About using x for gender neutral, stop it.

 Please do not use the term womxn.  For fuck's sake, it is a quantity neutral term.  This is the most stupid neologism I have ever heard.  The only time you would ever use this is when constructing a sign of the variety that you would otherwise have to say "lady(ies)".  In that context alone it is sensible, and that is it.  Furthermore, other terms like "Mx." are equally frivilous.  New roots are, in my opinion, always better than using <x> by derivation from its freqvent use as a variable in math classes.  For fuck's sake, use "Guv.", it has always been genderless, and it deserves more love as a word.  Finally, "latinx" is dumb, and either loan it without the gender from Spanish, or if you want to keep adjective inflexion, use "latiné", /e/ at the end of a word is genderless in spanish.

CHANGE MY MIND!!!

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Φersu, the newest english word, taken right from Etruscan.

 We should loan the etruscan word "φersu" with the plural "φersuar".  We could spell it the way the etruscans did too!  It is the origin of person, and it means a mask worn in a play.  No, I do not care that this will be the third word we took from "𐌘𐌄𐌓𐌔𐌖".  Normally I would advocate this "φersuar" as the correct spelling for "person", and if the "n" was silent, then I would, but I think we need to loan it because we need more loans from Etruscan.  Also, Ynglish has some doublets already, so why not make some more? I believe we should combat the Romancisation of Ynglish by loaning from other languages.  This being said, because loanwords do not usually displace words from the lexicon of a language when coming into the wordhoard, I think we should be even more liberal when loaning, and also when coining simply because this gives us even more of a rich diversity of synonyms and near synonyms, and also makes it easier to rhy...
Read more

About "-us" and "-um" as far as plurals are concerned

      I have stumbled upon a post by lexico saying that "cacti" is wrong, and so is "viri".  They are wrong.  Their logic is that since these words aren't latin in origin, we can't pluralise them with -i.  Pay no attention to these ignorami.  It is only correct to pluralise multisylabic words ending in "-us" and not in "-ous" with "-i" or "-odes".  ie. "cactodes" and "cacti" are correct, but "cactuses" isn't, despite what Lexico would have you believe.  An exception to this rule is "nucleus" when used in the context of a cell.  Also, Lexico says "algæ", of all things, is correct, and the plural of "alga" as opposed to "algie", "alge", "algea" being the correct way to refer to it.  Algea is the correct term which is an uncountable noun, and the word "alga" which Lexico made up should only be used if you are writing fo...
Read more