- student: can i borrow a pencil
- teacher: i don't know, CAN you?
- student: yes, also colloquial irregularities occur frequently in any language and since you and the rest of our present company understood my intended meaning, being particular about the distinctions between "can" and "may" is purely pedantic and arguably pretentious
What men don’t understand is that women are FIERCELY PROTECTIVE of underage girls because we remember when we were young and some adult man made us uncomfortable or manipulated us or was inappropriate with us and we were powerless.
… except not all of us are, because of internalized misogyny
… and also because if we hold underage girls responsible for what adult men do to them then we can argue that we were also responsible for what adult men did to us when we were underage, which means we were not and are not victims, oh no, we weren’t powerless, we were in control swear to god
let’s not forget how hard it is for a lot of women to admit that what men have done to them wasn’t okay
I agree with the Sibyl up there (although I do feel fiercely protective of girls, personally) and I’ll toss in my usual bit about how it’s so fucking convenient that somehow we have developed this idea that being a victim is bad and a moral failing, and how we now use the word in place of other words, such as “whiny,” “lazy,” or “incompetent.” Gosh, isn’t it so fucking convenient that one of the most powerful words we had to describe exactly what people with more power do to people with less power has been manipulated and twisted into a nasty name. Isn’t it so fucking convenient that now we have to have been “strong” through our abuse (or our disability, or our systemic oppression, etc.), and always be “rising above” it or “recovering from” it, rather than being allowed to admit that it has hurt us and is still hurting us and that maybe we’re not sure what to do about that. We can’t simply be injured, and we’re not allowed to be truly helpless, because that’s “being a victim,” which apparently is now a moral position rather than a position which deserves kindness and empathy. If you’re “just being a victim,” apparently you retroactively deserve whatever the fuck happened to you in the first place.
It’s almost like language is manipulated by oppressors to make sure that marginalized people have no language with which to name the crimes that have been perpetrated against them! Well I’ll be damned!
Remember kids, a “victim” is someone who has been victimised! And by definition, someone had to do that to the victim!
the speech impediment of the 21st century (by Marc Johns)
I’ll fuck you up buddy this is not a speech impediment it’s linguistic evolution!! the existence of the phrase “Aisha was like” allows the speaker to convey whatever Aisha said without making the listener assume they’re quoting Aisha directly while still maintaining the FEELING of what Aisha said.
ie, Aisha said she didn’t want to go out with me VERSUS Aisha was like, “I’d rather kiss a Wookie”.
the addition of “XYZ was like” lets the speaker be more expressive and efficient and it is a totally valid method of communicating information!!
With the way language has evolved, this is one of the few ways I can even think of to express in casual conversation what someone said.
"So I said to Aisha," is certainly used, but if you remove the "so," which implies casual tone ("and" can be used in the same way), you get
"I said to Aisha," which is really formal in most English dialects/variations. I don’t know about all, but in New England dialects, you sound like you’re reading aloud from a novel.
"I told Aisha," is really only used when you continue to describe, not tell, what you told her. Ex: "I told Aisha that James was too punk for her" works while, "I told Aisha, ‘James is too punk for you’" crosses the line back into formalness of the "I said."
Things like “I asked” or “I answered [with]” are similar levels of casual and efficient to the “So, I said [or say, as many conversations about the past take place in present tense anyway, as if the speaker is giving a play-by-play in the moment]” but are specific to only certain situations.
"I was like, 'Marc Johns, what is your obsession with restoring archaic speech patterns and interfering with the natural progression of English from complex to efficient?'" envelopes all of these easily and is accessible and crisp, and allows for more variations on inflection than the others.
Of course, James is probably like, “I already fucking said that.” But eh, I tried adding on.
A 20th-century manuscript of codes (including runes) from Iceland: Einkaeign 1 (1928).
I came across this fascinating Icelandic paper manuscript completely by accident, while searching for more digitized medieval manuscripts (e.g. a prayer book, law book, book of romances, and fragment). I have written about post-medieval manuscripts before, but none as young as this one, from 1928! It is still very much a manuscript, written by hand with pen and ink, and is a lovely example of how scribal culture continued to thrive in Iceland for hundreds of years after the Middle Ages. This manuscript also differs from others I have written about in that it does not contain sagas, laws, or other narrative accounts, but codes, including several pages of different types of runes. The images here are representative of some of the different sections in the book.
The title page (photo 1) reads Rún: rúnaletur o[g] fl[eiri] ritað fyrir Magnús Steingrímsson, Hólum í Staðardal 1928 (‘Rune: runic (or, ‘coded’) writing and other things, composed for Magnús Steingrímsson, [of the farmstead] Hólum in Staðardal, 1928’). This indicates the manuscript was commissioned, but it is unclear for what purpose.
The images are from Handrit.is. The full manuscript (114 images) can be seen here: http://handrit.is/en/manuscript/imaging/is/Einkaeign-0001#0000r-FB.