| You can fight the good fight to bring back thou, no one is stopping you (ha), other than perhaps the good sense to realise no one wants it and, more importantly, appeals to hypocrisy or inconsistency are basic logical fallacies. > > Non-binary is a luxury belief. > It's a basic fact of life in many pre- / non-British Empire cultures – and even in modern-day cultures formerly of the Empire. But not part of a Britain that has a literate population that's been through basic science at school, which still appears not to have been enough for teenagers, and curiously, university educated journalists and educators. What could tie those groups together? Regardless, what's happening elsewhere in other languages is for the speakers of those places and languages to deal with. > If you mean the modern, 'western' ideas of non-binary gender Yes, I do. I don't live in 1550 nor in pre-modern Britain, hence, those time periods have no relevance to this discussion other than "things change". > If I may be pedantic for a moment: it's the same grammatical construction as things that are grammatical, so it is grammatical. That's not up for debate! You're arguing on the side of an innovation, of course it breaks grammar rules (and who claimed that Chomsky's sentence was not grammatical? Again irrelevant). The only thing worth writing in that whole text was “What's in question is whether it's acceptable”, and it isn't. Wouldn't it have been better to focus on that instead of chatting nonsense about borders that only Scots with a chip on their shoulders care about? No, because it would expose the paucity of any good reason to accept this innovation. The idea that those who are against this are being prescriptive is funny, I'm not demanding that anyone use an innovation in language to refer to anyone else upon threat of punishment if they don't comply. Now that's not how English nor English culture should work. > They ain't them. ;-) Glad you're paying attention but I meant what I wrote, the joke doesn't work if I make it more grammatical ;-) This is so far off-topic we might end up in our own debatable lands… |