There's No Way I Can Have a Lover! *Or Maybe There Is!? - Vol. 1 Ch. 8

[neolaguna]

The comments on this manga... good lord. Don't like it? Don't read it. Easy. Literally no one cares if you like the translation quality or not. You didn't pay for anything, it's free, you know. No one owes you a perfect scanlation.

 

[Sakuma0]

@xiaotiao thanks for the translation.

For the people complaining, since you have so much time to complain why not learn Japanese?

 

[SkippyChan]

I legit don't see why people are complaining. This translation is legit really good. Hope the best for the translator.

 

[the_descolada]

@Oeconomist singular they has been in use since shakespeare's time lol, the only ideological thing here is people purposefully NOT using it, and most people, most likely including you, use it in day to day speech without even realizing it. make an effort lol

 

[Oeconomist]

@the_descolada —

The first occurrences of many bad things are quite ancient.

Using “they” as a singular only gained a foothold amongst intellectuals after various attempts to introduce new, ungendered singular personal pronouns fell flat; those attempts were openly ideologic, so no one aware of the history would be able honestly to deny why “they” (as a singular) was then taken-up by people who otherwise had the same ideologic alignments. I'll assume that you're just misinformed, rather than dishonest.

And, no, I speak very much as I write.

 

[Kefkabot]

Better leave after midnight.

 

[Hexxy]

@Oeconomist So, allow me to chime in as someone who actually went to university for linguistics.

Language changes constantly, whether it be because of a meme, ideological reasons, foreign words or ideas being introduced, etc. If you have a problem with singular they, then surely you have a problem with singular "you" as well, no? In fact, singular "you" is historically much newer a concept than singular "they". If you want to stick to your guns here, you should be saying "thou" instead.

But if it's language from ideology you have issue with, you might be aware of and take issue with the neoclassical era intellectuals who decided to standardise English spelling and grammar to make it more similar to Latin, yes? From the ahistorical changing of the word "aille" into the current "aisle" to fit it closer to a Latin etymology out had no relation to prior, to turning split infinitives into an error despite being natural in Germanic language's grammar.

This of course comes with the additional ideological motive of class division. A language isn't standardised, in short, by rules in a textbook, but by its usage. The fact is, singular they has been around longer than singular "you", and is only kept from being standard not because it is recent but because of prescriptivists attempting to mold language into a specific vision, and because of people who are opposed to using it for ideological reasons.

The fact is, a lot of English grammar rules are just made up. They don't need to be followed. Some dialects of English have their own grammar rules, too, which others don't. Take it from an actual linguist - the number one thing you learn from studying linguistics is that language is fluid and fake and meaningless in its meaningfulness. And I know, because I used to be like you until I studied this at a higher education level.

 

[Oeconomist]

@Hexxy—

allow me to chime in as someone who actually went to university for linguistics

Having made that claim will play-out badly for you.

If you have a problem with singular they, then surely you have a problem with singular "you" as well, no? In fact, singular "you" is historically much newer a concept than singular "they". If you want to stick to your guns here, you should be saying "thou" instead.

The form “thou” isn't merely a singular, but a singular familiar, like the German “Du”. It might, none-the-less, have been good for English to keep “thou” as part of everyday speech and writing, but that ship has sailed. The ship of educated people accepting “they” as a third-person singular has not sailed, which is why its advocates keep flogging it. And the case is poor, which is why so many of them resort to sophistry or reiterate misrepresentations learned from sophists.

(As to the ship of creating a new second-person singular that were not informal, that ship hasn't even been built.)

you might be aware of and take issue with the neoclassical era intellectuals who decided to standardise English spelling and grammar to make it more similar to Latin, yes?

I long have been. But, while each of those things is regrettable, they were expressions of ideology that did not themselves subsequently function as ideologic blinders. For example, someone taught that splitting an infinitive were wrong isn't thereby led to embrace a social order in any way more general (than that it shouldn't have split infinitives).

This of course comes with the additional ideological motive of class division.

Here you are abusing the present tense. The attempted Latinization came from many sources, including that of people attempting to set themselves apart, but was any mechanism created to keep those in other social groups from adopting those same practices, and anyone is allowed not to split an infinitive. (By analogy, one can look at Received Pronunciation, which has become wide-spread amongst the British, though it was developed by people rising from the lower class exactly to distinguish themselves.) The people now using language to push for class division are the supposèd champions of the oppressed (real or imagined), which supposèd champions actively discourage linguistic practices that they associate with an elite. Again, this is the attempt to shape linguistic practice towards ideologic ends.

The fact is, singular they has been around longer than singular "you"

No, that's flat wrong. What would not have been wrong would have been the claim that occasional singular use of “they” predates the general abandonment of “thou”. But you've totally confused the issue of the informal singular with that of a distinctive singular playing the same rôle as “you”.

prescriptivists attempting to mold language into a specific vision

First, let us note that your objection to my having written “he or she” was an act of prescription. Prescriptivism originates from various sources, and may or may not have a specific vision. The simple truth is that most prescriptivists believe that language should be as effective as practicably possible for communication, and resist anything that they see as undermining that potential.

people who are opposed to using it for ideological reasons

It would be more appropriate to call their reasons meta-ideologic. The point is neither to impose nor to preserve an ideology, but to prevent the introduction of an ambiguity of number in order to foster a degendering. People who want a genderless, personal, singular pronoun should go back to promoting a new pronoun or quit.

a lot of English grammar rules are just made up

No. Some are just made-up; but most, while made-up, are not just made up.

They don't need to be followed.

The rules of a language don't need to be followed exactly to the extent that we don't need to use a particular language. But when we need to communicate, we need to use some language that is up to the task, and sometimes we indeed need to use a particular language. Allowing a prevailing language to corrode is not a good idea.

Take it from an actual linguist

Well, I'll buy your claim to have studied linguistics in university, but credentials are not a proper substitute for competence, and I'd see someone who got more of the history correct (see above) and demonstrated more thoughtfulness about the subject (see above) as more an actual linguist.

the number one thing you learn from studying linguistics is that language is fluid and fake and meaningless in its meaningfulness.

Nope. See, the thing that Lewis Carroll saw but people like you do not is that, if Humpty Dumpty were really correct, he couldn't even disagree with us nor we with him nor you with I nor I with you. Disagreement itself requires meaning.

I know, because I used to be like you until I studied this at a higher education level.

Again, credentials are not a proper substitute for competence. As the Japanese would say, you're a hundred years too early to engage in this argument.

 

[Hexxy]

@Oeconomist

People who want a genderless, personal, singular pronoun should go back to promoting a new pronoun or quit.

The simple truth is that most prescriptivists believe that language should be as effective as practicably possible for communication, and resist anything that they see as undermining that potential.

About this. What exactly is the issue with using the existing pronoun? In several languages, including Persian and Japanese, such a distinction is not necessary for effective communication. While it is true that your saying "he or she" isn't particularly a hindrance to communication, the fact is that the prevailing usage among the majority of people is saying singular they. I would normally not appeal to the fallacy of the favour of the majority, but language is not necessarily political in and of itself, and the way it is spoken is informed by the majority.

I'll give you that there isn't anything inherently wrong with language prescription. In the Arab world, language is stratified; there is an upper language reserved for formal occasions and there is the language spoken by the people amongst themselves. This system exists to unify the countries by language and mutual cooperation, and is not uncommon in other places too, especially in Europe and South Asia. Some languages have a tight control by an academy, like the well known académie française for French.

A major difference here is that English is not a grammatically gendered language. What I mean by this is that ever since the gradual Creolisation of English from the 11th century onwards, a feature English lost was its noun case system, simplified out as is common in creolised languages. French and Arabic have two noun cases, a feminine and masculine, which is inherent to the grammar of the language itself. While it can be argued this system might be patriarchal, the fact is, moving away from politics, that those languages ARE, as they exist now, gendered.

While English does have gendered pronouns and a few remnants of the old case system (referring to ships as 'she' for example, or words like fiancé vs fiancée), we're not changing our verb conjugations or definite or indefinite articles based on noun gender anymore.

What defines how effective language is for communication? Does a language inform how we think or does how we think inform a language? As long as the idea is communicated and understood, it doesn't matter how it is communicated, and this is the foundation of how a language changes over time: effective communication. The current era, in large part and growing, prefers the singular they, not out of ideology but of convenience.

The fact is, in real life usage, people don't commonly go around correcting other people who say singular they in certain contexts. The argument became ideological only recently, as the New Oxford Dictionary accepted its use in 1998, and arguments in favour of singular they are nothing new, as seen in a 1794 edition of the New Bedford Medley, in which an argument over this very topic, not dissimilar to our own right now, was made by three women who used it to conceal the gender of the author. The APA, Purdue, and even religious documents like the New International Version Bible (and that's my only reference to religion I'll make here, as it is not my point however you feel about it) find singular they acceptable.

I'm not going to try and make you use singular they if you don't want to, I only want to express that it is fast becoming the norm and has been recorded in common use since at least Shakesepare's time. Whether singular you was made properly acceptable long ago, it still is more recent as a linguistic trend than singular they.

 

[Oeconomist]

@Hexxy—

What exactly is the issue with using the existing pronoun?

I've already answered that. Before I repeat myself, I'll note that it's a special case of the answer to the more general question of why not use just one pronoun for all persons (first, second, and third), numbers (singular and plural), and genders (masculine, feminine, and neuter) — it fosters confusion. Specifically, when the third-person singular is not distinct from the plural, confusion arises. We already see that continually with the second person; we don't need more confusion.

In several languages, including Persian and Japanese, such a distinction is not necessary for effective communication.

Spare me. Many languages manage to be workable without having some of the advantages had by other languages; sometimes each of two languages is in some way superior to the other. That doesn't mean that either should stop doing what it does well that the other does not.

I would normally not appeal to the fallacy of the favour of the majority, but language is not necessarily political in and of itself, and the way it is spoken is informed by the majority.

It is informed by various things, and not just by the behavior of the majority, which is why you are indeed arguing fallaciously here.

English is not a grammatically gendered language.

That's false, which is why, immediate next, you attempt to substitute a weaker claim.

What I mean by this is ever since the gradual Creolisation of English from the 11th century onwards, a feature English lost was its noun case system

Even this weaker claim is false. But the truth buried in it is that nouns lost their gendering. That doesn't imply that pronouns should also lose their genders. More to the point, it doesn't imply that third-person pronouns should lose their grammatic numbers; note that the vast majority of nouns retain their numbers. (Also note that creolization tends to try to create new plural forms for those that do not have distinctive plural forms, and even try to force collectives to work as singletons.)

As long as the idea is communicated and understood, it doesn't matter how it is communicated

Wrong. Again, you haven't given any of this much thought. What succeeds in one context can ensure failure in a later context. Language builds upon precedent, and people often find themselves struggling because an inconsistent practice became accepted or even standardized at an earlier point.

people don't commonly go around correcting other people who say singular they in certain contexts.

Let's recall how this exchange began,which wasn't with my telling someone that he or she shouldn't use “they” as a singular, but with a grammar commie telling me that my “he or she” were awkward.

The argument became ideological only recently

I was speaking to the motivation, not to the argument. As I said, the argument against this change is meta-ideologic. And, as I said, the struggle began exactly as the previous attempts to introduce a new, ungendered, personal singular pronoun collapsed.

Whether singular you was made properly acceptable long ago, it still is more recent as a linguistic trend than singular they.

No, the use of “you” as a polite second-person singular dates to shortly after the Norman Conquest, an adoption of French practice. The first known appearance of singular “they” came about three hundred years later and even then was not similarly standard.

 

[Hexxy]

@Oeconomist

Let's recall how this exchange began,which wasn't with my telling someone that he or she shouldn't use “they” as a singular, but with a grammar commie telling me that my “he or she” were awkward.

Touché. I do still find it awkward and it was an innocent question at first, out of curiosity, to be fair.

That's false, which is why, immediate next, you attempt to substitute a weaker claim.

False how? English lost the accusative case, the dative case, and has only the most simple of a genitive case. Our articles no longer change, and neither do we conjugate differently dependent on case and gender. Gender exists as a construct in English only in superficial ways not core to the fundamental structure of the language.

Grammatical gender does not play a role in how English is spoken. In fact, you yourself confirm this in your next sentence, so I'm not sure why you claim my statement is false when you contradict yourself right after:

But the truth buried in it is that nouns lost their gendering. That doesn't imply that pronouns should also lose their genders. More to the point, it doesn't imply that third-person pronouns should lose their grammatic numbers; note that the vast majority of nouns retain their numbers.

Nobody is arguing for the loss of grammatical number. 'They' as a singular is reasonable both as a way of indicating a vague or unknown gender and as a pronoun for nonbinary people. Rather, people are using the pronoun with a dual function, which is not uncommon.

English used to use the pronoun 'he' for this same end, as a vaguery or generality, as in, "Everyone here should present his papers". This obviously fell out of fashion in favour of "he or she" for the same ideological reason that you're claiming singular "they" is being pushed.

 

[Oeconomist]

@Hexxy—

False how?

Nouns lost most distinctive case-forms, but retained genitive/possessive forms distinct from the combined nominative/objective forms. Pronouns have distinct nominative, genitive, and objective forms. Third-person singular pronouns retained gender.

Gender exists as a construct in English only in superficial ways not core to the fundamental structure of the language.

You're begging the question. And what actually happened was that gender in English came to be more closely aligned with sex.

Grammatical gender does not play a role in how English is spoken.

Again, wrong. For example, when I write of an interaction between a man and a woman, there is no confusion when I begin using pronouns, as there would be were I carelessly using “they” for each.

you yourself confirm this in your next sentence

No, in the next sentence that you quote, what I confirm was that nouns lost their gendering, which is distinct from a more general claim that English lost grammatic gender, and from your odd, tangential claim that it lost case.

Nobody is arguing for the loss of grammatical number.

The fact that the loss of the grammatic number of the third-person pronoun would merely be collateral damage doesn't change the fact that it would be lost. You and others are arguing for that loss.

{Use of “he” as a neuter personal pronoun} obviously fell out of fashion in favour of "he or she" for the same ideological reason that you're claiming singular "they" is being pushed.

Were it indeed obviously the same, then people such as I who use “he or she” wouldn't be raising objection to the ideologic motivation. Believing that one should take care not to make inappropriate insinuations about sex is very different from seeking to hard-wire an ideology into a language. There is every difference between thoughtful speech and Newspeak.

 

[Mirza_Shahbaz]

Wtf is wrong with the comments

 

[wcskeleton]

Why are so many comments full essays

 

[Pegasus1751]

What a lovely comment section