[There is a] general principle of internet language these days that the more overwhelmed with emotions you are, the less sensical your sentence structure gets, which I’ve described elsewhere as “stylized verbal incoherence mirroring emotional incoherence” and which leads us to expressions like “feels,” “I can’t even/I’ve lost the ability to can,” and “because reasons.”
Contrast this with first-generation internet language, demonstrated by LOLcat or 1337speak, and in general characterized by abbreviations containing numbers and single letters, often in caps (C U L8R), smilies containing noses, and words containing deliberate misspellings.
We’ve now moved on: broadly speaking, second-generation internet language plays with grammar instead of spelling. If you’re a doomsayer, the innovative syntax is one more thing to throw up your hands about, but compared to a decade or two ago, the spelling has gotten shockingly conventional.
In this sense, doge really is the next generation of LOLcat, in terms of a pet-based snapshot of a certain era in internet language. We’ve kept the idea that animals speak like an exaggerated version of an internet-savvy human, but as our definitions of what it means to be a human on the internet have changed, so too have the voices that we give our animals. Wow.
Merlin Enchanted AU
When Arthur in Avalon finds a whirlpool in the lake, he jumps in it to return back to modern day London and back to Merlin. This modern day world, however, is a strange place with metal beasts and oddly dressed servants.
CONFESSION: I’ve been planning to write a Merlin Enchanted AU for actual ages. The obsession started right around the time I got this tumblr, which is to say three years ago. It’s so exciting to see the idea realized!
Oh my god every choice of gif here is perfect.
Pretty sure I just went through and liked every single one of this fan artist’s Marauder photos and gifsets. ABSOLUTELY AMAZING.
Sherlock is famous for its fans, particularly those who root for romance between Holmes and Watson. Improbable, but not impossible. Hold onto your deerstalkers while we examine the evidence!
[MAKE EVERYONE ANIMALS (Fanfic Flamingo) PREGNANT ANIMALS]
Even the dudes? Especially the dudes.
This is what fanfic is really about.
Fact: If there were a button I could press to make Sir Patrick Stewart a regular fake news correspondent I would never stop pressing it
My linguistics textbook is talking about the formation of the words “shipping” and “shippers”. I kid you not.
Our fandom, filling lexical gaps, making sociolinguistic history. Is anyone else tearing up a little?
"…To take another example, if you participate on a posting board dedicated to a popular television show, say The X-Files, you might have expressed on the board (a foreclipping, by the way) your desire that someday Mulder and Scully would become romantically involved, would have a relationship. In that case, you would be a Mulder/Scully shipper. Shipper is an innovative clipping from relationshipper. Note that the root of the word is relationship, not relation or shipper. As it turns out, your hopes for Mulder and Scully were at least partially realized. And shipper is an excellent example of a word formed to fill a lexical gap. Can you think of any other word that expresses the concept ‘one who hopes that two people (actual or fictional) will develop a romantic relationship’?”
Something I find interesting about this is that, if I’m reading right, shipper came first, which would make both the noun and verb versions of ship back formations. Intuitively, just looking at usage, you’d expect that the verb came first- “I ship them, therefore I’m a shipper”- but instead it was the reverse. And it makes sense, because in the X-Files fandom, the major distinction wasn’t between ships, but between interpretations of THE ship. Shipper referred to people who wanted Mulder and Scully to get together, distinct from noromos who didn’t, and fans who were into other pairings either didn’t have names for themselves or used labels that didn’t make it into fandom vernacular- as, indeed, shipper wouldn’t have if it hadn’t acquired a much broader meaning- the one provided by the text. Now, if you say you’re a shipper, the natural response is “what do you ship?” The verb ship is almost always transitive, a usage that would have made no sense in the original context because there was only one possible direct object -the good ship MSR.
*wipes small tear*
particularly stoked about the verb “ship” being a result of compounding -> clipping -> backformation. ain’t life grand
Just so we’re clear if I say “shut up” and you say “make me” I am instantly thinking about making out with you
also just so we’re clear if you say “shut up” and i say “make me” that is most definitely an invitation to make out with me
It feels like the depression I’m having right now isn’t about anything in my current life, but is about my family problems that basically ended 6 years ago. Which feels so trite, right? Sitting on the couch and saying it’s all about my mother. But it kind of is.
(emotional abuse like WHOA under the readmore)
non-Jewish people going on today about “reclaiming” Anne Frank as a “bi icon” or w/e make me really uncomfortable, because it has this ring of “all this time I thought she was just some Jewish kid, but now it turns out she’s one of us!!!!” like if you didn’t find Anne Frank’s story moving until you realized she shared some marker with you then maybe you should reconsider your whole approach to this whole “empathy” thing.
fucked up shit by Hieronymus Bosch
Neither Courage Wolf nor Calming Manatee were doing much to help my anxiety, but I knew they were both on to something.
So, I created Calmage Wolfatee.
I’M SO INSPIRED
Someone needs to make this into a t-shirt
do german snakes go ßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßß
to be honest swiss don’t use ß when writing german so I automatically read that as a raspberry noise
How do reflexive conjugations work in the His Dark Materials universe? For example, if Person A is talking to Person B about Daemon A, would Person A talk about Daemon A in the first or third person? It seems a little weird to talk in the third person because you are talking to an acknowledged external component of yourself, but at the same time, it could get confusing if Person A is talking about Daemon A in the first person. My initial impulse was that there must be some way to combine first-person conjugations with third-person pronouns - especially in a sentence where Person A is the subject and their daemon is the object - but the problem with that it’s that in a world where people have evolved with daemons, then it wouldn’t make sense to have the exact same pattern of language development.
The more I think about it, the more it seems like having daemons would result in a different system of cases altogether. For example, there might be [she(human)] [her(human)] [hers(human)] cases in English the way we have them now, but then there would be [she(daemon)] [her(daemon)] [hers(daemon)]; and there might also be a set of cases to refer to [she(human+daemon)] - which would probably be the most common set of cases to use. In some instances, it might be used in place of the human-only set of cases, which would gradually fade out if they were introduced at all. Accompanying that would be modifications to verb conjugations, of course.
That’s a fairly easy solution for Romance and Germanic languages (and probably Slavic languages but I’m less familiar with those) but what about in languages that don’t have pronouns? I’m sure that Japanese is not the only example, but since it’s the one I’ve studied I’ll stick to that. Japanese does have words that function like pronouns but aren’t true pronouns, and I’ve been taught that it’s kind of rude to use them if you know the person’s name. As far as I know, Japanese doesn’t have cases for nouns, either: instead, the role of a noun in a sentence is defined by either context or the accompanying particle if there is one. I don’t think that most of this discussion would be applicable to Japanese if, in Japan, daemons are thought of in the same way. With the stress on politeness and respect built into the language, I do wonder whether the rules about communicating with/between daemons would be different in the Japan contemporary to the events of HDM, but I don’t know enough about the culture to answer that question. I do think it’s a possibility that there might be constructions like the ones I thought of with cases. For example, saying “Takashi-tachi” doesn’t mean there are multiple people named Takashi; it means “Takashi and his friends”. There might be plural-endings that distinguish between “this person and their daemon” versus “this person” and “this person’s daemon”, but again, that depends on the cultural perception of daemons. If anyone has input I would love to hear it - I feel like there ought to be some differences in Japanese with regards to daemons if only because the presence of daemons do have a real impact on social etiquette, and Japanese has more social etiquette built into it than there is in English. (Oh - which first-person pronouns would daemons use? I would be interested in that, especially if we’re talking about historical periods where different rules applied to who called themselves what.)
I’d be really interesting in hearing from any Scandinavian-language speakers about their pronouns/cases/conjugations, too, because witches do hang around Finland and because they and their daemon are able to act independently, I wonder if the language they speak would make more of a distinction between the human half of an individual and the daemon half.
And this is leaving out thousands of languages from almost everywhere that isn’t Europe, but unfortunately, I don’t know anything about languages outside of that region, and again, I’d love input from other language families. Or corrections to the ones I’ve talked about.
The above rambling about how languages might have developed around daemons is all assuming that every culture, across the world, thinks about daemons in the exact same way, and has continued to think of them like that throughout all of history. All of the cultures that Lyra encounters see their daemons as separate enough entities from their human that they give them names of their own. But that can’t be true of every culture ever; it’s not even true of every culture here. We’ve got names like Fitzwilliam and Fitzpatrick: “Son of William” and “Son of Patrick”, and groups where people are only referenced by their relationship to others because to name someone is to have power over them.
What if there are places where daemons aren’t given unique names? There might be a subset of names specific to daemons, variations on the name of their human. So if you have a child named Julio, then maybe his daemon’s name is Julita. That would change the pet names you could use with the human halves of your children/friends/etc: if your friend Julio has a daemon named Julita, then you’re not going to call your daughter Julia “Julita” as an affectionate term. Maybe Julio’s daemon is called “Julilla” or “Julica”, and the -ita suffix is reserved for humans — which, in turn, would have an (albeit subtle) influence on the regional dialects of Spain where the diminutives “ic@” or “ill@” are used instead of “it@”.
With a language like Chinese, in which names are more explicitly and visually tied to their meanings than in English, there might be certain characters which are used to denote the name of a daemon and which are never used for a human - and which characters belonged in which category would also be indicative of the attitude which people had towards daemons. (That gets into the influence that cultural symbols would have on daemons and vice versa, about which I know at least one awesome eloquent essay floating around on tumblr so I’m not going to go into it here.)
I think that Phillip Pullman’s execution of a story to convert children to atheism is fucking stupid, but that the story has limitless potential for innovative geekery and I can get behind that.
Also, I got onto this train of thought two hours ago because I was trying to figure out: if Person B is talking to Person A and Daemon A in Spanish, would they refer to “A” collectively as “tú” or “vos”?