Level 2 Super Schmendrick


The GayStation isn’t just an old joke, it’s a real #PS4 model.

this is the biggest load of pandering corporate bullshit, and also, i want twelve.

(actually according to google it’s a singe custom build being auctioned off with proceeds going to an LGBT advocacy group and isn’t connected with Sony, so it’s neither pandering corporate bullshit NOR something you can have twelve of and frankly that’s extremely disappointing)



The GayStation isn’t just an old joke, it’s a real #PS4 model.

this is the biggest load of pandering corporate bullshit, and also, i want twelve.

(actually according to google it’s a singe custom build being auctioned off with proceeds going to an LGBT advocacy group and isn’t connected with Sony, so it’s neither pandering corporate bullshit NOR something you can have twelve of and frankly that’s extremely disappointing)

i heard there was a large LW meetup in my area, and i was pretty excited for that. i went there, and it was bigger than i expected- really, better termed a convention than a meetup. people flew in from all over to attend, actually. and when you get a lot of people from different places together, you’re liable to pick up a few bugs and spend the next few days sick. i wasn’t one of the lucky ones who managed to avoid it, and in fact afterwards i visited my doctor and it turns out i have multiple illnesses.

i know this: that i have con flus


let’s see you try to unfollow me without any arms

i have a touch screen and at least ten different toes, let’s rock and roll


(even raven dark’ness dementia raven. (even though i think at i. I’m still mad my favorite dystopian novel is so obscure that no one has read i

I don’t know exactly why but there is a tremendous difference between “gpoy” and “it me”

oh hey i’ve been presented with a riddle


hrrrrrrrrm………. i bet it’s a star-rock




Look I’m the kind of sentient mayo that could casually enjoy Kill la Kill thru to the end but occasionally I think about how good it would have been if it were ACTUALLY good and I get a stomachache


<p>You know, funny that – English pronominals (heretofore ENG-PRN) come from the Old English grammatical ジェンダ (heretofore GG – there’s a reason why I avoid these terms and I’m not telling). OE has three GGs: F, M and N [German retains that!]. It was pretty weird actually, as told in the words of Justin Rye: <q>The disappearance of the “he”/“she” distinction may seem weird, but in the Old English lexical gender system wifmann (meaning “woman”) was a “he”, byrne (“mail‐coat”) was a “she”, and mæǵden (“girl”) was an “it”.</q> Now, Mr. Rye continues forward and states that when languages lose GG inflections, the words usually either reassign themselves to sex-based determination, or disappear altogether. In the alternate history Mr. Rye proposes for English where England <em>wasn’t</em> invaded by the French in 1066, and as in Persian, they did; however, Afrikaans and English as English is today continues on the other path.</p>

<p>Now, as you probably can tell, GG is usually not in any case related to biosex – instead they often have something to do with the word’s last letter (especially in some other languages such as Spanish). As so it happens, in some languages, GG doesn’t even have to come close to biosex MF(N) divisions: languages also choose ANIMATE/INANIMATE, or HUMAN/NOT-HUMAN, or even HUMAN-MAN/EVERYTHING-ELSE. If you really want to go big, then try Swahili’s set of: “animates”, “plants”, “fruits and augmentatives”, “small objects”, “animals”, “long objects” and “infinitives” – and worse that, apart from the last one they also have singular-plural distinctions, resulting in them being called 1/2, 3/4, 5/6, 7/8, 9/10, 11/10 and 15 respectively. (The number mismatch near the end is because Swahili had evolved and lost some of its GGs from its parent language. GG #15 “Infinitives” doesn’t have a plural distinction.) Still others don’t bother and just had numbers for GGs: I II III IV V VI VII VIII. Heck, the second G in GG used to only mean <em>these kinds of things and not the psychological model of one’s biosex</em> until quite recently. Some languages have so many GGs that look so different from biosex that the linguists said “GG” (the <em>other</em> kind) and called them “noun classes” instead, because that’s what they are – noun classes.</p>

<p>Now then, ENG-PRN (and also other language-PRN). ENG-PRN is called a closed class; this means it resists alteration. This usually means its <em>speakers</em> resist alterations of such items, for whatever reason. This doesn’t <em>have</em> to be so. My favourite example is JPN-PRN: in Japanese, every single word can be imported as a PRN (you can simulate it by saying, say, “The [word-turned-into-adjective] one”, viz. “The amazed one ran down the street”, “The terrified one recounted the terrified one’s story to the patient one”. However, there’s no such thing as “verbing” in JPN, because JPN-verbs are closed-class: it takes an incredible amount of effort to add new verbs that inflect regularly into JPN. Heck, look at how effortlessly I verbed “verb”; this is a demonstration to how ENG-verbs are open-class. JPN admits new verbs by adding “do” to an existing word; this is just as grammatical as me turning any word into a PRN by using the template “the… one”, but less silly.</p>

<p>But just like singular they, it’s not <em>impossible</em>: new verb additions to JPN include ググる guguru “google”, パニくる panikuru “panic” and ふじこる fujikoru “feeling so down you want to keyboard smash (fujiko ← hujiko; now look at how you type that in QWERTY; it’s alternating keys from top-row to middle-row)”, which are however still not quite accepted into the overall lexicon.</p>

<p>Now then. Let us recall from earlier: words with GG doesn’t necessarily conform to their what you might expect. We have shown that with Old English (and I can show it again with modern German). This is mainly because it might have come from “units” – units like “km” and “mg” to be sure, but more usually units of count, like “dollar”, “head (of cattle)”, “sheets (of paper)”; Chinese languages love that units, and if you give it enough time, those units will generalize, force nearby words to agree with it (verb agreement) and voilà, new GG system! Sometimes nouns fall into the wrong class when generalization occurs, which is why sometimes it’s just weird.</p>

<p>It sometimes really bugs me that English speakers think, “oh, words with GG is so weird, let’s get rid of them!” In theory, there’s nothing wrong with that thinking, so usually I just let it slide (sometimes I just sigh a heavy sigh and say “GG” – yes it’s the second time I used that pun, so soomee). But deep down, I really, really can’t tell whether or not if that particular person would also consider (forcefully if necessarily) altering the other GG systems too. Most languages that use inanimate–animate distinctions don’t think plants are animate. Should we change that? What about the languages that only distinguish HUMAN-MAN vs. EVERYTHING-ELSE and makes no other distinguishments whatsoever?</p>

<p>(As an aside, I can’t name the language that does the HUMAN-MAN/EVERYTHING-ELSE distinction. You can say it “doesn’t matter” because there’s not enough speakers to make a difference, which… I have no counter for. I could imagine one or two of you that might want to find that language and give that language (and those who speak it!) a good talking-to about how outmoded that particular classification system is, and I’ll imagine the moral ramifications of that talking-to.)</p>

<p>And remember, PRN can inflect on a whole bunch of other stuff too. I made Âagenzbèe-PRN (Ag-PRN) inflect on kinship as well as number and distance; the kinship markers are FAM, BCM, BCS, FND, SMT, SSD, MAT, MIS and NON(E); the numbers are PA (paucal, a few) and PL (plural, a lot); the distances are PROX (proximate, near), MED (medial) and DIST (distal, far). This is only a tangentially-related item; I just like to yabber about my languages a lot. But yes, PRNs can certainly inflect on other things too. I will scarcely imagine English speakers wanting to adopt Âagenzbèe-style inflections.</p>

<p>I guess what I should say is, if you’re willing to reform ENG-PRN, why not just forget about person and even case altogether? Nowhere else in the English language is there a nom/acc/gen/refl (I/me/my/myself) case system, and yet you can sample a billion other neo-ENG-PRNs and they <em>all</em> do nom/acc/gen/refl like it’s some sanctity that must be preserved at all costs. There are a lot of reasons why this case system is bogus – it prohibits pivot constructions, e.g., “(I ate [the mouse) was tasty]”, it makes life difficult for non-European speakers, it may even force you to box everything into “actors” and “acted” – again, as humans we choose those boxes; it is not invariant. Of course the answer is, “eh, one small step at a time, it’d go away”, in which case, English GG is going away too and it will do so naturally as more and more speakers come from places where there is one GG (and usually 1 GG = 0 GG).</p>

<p>Also nice casual usage of “kill”  there. I find that usage a little bit upsetting, to be honest, but that’s another story.</p>

Postscript: I guess I get a little bit emotional with this kind of thing, but it’s really kind of inevitable when you like languages and you anthropomorphize them (as, strangely, six-limbed vomit-green monsters with an internal identifier painted on the back) and someone says, “dude, you put about 7 too many spikes on that  there back; you should remove them”, or “just 3 lungs? Add a pair of gills or make it 4, ‘cos it ain’t balancing!”. It’s not like it’s wrong, it’s more like it’s excruciating as you try to square the differences from your internal values to the external ones. So up goes my heart-rate and hair-pulling-rate.</p>

Post²script: Sorry for bothering you once more, but I should make my stance clear: do what you will with your language. It’s called an “idiolect”, and before you make the connection with “idiot” “idio-” means “private” and “self” and “idiolect” literally means “the way <em>you</em> speak”, not “you speak like an idiot”. Idiolects are very much personalized and everyone has them, and changes found in idiolects  – some of them at least – will eventually worm its way into the main language (I recall it’s called an “acrolect” to distinguish). So, make your changes! I don’t mind a good deal of language changes, and if I find some changes of yours hard to square with my ideas then I will alter my language as a compromise (I now skirt around the issue a lot more than I should, dodging PRN-3 by substituting with the original referent or maybe a “that” or a “that item/unit” or even just plain old use the gloss 3s (so 3s-NOM, 3s-ACC, 3s-GEN and 3s-REFL) and then “use mind-autocorrect” (no I don’t use the gloss 3s to talk to/about people because that’s way to jargony but I do use it in my private notes)). So again, idiolects be so, make your alterations, and pray that in 100 years your changes, because it is congruent with so many others’, will end up being part of the acrolect.



Sometimes I think about how many little things we probably do every day that would totally mess up the reasoning of a Sherlock-Holmes-style detective.

Like the other day we went to the cinema and I was wearing a shirt with no pockets so I put the ticket in my trouser pocket.  The next day I was wearing the same trousers and I put my hand in my pocket and found the ticket there.

Now, I have a certain selection of things I always have in my trouser pockets and I don’t really like having anything else in there because it confuses my hands when I want to get something, so I took the ticket out.  And I wasn’t near a rubbish bin, but I was wearing a shirt with a breast pocket.  So I put the ticket in the shirt pocket.

And I thought: if I get interestingly murdered, the Sherlock-Holmes-style detective is going to deduce that I’m wearing the same shirt that I wore yesterday.  Because it’s got a cinema ticket in the pocket with yesterday’s date on, and why on earth would anyone put a cinema ticket in the pocket of a shirt unless they were wearing the shirt when they went to the cinema?

Which is a bit of reasoning we would all find totally convincing if it came from a Sherlock-Holmes-style detective.  But it would be wrong.  Because actually there are so many other explanations for things once you take account of the fact that people are often slightly eccentric in completely trivial and unguessable ways.

“Samuel Vimes dreamed about Clues. He had a jaundiced view of Clues. He instinctively distrusted them. They got in the way. And he distrusted the kind of person who’d take one look at another man and say in a lordly voice to his companion, “Ah, my dear sir, I can tell you nothing except that he is a left-handed stonemason who has spent some years in the merchant navy and has recently fallen on hard times,” and then unroll a lot of supercilious commentary about calluses and stance and the state of a man’s boots, when exactly the same comments could apply to a man who was wearing his old clothes because he’d been doing a spot of home bricklaying for a new barbecue pit, and had been tattooed once when he was drunk and seventeen* and in fact got seasick on a wet pavement. What arrogance! What an insult to the rich and chaotic variety of the human experience!”

—Terry Pratchett, Feet of Clay

1,824,540 plays




I have never reblogged something so fast in my life

it’s exactly what you think it is