Index  Comments

I've taken my usage of language very seriously throughout my life, and I'm still learning new ways I can improve. I took Latin courses years ago to improve mine English, and it was successful at this. English borrows heavily from Latin, and expanding my vocabulary was part of the goal, but I was also made to become aware of the many declensions, conjugations, tenses, forms, and other ideas which are hidden by only truly knowing one language; years before even then, I'd recognized that I didn't know English, I could merely speak it, but was constrained heavily by what ``sounded right'', and all the sentences I created and thoughts I mused were primarily mere rearrangements. I sought to truly know what I thought and to press my knowledge of language to its absolutes, and I suppose I've done well.

As mine English improved, it became obvious the language was already rotten in several ways, and yet making room for more rot; mine understanding of English has led me to recognize beautiful symmetries in the language, which have largely been forgotten, for little reason, along with bizarre mutations.

Currently, I speak and write a heavily constrained dialect of modern and middle English, constrained in that I take pains to speak to normal people without them realizing what I'm doing. I've found it easiest to simply avoid the second-person pronouns entirely. This can be done by changing sentences from active to passive, using the imperative voice, using a subject which can be third-person, along with other techniques. This bizarre bastardization of the second-person befuddles me, and similarly confusing is the mutation of the third-person suffix, from ``th'' to ``s''. I don't know the reason that suffix has changed so, but it's somewhat unique in that it doesn't also introduce ambiguity, as with second-person, and avoiding it would make speaking with normal people unnecessarily burdensome.

Those who read from that Gopher hole under my domain will recognize another hidden constraint I use.

One beautiful symmetry this learning gradually revealed to me was the pairing of ``my'' and ``mine'' to ``thy'' and ``thine''. It's pleasant how English has such variants for ease of speaking, and the reason for this change is unknown to me. It's relatively easy to use ``mine'' in this way in normal conversation, and I now do so. I'll similarly refuse to say ``a animal'', and I wouldn't be shocked were such a further degeneration to become common. Another symmetry is ``lice'' to ``louse'' to the ``mice'' to ``mouse'', but I wouldn't be surprised to hear ``mouses'', though I'll never utter such.

The majority of English speakers worthy of being considered such will be familiar with such phrases:

Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.
Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.

In a proper human, these should foment curiosity. They're clearly archaic, but people repeat these. Machines can be made to repeat sentences without understanding them; humans doing such is worthless. None of mine education, that I remember, ever revealed these forms to me, so I'd to teach myself how ``th'' is the archaic third-person suffix and, more recently, that ``ye'' is the nominative ``you''.

When I learn a new rule, or learn I've been speaking or writing incorrectly, I change to be correct. My learning and obsession with this has had me develop many techniques for rearranging thoughts unto correctness, and they comprise something resembling a formal system, and so also true understanding.

Follows are examples of performing this algebra in order to avoid improper pronoun usage:

Modern Anglo DialectDid you hear me? (This is correct enough if ``you'' be plural.)
Correct EnglishDidst thou hear me?
Also Correct EnglishWas I heard?

Modern Anglo DialectYou should do this. (Again, this is correct enough if ``you'' be plural.)
Correct EnglishThou shouldst do this.
Also Correct EnglishDo this.

Modern Anglo DialectYou pet your owl.
Correct EnglishThou petest thine owl.
Also Correct EnglishThe owl is pet.

Modern Anglo DialectYou all are destroying the English language.
Correct EnglishYe are destroying the English language.
Also Correct EnglishThese actions are destroying the English language.

Modern Anglo DialectYou're bad when you do this.
Correct EnglishThou art bad when thou dost this.
Also Correct EnglishOne is bad when one does this.

Using the correct English forms here would create a very distinct writing profile, which is fine for one identity, but clearly unsuited if more than one be needed. It's very easy to switch between two profiles, if one of them merely writes as a normal person would. Now, where such transformations be unreasonable, I prefer to simply use ``you'' ambiguously, singular and plural; this is a compromise. Many of those ``you'' I read and hear can be understood perfectly well under this rule, in any case.

The latest degenerate subversion of English involves bastardizing what remains of the pronoun system by insisting that people have any say in the matter. It's still not uncommon, for singular ``they'' to be criticized, and I insist it continue to be beaten down. The best solution would be to use the word coined by Charles Converse in 1858, ``thon'', which is a singular, third-person, gender-neutral pronoun; unfortunately, this is another word that isn't suitable around normal people, and I instead choose the Latin convention of using the male third-person pronoun for such purposes. It's obscene, seeing ``you all'' and ``them all''; while not strictly improper, it shows that rot of degeneration.

Confusing cases causes confusion constantly. I don't know the reason for removing ``thou'' from the common usage, to be replaced by ``you'', but this has caused no dearth of unnecessary agony; this is worsened by what ``sounds right'', and so ``you art'' is unheard of, and ``they is'' is but ebonics.

It's important to recognize words have meaning, and simply because fools don't speak properly has no bearing on the meanings of words; this can be phrased as the difference between the prescriptivists, those who prescribe how to use language, and descriptivists, those fools who merely describe how the language is used; English has been the victim of heavy subversion by descriptivist ideas, along with being a lingua franca for much of this world. I can recognize that languages change, such as in how English has several French loanwords; I also recognize those same people arguing English is changing tend to prescribe subversive rules, and that merely describing a language primarily spoken by people who don't actually know it will only lead to ruin. It incensed me when one read an article of mine, and told me I should simplify it for foreigners lacking a proper vocabulary; much of the fun and joy of reading good writing is in coming across unfamiliar words, and so then learning of them. As mine English has advanced, I've come to notice I'm surrounded by errors, constantly. Language influences thought; clarity in my language has brought clarity of thought and then further clarity of language.

I recall that disconcerting realization of this titular aspect of English. I knew it was common, to use ``alternate'' and ``alternative'' interchangeably, and wondered of the correct usage. I checked my dictionary, and the answer had been waiting all these years for me to come across it. The proper adjectival form is ``alternative'', the verbal form ``alternate'', and that uncommon ``alternation'' is the only nominative form; both papers I reviewed in the preceding two months featured this error, making it more disconcerting. A fool would believe this has ``alternate'' being just as fine for an adjective, but I won't; such erroring abounds in English and, although I'm far too ignorant of other languages to know how damned they're in their common usages, perhaps English is suffering this most.

Here's a fine article concerning the consequences of using adjectives without nouns.

The ``anyways'' and ``irregardless'' aren't words, and there are many other examples of ``words'' no one should use. The words ``like'' and ``literally'' are in the process of being bent out of shape.

I don't oppose attempts to redefine ``racism'' to be more suitable for the current politics, because quelling dissent is the only purpose of the word remaining, and perhaps its reason for being coined. In any case, I don't use the word ``racist'', similarly to how I don't use ``homophobic'', nor use I ``transphobic'', since using such words and others betrays an agreement with associated wild claims.

It's very important for one to pay attention to the words he uses, and how, because his enemies will introduce vocabulary, to support themselves. I've noticed that it's common for the odd to introduce new words to refer to normal people; this changes the mental model, from normal and other, to lesser distinct halves, and the effect of this can be insidious. The most pertinent case of this is tranny lingo using the prefix ``cis'' to refer to normal people, which is technically correct, but has this insidious effect, and so I refuse to use it so. There need be no word for normal people, unless one is trying to change what a normal person be. Another example of this is that corporate confusion of illegal sharing with murdering and raping from pirates; I refuse to call illegal sharing ``piracy''.

The subjunctive tense isn't discussed much in schooling, I'd suppose because most students are dumb, but it's elision from common knowledge mirrors a programming issue; when one speaks ``If X is Y then Z'', this isn't the proper subjunctive, but ``If X be Y then Z'' is; this is akin to how programming languages lacking proper design confuse assignment and comparison; unfortunately, no confusion comes about from this, and so it largely goes ignored. How obscene, that properly speaking could have one confuse English for ebonics, or pirate-talk. Less confused is the subjunctive past tense, ``were''.

I'm not ashamed in acknowledging how, when I was assigned Shakespeare reading in my later education, I didn't do it, having better things for my time at that time, and yet now know this is good for me. Now, I'll truly understand the words; still, why assign Shakespeare without teaching how to read it?

There's certainly other linguistic pedantry I've elided here or not yet come to know which I'll add.