I tried to resist, and failed. Glitched, actually.

… Yes, it is.

prop·er
adjective
1. adapted or appropriate to the purpose or circumstances; fit; suitable: the proper time to plant strawberries.
2. conforming to established standards of behavior or manners; correct or decorous: a very proper young man.
3. fitting; right: It was only proper to bring a gift.
4. strictly belonging or applicable: the proper place for a stove.

com·mon
adjective
1. belonging equally to, or shared alike by, two or more or all in question: common property; common interests.
2. pertaining or belonging equally to an entire community, nation, or culture; public: a common language or history; a common water-supply system.
3. joint; united: a common defense.
4. widespread; general; ordinary: common knowledge.
5. of frequent occurrence; usual; familiar: a common event; a common mistake.

I don't see how the "common usage" is "proper." Just because something is widespread doesn't mean it's correct. See: fuschia. Er. Fushsia. Fuchsia?

Because common usage ("shared alike, belonging equally, joint, united, widespread, and of frequent occurrence"), particularly by "respected authors", determines "established standards". Certainly such usage is "adapted or appropriate to the purpose or circumstances; fit; suitable", and no other factor is 'proper' for this determination. Historically, much of what peeveologists call 'proper' was *uncommon* usage by not-necessarily-respected authors; 'random jerks', in technical terms. Damn you, Dryden! (http://arnoldzwicky.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/damn-you-dryden/)

We are arguing grammar and history now? Whose sig was this?

The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary.

I hope neither the above nor word definitions appeared on a character sheet. Though I'd rather avoid thread-locking.

Word mugger would be a killer character concept. :/

Sounds like a free spirit with an essence drain power...

Karma drain! Steals karma and uses it to buy languages.

Oh
My
Goddess.

I'm not sure usage by "respected authors" can constitute the authoritative body for determining what is and is not a word. They use words to create something, but as such they can also create "new words". Take any science fiction or fantasy work. Let's say JRR Tolkein. Uruk'hai is not an English word, yet it is always expressed in English. How about the Wheel of Time series? Bitemes and cuendillar?

Besides, English does have a gender neutral pronoun that does not reference a group.

It.

It isn't a personal pronoun. They/them is.

Your argument is also invalidated thanks to the existence of someone using the name Shakespeare, who contributed hundreds of words to the English language, and the format he used it in was of low-brow entertainment of the day, which would be akin to Soap Operas, Wrestling, and Anime.

..... WordGirl's long lost evil twin brother?

It is indeed a personal pronoun both as a subject or an object. Many people have a pathological aversion to it like many other words because they wrongly associate events with a particular word to make it taboo in their own minds. Discriminate and retard are two other words which frequently fall prey to this horrible misconception.



One person does not constitute an authoritative body. An author may create a new word but that hardly makes it proper.

Illongick. Someone who recently got smashed in the face with a baseball.

See, I've created a new word.

What *else* could possibly be such a body? As it is, and as I said, most of the 'proper rules' are the result of far lower standards of authority. The French Academy, the AP Stylebook, and Strunk and White are all far lesser standards than 'common usage by respected authors' (notice, though, that the respected authors part is just gravy: common usage alone is enough).

First, that's a set of bad examples (and I assume you know it). Uruk'hai isn't necessarily English, but let's say it is. It *is* the proper word for that particular fantasy thing… you're just not likely to use it in normal conversation. How, though, is creating a new word inherently improper? New *proper* words have to come from somewhere.

I'm fine with 'it', myself. Some people dislike using it on people (psh).

And it's a perfectly good word, we'll see how it does in the global English community. It'd help if it was a useful one. However, if you were Shakespeare, or Martin Luther, or even J.K. Rowling, that new word would have a lot more clout (hyuk hyuk).

eh, the people that I have talked to that are either transgender or gender nuetral, generaly dont mind if you ASK them.


i.e. Do you prefer he, she or what would work best?

As much as I love how Dumpshock can turn a thread about funny things on character sheets to what is common vs proper English (They are not the same by the way, common vernacular is often considered to not be proper regarding academic, scientific, or literary writing) if you want to have a grammar nazi powwow, may I recommend a new thread?

OED.



Right, my point is that those that create the words cannot, for moral reasons, also be the ones that decide which words are proper. Without established metrics it is impossible to eliminate bias and if you have metrics then those that create words aren't necessary unless it requires their expertise to judge if the metric is met.

This is ultimately a reason why the Academy Awards has been progressively losing stature. It has become a self-congratulatory circle jerk and a trumped up popularity contest. There's no metrics for judging films, it's entirely subjective (aside from release date but that's a qualifier rather than a metric).

Aha, now you've redefined 'proper', into 3 totally different contexts, no less.
… Did you just call me a Nazi?

OED *records* words as they are used. It's common (*a-wink*) misconception that dictionaries determine 'what is a word', or anything else.
'Moral reasons'? What is this I don't even. There are no established metrics, it's a giant democracy (even the 'authorities' are elected). Everyone creates words.

OED is selective of words and does have metrics they use to judge whether a word should be inclusive of the language (which Oxford claims to be a total dictionary of English words). If I sent them 'Illongick' they would not include it just because I sent and defined it. Nor would they do so if J.K. Rowling or any other famous author submitted a word.

The important part is the inclusion of metrics because it enforces at least some objectivity on the selection process. Objectivity helps breed trust and trust breeds usage which grants authority.

That, sir, is my point. Proper depends on context, and the rules for that context. What is proper in a scientific journal would not be proper in a literary thesis or the other way around. But what is common, or rather, commonly spoken/written, is completely different and has no "rules" except for those defined by what is easily understood. So in other words, what is commonly spoken as american southern dialect (southern vernacular) is different from that in northern states, which is different from western coast, which is different from what would be common in London. All of it is English, spoken in a different Vernacular. But regardless of whether your in the south, in australia or london, if your submitting a paper to the journal of science, it will should all come out about the same taking into consideration proper grammar for the publication.



We are all being grammar Nazis, and I'm trying very hard to contain my own inner nazi, instead redirecting it to saying: common english, proper english, doesn't matter, we can all understand eachother so tell me funny things you've seen!

8...count them...8 of those Echiro Hamato Heavy Pistols (no book but i think those are the 1 shot big dmg pistols)

He had 8 on his sheet...because he had recently watched Boondock Saints, and decided to try something kinda like that....


I facepalmed....

lol, thats awesome. Its from Arsenal by the way.

Sorta related, i have an Eichiro Hatamoto with an under-barrel Eichiro Hatamoto on my current character. Also tossed on the High-powered chambering mod for good fun.

People get grumpy when you call them "it."

"So I was talking to my friend and it said..."
"It said?"
"Yeah, I don't know it's gender."

ROFL...

Just call said friend Pat

Ah, StealthSigma, but I think you'll find those OED standards are precisely what I've said: common usage (and possibly respected authors as a bonus):
They do get grumpy. I blame them for that, though, cuz I'm fine with it.

Secondarily, "it" generally refers to objects, not living things of indeterminate gender.

Hence my preference for "das."

And mine for "xe." Which I picked up from someone else.

Isn't das the German equivalent of it?

Speaking of gender ambiguous characters and funny character sheets, I once had a player in a D&D campaign that according to their character sheet was a "Female ninja that tried to look like a man after being raped by her uncle" and for several sessions most everyone believed she was a man. The delivery of the whole thing when she (the player) was explaining her character to me was so melodramatic that I had to try really hard not to laugh in her face when reading it because she was very obviously trying to be serious.

I think we've probably all met players like that at one time or another.

oh yeah, and she had pink hair...the ninja...

ninja with pink hair that was trying to look like a man....

You know a man is confident in his sexuality when he wears pink.

Ninja....pink hair...


But yeah, that must have been what everyone else thought too because nobody doubted her when she said her character was a male ninja of slight frame, slightly feminine features and pink hair...

Female...

Is her name, by any chance, Bubblegum?

Wait.... was that Sam? If it was, that makes me wonder if that character wasn't an outlet for some seriously repressed shit in her real life.

Or just a bro.

Get back to the original topic, ok?

Yes please.

i just remembered something.
One of my GM's(yes, i have more than one) has a player Character for when the other one is GMing for us.
That character has a telescoping 11'-Staff on his Sheet.

Who hasn't?

Why an 11 foot pole?

i only got that part after he actually went and said it . .
"I ain't touching that with a ten foot pole! hand me my eleven foot pole!"

Well, you see, most telescoping poles, they only go up to ten, right? But this one goes up to eleven. That's one more, innit?

That too.
It's the sciency-pole, because in a certain other RPG, most traps have a reach of exactly 10 feet. so at 11 feet you are safe and can poke stuff still . .

Hmm, it would be a kinda mean idea for a close combat weapon though.
Specially made Telescoping Staff. Looks like the normal one, but goes 1m longer and gives +1 reach more . .

Nail. Head. Hit it.

OK, the talk of telescoping staves reminds me of a one shot at a Con where I couldn't help but sympathize with the team's Face, who was reasonably normal. Why?

Well, one of the other members of the team was Nik'norg, a Neotenous pygmy who only spoke Bantu or Swahili and some obscure sign language. Nik'norg usually dual-wielded telescoping spears, but kept a blowgun around. With injection darts of K-10. Which he would use on people he felt were insufficiently aggresive. Like his teammates.

And at the same time, he had to deal with Mngwml... a SURGED pixie with Cephalapoid Skull, a Third Eye, Gills and Striking Skin Pigmentation. He had been raised by a Lovecraftian cult and believed he was a priest destined to bring about a return of the Old Gods. And *he* only spoke Ryleh'an.

The run in question was... interesting.

Jesus.

"Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" is the only logical response.