailing the high seas “discovering” “new lands” and inflicting ourselves on the locals, like a gods damned plague. Quite literally.

What AAVE—and other regional based dialects are—is in actuality, a sociolect of English. 

Which is a fancy ass way of saying a totally legitimate form of English vernacular with its own

pronunciations (varying from region to region, as all language does), unique words, and grammatical rules and constructs. And it is absolutely recognized by linguistics as being a Proper way of speaking and writing. 

And if anyone wants to argue with that then they can meet me in the fucking pit cause I did not go to school for four years for some small minded pedant to imply English, an absolute cluster fuck of a language, is the purest form of expression.

AAVE is not lesser, nor lazy— traits which are often implied by people who attribute social value to the adherence of a very select snippet of the English dialect. Which as we’ve already noted, has its roots in White Ideology and Colonization.

Which, I’d like to say gives a whole new connotation to the term “grammar nazi” but honestly, the implication was always there. 

And again, yes, of course, there is a time and place for precise grammar and spelling, of course there is. But then there’s using someone’s ability to utilize proper grammar and spelling as a means of measuring their worth as a human being and how much respect you offer them, to which my invitation to meet me in the pit still stands.

The concept of language being sacred—but only a certain type of language—and needing to be respected is rooted deeply in problematic and harmful ideation of false superiority. And some people really need to fucking chill over it.

Even Racists Got the Blues

deadcatwithaflamethrower:

meabhair:

allthingslinguistic:

A particularly ironic tale of translation gone awry on The Geeky Gaeilgeoir:

I’m often baffled by the number of people who seem to think that you can translate from one language to another simply by pulling the words of one language from a dictionary and plugging them into the syntax of the other. It just doesn’t work that way, friends. Repeat after me: “Languages are not codes for one another.”

That’s exactly what happened here, though. Someone either found a dictionary or searched the internet for the three words “blue,” “lives,” and “matter,” and stuck them together as if they were English. Oy. Dia sábháil (that’s Ulster Irish for “oy”).

[…]

Another thing this poor “translator” apparently forgot is that the word “lives” in English can be pronounced to rhyme with “gives” or with “hives,” and that the meaning changes accordingly.

What was wanted here, of course, is “lives” as rhymes with “hives.” Three guesses as to which one the “translator” chose. Yep. Wrong one.

[…]

The funny thing here is, the Irish word gorm actually does mean “blue” in most contexts. Just not in this manner, and definitely not in this context.

When color is used to describe a person in Irish, it typically refers to hair color. For example An bhean rua: The red-haired woman. […]

All that having been said, though, here’s the lovely, delicious irony: When the word gorm is used in reference to people, guess what it means?

It means “Black.”

People of African descent, or with similarly dark skin, are described as “blue” in Irish (most likely because dubh (“black”) and dorcha (“dark”) have negative connotations in the language and donn (“brown”) would be understood to refer to hair color).

That’s right. At the end of the day, allowing for grammatical travesties (of which there are many) and horrendous word choices, what this person’s shirt says is “Black Lives Matter.”

Somehow that makes me strangely happy.

I’ve been cackling at this linguistic mess since I saw the tshirt. Irish is not a wierd looking version of English, it’s an ancient and evolving language with a different way of structuring sentences with a range of pitfalls, and I’m glad that racist bollox fell right into one. Tá daoine gorma tábhachtach!

Also, as an aside, Ireland doesn’t have a police force, we have An Garda Síochána, or the Gardaí. In English, it means Guardians of the Peace, and as a rule they don’t carry guns unless they’re part of an armed response unit.

@maawi @obaewankenope @deadcatwithaflamethrower @stonefreeak @eclipsemidnight @lilyrose225writes @sanerontheinside some linguistics for your entertainment

*CACKLING*

Even Racists Got the Blues

thoodleoo:

thoodleoo:

the proto-indo-european word for horse, ekwos (which shows up in other indo-european languages, such as the latin equus and the greek ἵππος), very possibly comes from an adjective h₁eḱus, meaning “swift”

so basically at some point people were coming up with a word for horse and they were like "it’s the thing that goes nyoom”

proto-indo-european dude #1: hmm what should we call this animal
PIE dude #2: let’s call them Speedy Boys cause theyre fast
PIE dude #1: shit dude they sure are

nenilein:

I really hate it when people confuse the terms “Canon”, “Headcanon” and “Alternate Universe”. 

“Canon”: Something that has been outright been stated in canon outside of a joke, in a way that unambiguously means this exact thing and nothing else.

“Headcanon”: It was never unambiguously specified in canon, but I interpret this on my own in a way that goes along with canon without contradicting it

“Alternate Universe”: My game, my rules. 

They are not interchangeable terms.