#a noun for the adjective to apply to. making the adjective the noun

[schadenfreudich]

Damn, I really just talk like that, huh? I really just say "[name], mein Guter". Like, that's just something I do. Fascinating.

[eamour]

method · using subliminals

today, we are talking about subliminals. believe it or not, subliminals are what actually brought me to the law of attraction and later on the law of assumption. they are already used by a large number of people, even those who don’t necessarily believe in any law.

definition

subliminal (adjective) refers to something that cannot be recognised or understood by the conscious mind but still manages to influence the subconscious. a subliminal message, for example, can only be perceived by you without you having notice or being aware of it.

in a spiritual context, subliminals (noun) signify sounds, often music with underlying positive affirmations.

intention

the purpose of subliminals is to sway your beliefs in a certain direction or change them entirely. a subliminal that purposely tries to persuade you subconsciously into believing something which you find hard to believe in consciously. in short, listening to subliminals helps you "reprogram" your mind.

how to listen

you can listen to a subliminal with your headphones, your earphones, on your phone, on your laptop, on your tablet,… all variants are just as influential.

when and where to listen

when and where you listen to a subliminal is entirely up to you. it depends on your beliefs. the moment you think you need to listen to them for them to help you manifest or materliase your desire, that’s when you should listen to them. there is no fixed time or place. you can listen whenever you want, wherever you want.

how often to listen

how often you listen to a subliminal is also entirely up to you. you can listen to one subliminal the entire a day, two subliminals at the same time, listen overnight, while doing your chores, make a playlist for the day, create a time frame for when to listen or listen to it only once — you decide! again, there is no fixed amount of times. you listen as many times as you wish to.

what to listen to

you can find subliminals on various platforms! mostly, they are free and on youtube. there, you can follow your favourite subliminal channels, create playlists and listen/loop them. you may also find subliminals on spotify, apple music, soundcloud, etc.

why it works

it doesn’t matter how many times you listen to a subliminal, how intense you listen to it or where you do it. the only thing that matters is your overall mental attitude. while listening to the sub, all you have to do is to accept its promised results to make it "work" for you. keyword: belief. belief creates and helps creating. your only job is to decide you have your desire and persist in that. for example, you could assume that you get your desires while listening to the sub and full results after listening to the entire playlist. or maybe you get full results by just listening to the first second of the sub? your rules apply only.

with love, ella.

[literaryvein-reblogs]

5 Literary Terms for Studying Poetry

ABSTRACT DICTION / ABSTRACT IMAGERY: Language that describes qualities that cannot be perceived with the five senses. For instance, calling something pleasant or pleasing is abstract, while calling something yellow or sour is concrete. The word domesticity is abstract, but the word sweat is concrete. The preference for abstract or concrete imagery varies from century to century. Philip Sidney praised concrete imagery in poetry in his 1595 treatise, Apologie for Poetrie. A century later, Neoclassical thought tended to value the generality of abstract thought. In the early 1800s, the Romantic poets like Wordsworth, Coleridge, and Shelley once again preferred concreteness. In the 20th century, the distinction between concrete and abstract has been a subject of some debate. Ezra Pound and T. E. Hulme attempted to create a theory of concrete poetry. T. S. Eliot added to this school of thought with his theory of the "objective correlative."

EUPHONY (Greek "good sound"): Attempting to group words together harmoniously, so that the consonants permit an easy and pleasing flow of sound when spoken, as opposed to cacophony, when the poet intentionally mixes jarring or harsh sounds together in groups that make the phrasing either difficult to speak aloud or grating to the ear. Here is an example of euphony from John Keats' The Eve of St. Agnes (1820):

And lucent syrops, tinct with cinnamon; Manna and dates, in argosy transferred From Fez; and spiced dainties, every one From silken Samarcand to cedar'd Lebanon.

MEIOSIS: Understatement, the opposite of exaggeration: "I was somewhat worried when the psychopath ran toward me with a chainsaw." (i.e., I was terrified). Litotes (especially popular in Old English poetry) is a type of meiosis in which the writer uses a statement in the negative to create the effect: "You know, Einstein is not a bad mathematician." (i.e., Einstein is a good mathematician.) "That pustulant wart is somewhat unbeautiful" (i.e., That pustulant wart is ugly). Litotes is recognizable in English by negatives like not, no, non- and un-.)

SYNAESTHESIA (also spelled synesthesia, from Grk. "perceiving together"): A rhetorical trope involving shifts in imagery. It involves taking one type of sensory input (sight, sound, smell, touch, taste) and comingling it with another separate sense in an impossible way. In the resulting figure of speech, we end up talking about how a color sounds, or how a smell looks. When we say a musician hits a "blue note" while playing a sad song, we engage in synaesthesia. When we talk about a certain shade of color as a "cool green," we mix tactile or thermal imagery with visual imagery the same way. When we talk about a "heavy silence," we also use synaesthesia. Examples abound: "The scent of the rose rang like a bell through the garden." "I caressed the darkness with cool fingers." French poets, especially Baudelaire in Les fleurs du mal, have proven especially eager to use synaesthesia. The term itself is a fairly late addition to rhetoric and literary terminology, first coined in 1892, though examples of this figure of speech can be found in Homer, Aeschylus, Donne, Shelley, Crashaw, and scores of other writers and poets.

ZEUGMA (Greek "yoking" or "bonding"): Artfully using a single verb to refer to two different objects in an ungrammatical but striking way, or artfully using an adjective to refer to two separate nouns, even though the adjective would logically only be appropriate for one of the two. For instance, in Shakespeare's Henry V, Fluellen cries, "Kill the boys and the luggage." (The verb kill normally wouldn't be applied to luggage, so it counts a zeugma.) If the resulting grammatical construction changes the verb's initial meaning but is still grammatically correct, the zeugma is sometimes called syllepsis—though in actual practice, most critics use the general term zeugma to include both the grammatical and ungrammatical types interchangeably.

Source ⚜ More: Writing Notes & References

[rebel-wrath]

I'm something of a chaos goblin at heart, my DND alignment is always chaotic, and the only use I have for rule books is toilet paper, unless their on my kobo because that would not be comfortable. Or sanitary.

There is one rule I've found that cannot be ignored if you want to grow as a writer. Everything else you can burn. Show don't tell is great as long as you understand where to tell not show. Proper spelling and grammar can be ignored, if you understand how and can justify it. Don't infodump except when you are required to, because there's times when you have to. Don't head hop unless you're using a narrative style that allows you to head hop. Every rule except this one comes with caveats, and growth as a writer isn't measured in how well you learn the rules and can stick to them, but in how well you learn when they don't apply, and can write around them.

Don't believe me? The first Discworld novel starts with an infodump. It has to, because readers expect fantasy worlds to still be globes, and if you're breaking that rule you have to start by stating outright that you are breaking it. There are incredibly popular books filled with head hopping (the thriller genre especially). Even spelling can be ignored if you want to write in a dialect, or have a POV character writing the story who struggles with this.

I'm posting a serial story on here three times a week (Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday) under the tag #NofNA which repeatedly breaks rules that are constantly said to be inviolable. It works, because I write comedy, because my narrative style makes it work, and because I actively seek ways to break rules all the time.

So, what's the one rule that can't be broken? It's WRELA. And it's the most important writing rule there is, and the only one you should never break.

WRELA. Well, technically, W.R.E.L.A.

Write. Write something. Write anything. It doesn't matter what you write, and it doesn't matter how good it is. Write.

Read. Read your own work back. Read old pieces you wrote years ago, and the thing you just finished. Read it out loud. Read it to yourself. Read it to others. Read things others have written. Read comments, blog posts, movie reviews, short stories, fanfic, scripts, and novels. Read the back of the cereal box, the receipt when you buy something, the terms and conditions, the small print. Read skeets and subtitles and emails and the sms from your granny, God bless her.

Edit. Go over the work you have written, again and again if you have to. Edit it once or edit it 1000 times. That story I'm serialising? It took me fifteen years (on and off) and two lifetimes (when I believed I was cis and after I learned that I'm trans) to write, and the finished version is as different a book to the original as it was possible to be whilst still being about the same thing.

Learn. Learn from your writing, from your reading, from your editing. Don't learn the rules. Don't take what worked for Vonnegut or King or Aristotle and blindly apply it to your work. Learn yourself. Learn who you are, what your voice is, what you're trying to say to the world. Learn how to say it. Some of those rules from other writers might work well with you. Some of them won't. That's fine. Learn what makes you a better writer.

Apply. Put the things you learned from the last piece of fiction into the next piece of fiction you write. Then do it again. Learn from that and put that into the next and then again.

The next section is me using my writing to back up my previous statements. It's a bit "markety" because I'm discussing my writing. Feel free to skip it if you want.

Okay, let's back this up: NofNA, Noun of Noun and Adjective, is a fantasy comedy that satirises our world and parodies other books. I have a few chapters up already, if you want to read it. It's about a transgender princess who joins a magic mirror reality show called Heroic Quest in return for a magical gender transition (she's a trans woman). Structurally, it has similarities to Discworld novels (one thing I learned was footnotes are a pain in the ass). Another thing I learned was that I had to keep editing the narration because I wanted to directly comment on the story as the narrator and it wouldn't work.

So I applied what I learned to the next book I wrote, Attack of the 50 ft Trans Woman.

This is a story about a Trans Woman who undergoes an experimental procedure to change gender. She grows to fifty feet, and the government sends the army after her even though she's done nothing wrong. So she heads to London to have a word with the Prime Minister.

But I knew what I'd learned from Noun of Noun and Adjective, I knew I wanted to narrate however I pleased. So the prologue makes it clear that the story is actually being told to you by an alien. As the alien narrator, I was able to interrupt the narration, go off on tangents, make jokes, and just generally be weird. It sounds like it shouldn't work, but it does. Even the huge dance scene near the end works. There's a scene from the POV of a terf, Karen, that doesn't have pronouns in it and was an absolute pain in the ass to write, but it works because the narrator is respecting Karen's insistence that Karen doesn't have pronouns. Therefore, no pronouns are used to refer to Karen in Karen's scene except the occasional first person when directly quoting Karen's tweets because Karen does not respect Karen's choice to not use pronouns for Karen.

Seriously one of the most difficult things I've ever written, but it backs up my point that you can ignore any rules you please if 1) you can justify it, and 2) you can pull it off. I ignored basic grammar itself there.

Attack of the 50 ft Trans woman is available from all major ebook retailers and a paper version is planned for later this year

Readers have told me it made them laugh, it made them sad, it made them angry. Since anger was the point, I can happily say it works.

It was also the most fun I've ever had writing and it took me a week to do the first draft. Remember, writing is meant to be fun, and when I applied what I learned from the previous book, I went from a book that took me 15 years from start to finish to a book that took only a few months.

So I took what I learned from Attack and I applied it to Bigoted Book Burners Bloodily Bludgeoned by Badly Burnt Books. I wanted to write about book burnings, and I decided the best genre for what I wanted to write was a horror. This story had a more traditional narration, but it's essentially two different stories told simultaneously, and has a bulleted list of content warnings a page long. The even chapters are the story of a kid growing up trans when the only parent she has is her terf mum. It was horrendous to write, there were days I could only manage a paragraph. I'm not looking forward to the edit.

The odd number chapters start with the book burning, with the grimoire of a witch being thrown on the fire, then causing all the books in the village to animate and kill people. It's a massively over the top splatterpunk extravaganza and is hilarious and the perfect antidote to the even number chapters.

What I learned from Attack was that I'm not a very reliable free flow writer. I need plans. And so every chapter of B5bB3 was planned before it was written. I could see how dark some scenes were, and it meant I knew where to balance them out with correspondingly funny scenes. I learned more about character agency and development.

And from B5bB3 I learned about building narrative tension, about holding off the horrible so it's not overwhelming until suddenly bang! it is overwhelming, and I'm applying that to TWTSQ, my current WIP.

B5bB3 will be out later this year, hopefully around June.

There's other books I've written, under various other names, but I'm only discussing the ones I write as Caledonia Fife. But everything I've written and everything I've read has taught me about writing, and I can honestly say that the books I'm putting out now, under this name, are so much incredibly better than the first book I put out in 2010 under a different name.

So if you want to be the best writer you can be:

Write

Read

Edit

Learn

Apply

THIS CHAPTER - IN PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS

NEXT CHAPTER IS CHAPTER Two- THE INTERVIEW

ALL - Noun of Noun and Adjective

[alien-girl-21]

The Käärijä Research Paper (tm)

aka: Error Analysis of the Use of English Articles in Jere Pöyhönen Interviews in 2023

(Before we start, a couple of clarifications: firstly, I am a linguistics student and this research was my final project for my psycholinguistics course, secondly, this was a group research and I have gotten permission from my friends to share these results with y'all so tysm to them, and lastly, the og work is LONG, 50 pages long, so I'm condensing it into the important bits)

Findings and explanations under the cut <3

Before sharing the actual research, i'm going to share some important terms for you guys to understand the overall layout of this work.

Error analysis: kind of self explanatory, it's the process of analyzing errors, specifically in one's speech, more on how we did this later.

Omission: The alienation of a linguistic form in speech (i.e. I go to (the) supermarket.).

Addition: The opposite of omission, putting an unnecessary linguistic form in a sentence (i.e. It's the maybe half and half.).

Substitution: Exchanging a linguistic form for another one (i.e. He admitted to have stolen a wallet. Instead of: He admitted to having stolen a wallet.).

Overgeneralization: Looking at a grammatical rule and thinking it applies to every case with no exceptions (i.e. finding out verbs conjugated in the past end in -ed and creating conjugations like writted instead of written). Also known as intralingual transfer.

Negative transfer: When your mother tongue (L1) seeps into your second/foreign language (L2) (in this case it's foreign language, but I'll still call it an L2 for simplicity's sake), if we're talking about Spanish negative transfer it can look like: the car red (Spanish adjectives go after the noun, unlike in English). Also known as interlingual transfer.

Local error: An error that does not affect the overall meaning of the sentence, making it still understandable.

Global error: An error that affects the overall meaning of the sentence, making it difficult to understand without clarifications.

Okay, with that out of the way, let me explain what we did:

We decided to make an error analysis on how Jere utilized articles (the, a/an) throughout 2023, for this we considered 2 interviews and 1 Instagram live, the interviews were: KÄÄRIJÄ TRIES LITHUANIAN FOOD (uploaded on 12/04/23) and Episode 3: Käärijä and friends (uploaded on 26/12/23), the ig live was the one he did to promote the release of Huhhahhei on 19/10/23, the dates are important for later.

Now, to do the error analysis in itself we followed Rod Ellis’ proposal for error analysis which follows four main steps:

Identifying errors: Self-explanatory, you see what errors one has committed.

Describing errors: Once you see the errors, you describe what exactly the error is, it can be with grammatical categories, or with omission, misinformation, addition, misordering, and substitution.

Explaining errors: After describing the error you need to explain why this error was committed, the two main ways are through overgeneralization and negative transfer.

Error evaluation: After all this, you identify how the error affected the overall message of the sentence being spoken, was it local or global?

We put these steps into a chart and listened to the interviews and identified the errors we found, it’s a really long chart, so if you want to see it fully you can find it here (hopefully). After identifying all the errors and doing our own error analysis we… well, analyzed the data, duh, according to the objectives we set up for the research.

Our first objective was to identify errors Jere has committed regarding articles in the three videos I mentioned. What we analyzed was more grammatical, so what grammatical structure he used the most. He usually omits an article before a noun and with adjectives, like in: “We go to bar with my producer…”, or “Käärijä goes to boat.”, or “I am fine, uh… little bit tired.”. Obviously, this is kind of expected because Finnish does not have articles, but he also adds articles when it is not necessary, like in: “I have the one festival.” Here are the charts of the grammatical trends:

Then we focused on the describing errors part of our analysis. In this part, we found out that he usually finds himself committing omission errors, with 67 in total across the three videos, like I said before, expected, however, the second most common error is addition, this means he adds an unnecessary article in a sentence, and what’s interesting is that he usually does it with the article “the”. Since this is not an actual academic article I will speculate with a full chest: I think he does this because people are usually taught that “the” is the only article in English (only definite one, but not the only one), and that nouns usually have an article accompanying them, so I think that he adds the when he is unsure if an article needs to go there or not. Finally, there was only one case of substitution: “This is the lovely story.”, not really sure why he did this, but it’s interesting that it only happened once. Have the charts and graphs:

We moved to the next step: explaining errors. When we started this research, we thought that we would only have negative transfers since, ya know, Finnish grammar and all, and we were kind of right? He has committed negative transfer errors the most, with 66 in total, but he also had 23 overgeneralization errors, which I didn’t really expect to happen with articles that much. Not much else to say here, have charts:

Lastly, error evaluation. He made mostly local errors, which is what mainly characterizes his speech, we know what he’s saying, he just usually lacks some grammatical form that doesn’t affect his overall meaning. He did have 15 global errors that unless you have the context, it can be a little confusing to understand what he’s trying to say (like in the ig live he said “here tour” when he wanted to say “here in the tour”). Charts!

Our final objective was to see the evolution of these errors, has he made more or less as time went on? Well, since we all can see and hear, he has made a great improvement! You already have the charts above to understand that, but I just have to explain it. In the first interview, in April, he made 50 mistakes in total, by the ig live he had cut those in half, and by the latest interview he gave in English he had cut the mistakes in half again! Have the graphs to accurately see this:

He has improved so much in such a short amount of time! Even more impressive when he hasn’t really taken any formal English classes, just by talking to Bojan and Alessandra. There’s a difference between language learning and language acquisition that was proposed by Stephen Krashen (cool dude, if you’re interested in language learning, go check him out). He says that people usually learn more by acquiring (unconscious) rather than learning (conscious), and you can see that Jere has learnt so much by acquiring English through his friends and his own experiences! And this is just looking at how he uses articles, there is also a distinctive change in how he uses other grammatical forms (but that was too much work for just 2 weeks, maybe I’ll do it later, no promises on anything, though). Even if we’re not talking about his grammatical and syntactical forms, his pronunciation has improved as well! My friends were fascinated by how his accent seemed to develop from video to video, which was very sweet because his accent is one of my favorite things about his speech, but that’s off topic.

The general takeaway from this research is: Jere still has a lot of Finnish tendencies in his English, he has developed his own grammatical structures to communicate in English, and how much he improved in an 8-month period is kind of insane, especially for an adult (who are the age group who have the most trouble learning languages). He’s the it-girl of blowing off a linguist’s mind (me, I’m the linguist)

That would be all!! If you have any other questions, feel free to ask! I'm more than glad to answer them

[dedalvs]

ive done a lot of translating to high valyrian in my day and id like to think im pretty good at it sometimes (the way ive spent literal hours researching how just one piece of grammar works to change a noun to an adverb or something is maybe insane)

anyway all that to say i usually know what to look for and how to apply it, but i am struggling with this new bit im trying to translate. “i disdain all glittering gold.”

ive replaced disdain with hate cause there doesnt seem to be a word for disdain in valyrian and hate is the closest approximation. same with glittering — replaced that with shine, and had to manually transform that to an adjective (jehikagon -> jehikere? dunno if its right)

so what i have now is “nyke buqan unir jehikere aeksion”

(im not as concerned with getting the word order right as i am with the rest of the grammar)

ive learned from a previous answer “nyke” is potentially (probably) unnecessary here, so that leaves it as “buqan unir jehikere aeksion,” but the unir there in the middle kinda makes it feel off and im not sure if maybe that also needs to be part of a compound word like valar or how to make it one if so because idk what part of valar is all and what part is men and how to fit aeksion into that equation.

i lost track of what my question was originally meant to be but i guess im wondering if im on the right track and if theres some guidance you may have to get me all the way there.

thank you for your time 🙏

Uhhhhhh... Not to be that dude, but...maybe be more concerned with that...?

I'm not sure if you know about this site, but my wiki is exhaustively updated with respect to High Valyrian, specifically. There's a team of people that work on High Valyrian and it's massive. For example, you could go to the entry for jehikagon and see that jehikere is wrong: it should be jehikare. And, of course, it has to agree with āeksion (note the long ā), so it should be jehikarior. To get the sense of repetitiveness (with "glittering"), you might add ā- to the front, so ājehikarior.

Now for "all", why not use the collective? This is how you get "All men must die", so it should work for "I distain all glittering gold". That would be āeksior. Of course, it would need to be in the accusative, so altogether it would be ājehikarior āeksȳndi. By adding the repetitive you kind of get the aliteration, too, since they both begin with ā.

Finally you have "disdain", for which buqagon serves. Aside from sound a little more posh, the difference between "disdain" and "hate" in English seems to be one of duration. The words "disdain" and "loathe" seem to emphasize that this is a character trait rather than a reaction. If you disdain something, you've given it some thought, have experience with it, and may use this as a way of describing or characterizing yourself. You can do this with "hate" as well, but it's a much more common word, and so can be used in other more basic ways, whereas "disdain" and "loathe" tend to only have specalized uses. To try to approximate this, you could use the frequentative with buqagon to imply a lengthy duration. That would give you jobuqan "I disdain". In fact, you could even use the aorist if you really wanted to imply that it was a description of yourself, i.e. jobuqin.

Now that you have the pieces, though, I really hate to say it, but the words must be in the right order. I mean, you can change the order of the noun and adjective, if you'd like, but you simply cannot put the verb first and think you've created a Valyrian sentence. It's not just "kind of" wrong: it's completely wrong. It'd be like suggesting "I him saw" is close enough in English because the forms are correct. It's not. It's wrong. This is not a minor part of the grammar you can ignore. High Valyrian is aggressively verb-final. The verb must be at the end.

All in all, that gives you:

Ājehikarior āeksȳndi jobuqin.

Hope that helps!

[opashoo]

Do you have any advice on how not to get so overwhelmed when it comes to conlanging? I get overwhelmed way too fast with the information I read on the conlang subreddit David j Petersons book I have or YouTubers I just get burned out.

I start out on my phonological sounds and sometimes I add a new sound or get rid of a few I find unnecessary phonotactics is where I end up getting stuck/frustrated and stoping completely. I don’t know why but my brain just cannot compute when it comes to phonotactics no matter how many videos I watch of people explaining it or looking through Wikipedia just doesn’t register in my brain. I’m assuming this is happening because I’m autistic which is even more frustrating I’m so slow when it comes to learning or I end up comparing myself to others for understanding/learning things faster than me. I get motivated to make a language and then I get overwhelmed it’s just a repeat cycle to the point where I just want to give up. I’m not even sure if it’s possible for me to make a conlang at this point. And then I stumble across something I never heard before from someone else said and I stress about that too and I constantly worry I’m going to make a conlang I spent so much time on only for someone to point out that it’s a reflex and I need to scrap the whole thing and start all over :(

So I have two big pieces of advice that have helped enormously with this sort of thing and they are to work small (the big picture will come together) and to know your goals. It's gonna be a lot so I'm putting it past a readmore. I also talk a bit about my own project, but it's all the way at the bottom.

First, focus on one thing at a time and take small steps. As your familiarity with your own work grows, the bigger picture will start to come together, just focus on one thing at a time.

If there's a linguistic phenomenon or grammatical construction or concept or something that you want to explore but you don't understand it entirely, then just focus on that for a while. I like to make toy languages, really, really small and simple conlangs with extremely simply words and sounds that are meant to focus specifically on one or two concepts at a time. I don't worry about anything else but those concepts; no phonotactics, no worrying about how pretty or ugly the language sounds, I don't worry about naturalism or sound changes, I don't focus on any of these things unless those things are what I'm making the toy language to explore.

My current project, Yongasabi, has a consonantal root system inspired by Arabic, but understanding the concept in a satisfactory manner where I felt confident including it in a project that I plan on publishing took actual years. I made three separate toylangs, one of which I revised and overhauled three times before eventually using that as a basis for Yongasabi. I needed that time and work to focus on absolutely nothing but sound changes and how a system like this evolves in natural languages. While I was playing around with sound changes in one toy language, in another toy language I was also trying to figure out how a system of derivation like this could into systems of nouns, adjectives and verbs. I did not focus on anything else with those toy language but those core concepts because to do any more would be overwhelming and confusing.

It's the same when you're working on a more complete language project, you build it little by little. Focus on one aspect at a time, one concept at a time. As you become more familiar with your own work and you use and apply it, you will start to see the things that work and the things that don't, and you'll be able to make decisions accordingly. It'll happen over time, but you have to avoid stressing about the whole thing.

And if there's something causing you trouble that's stopping you from making the language, there's no one stopping you from avoiding it until you're ready. I never actually properly wrote down Yongasabi's sound inventory, assimilations, and allophones until the grammar document was at 204 pages because I hate working on that stuff. :huntershruggy: That's usually the first thing a lot of people like to work on for some reason, but I hate it and I just went by instinct for 204 pages and five months. If I let that stop me, I never would have made any progress. There were some things I had to go back and update because of it, and that took extra time, but extra work with progress is better than no work and no progress.

Second, understand your goals.

A piece of advice I got from David Peterson's videos and several other conlanging youtubers is to know why you're making your language and what your endgoal is. As long as you understand what your goal is, you can prioritize and decide what steps you need to take to get there. You need to understand what you want or else you'll never be able to work towards it, and you reduce the chances that you'll be happy with it.

For example, I've known some conlangers whose goal is to make some kind of secret, diegetically constructed language for a fictional setting, or maybe a secret language to use with their friends, but they get caught up on rules of naturalism and worry about naturalistic development. You don't need naturalism if the point of your language is that it didn't develop naturally. That's just a waste of your time.

Conversely, I've known some naturalistic conlangers who feel obligated to add every new concept they come across with the idea that "Well if it evolved in a real world language, then it must have some use to real speakers and thus belongs in this language" but they miss the point that a natural language doesn't need to contain every naturally developed phenomenon. In the end they're left with something bloated, hugely redundant, and incredibly disappointing to them.

I've also met conlangers whose goal is to make a naturalistic conlang for a fictional setting only to be hugely dissatisfied when they follow the rules of naturalistic development and it makes a language that doesn't sound the way they want, or it doesn't evoke the feeling they want, or they find that their progress is unnecessarily bogged down by learning rules they find boring, because they don't actually want a naturalistic language, they want an artlang that services their story.

In all of these cases, the authors of these conlangs didn't understand their goals. They did work they didn't like to make end products they were dissatisfied with because they failed to meet their real goals. These goals can shift over time, but in the end that's fine as long as it makes you happy. You need to be making your conlang for you and your purposes! You say that you've gotten stuck on phonotactics and that's stopped you before, but Yongasabi doesn't even have phonotactics outside of literally one single rule, and it's that there can never be more than two consonants in a cluster. I hate working with phonotactics too, so I made my language in a way that let me minimize that work. It doesn't interfere with my goal so I'm totally fine with that.

I know this is a lot but it really does boil down to those two points: work small so that you don't get overwhelmed, and know your goals so you can set your priorities. My goals with Yongasabi were:

Make a language that allows me to explore this fictional culture I made for the slugcats of Rain World

Derive sounds from Mongolian, Korean and Filipino (And a little bit of Vietnamese)

Explore grammatical concepts that I find cool from these languages and others (My main focus was converbs and agglutination in tandem with a consonantal root system, but in general there's a lot of Chinese, Japanese, and Korean in the grammar)

Make sure I like the sound of the language

My main guiding forces were:

Have a rough basis in naturalistic sound changes, but if it leads to sounds or situations I don't like, change it; the readers won't notice because they don't see the development process

If something starts to feel weird or stops fitting in with the rest of the language, don't be afraid to change it or get rid of it entirely because that in a way reflects organic change in the language (and extra work for progress is better than no work for no progress)

If there's an opportunity for the culture to express itself in the language, take it

If you want to judge how well I've realized those goals, you can check it out here (I'm making this post free to reblog unlike the last one because the link is hidden under all this text and 1st edition release is super close anyway I am so excited).

Anyway, good luck! I hope my advice helps!

[etoilesbienne]

PROPOSITION FOR ENGLISH MCYT FANS

every other language has a word for minecraft rp character. we do not. this makes it hard to differentiate when we're talking. which is why i make my proposition today

"Blockling" is the new word in english for a minecraft character

using it is easy! example: when talking about like slimecicle's minecraft character -> "blockling slimecicle is so [x]" boom there you go. blockling. use it as an adjective or a noun. it's multifunctional. it doesn't replace q!/c! however and can be used in tandem or separate from them

join me now in the blockling revolution

edit: If you don't speak American English I understand blockling sounds a bit awkward, so my second suggestion is that people take the word block and then apply whatever the most common diminutive is for your dialect. ie australian english would get something like blokko or british english would get blockie. other words in english are like this, i don't see why this one can't!

other language versions are cubito (spanish) and cubinho (portuguese) if you were curious :D you can also just loanword these into english and say them instead!

[copperbadge]

A newsletter has a regular feature going down the list of Notable Sandwiches on Wikipedia. This week's is the hot dog. The writer emailed 30 professors. I commend everyone for the well-thought-out answers, especially the grad student who produced graphs. buttondown(.)email/theswordandthesandwich/archive/notable-sandwiches-89-hot-dog/

What a fun feature overall! I haven't reviewed the entirety of the Hot Dog Document yet, but I feel like now I want to do a bunch of back reading, too. I like reading about sandwiches, even if I'm fairly picky when it comes to them myself.

I will say, and perhaps this is populist of me or perhaps it's even more ivory tower than the academics, but as we all know I have a longstanding solution to all of this "is a hot dog a sandwich" nonsense, which is this:

"Sandwich" is not a noun. It is an adjective.

I don't mean that literally, like I haven't found some weird archaic dictionary that tells us so, but "sandwich" as a word is not used as a noun but rather as a descriptor of a thing, ergo, adjective. An object is a sandwich if you must apply "sandwich" to the end of the noun in order to properly identify it. It's like how many different kinds of dogs can be "brindle" but that is not a breed of dog and doesn't stand on its own as a classification.

Now, I have no objection to anyone saying "a hot dog sandwich" because that's simply a redundancy and if they wish to, that's their prerogative; it sounds fun and old timey, like saying "a hamburger steak". But we need not classify a hot dog as a sandwich simply because you don't need to say "hot dog sandwich" for the person you're speaking with in order to make yourself understood. Much as you would not generally say "Italian beef sandwich" even when speaking to someone who might not know what an italian beef is. You say "an italian beef" and then elucidate.

There is a possible exception to the rule, which is the Grilled Cheese Sandwich, commonly referred to as simply a Grilled Cheese despite taking a very sandwich-like form, but there are three arguments one can make regarding this:

It SHOULD be called a Grilled Cheese Sandwich to distinguish it from Halloumi

It is technically a "melt" which like a hamburger is distinct from a sandwich (ie, a Tuna Melt or Patty Melt) in the classification of "sandwich-like objects that need not be called a sandwich"

The grilled cheese is the exception that proves the rule and this is right and just, because grilled cheese sandwiches are the best and should be considered special.

Thank you for coming to my TEDtalk; I will not be taking questions at this time.

[ugly-anarchist]

There's a poll going around asking people if it's "alloaro" or "aroallo" and it lets aroaces specifically answer that question and it really rubs me the wrong way.

Firstly, the only ones who should get a say in OUR label is alloaros. We are the only voice who matters in that debate and the fact that aroaces are included in it makes me furious.

Secondly, I really hate that the community is leaning towards "aroallo" instead of alloaro. Someone in the replies of that poll put my thoughts into words pretty well. Linguistically, if you un-shorten the words "alloaro" and "aroallo" the second word in that label is the noun with the first one becoming an adjective.

"An aromantic allosexual" and "an allosexual aromantic"

In alloaro, the adjective is allosexual applied to aromantic.

In aroallo, the adjective is aromantic applied to allosexual.

To me, there's a huge difference in those two terms.

There's also the fact that alloaro came first. We were alloaros long before people started switching it up. And our community of alloaros sparked the beginning of the use of "alloace" for aces. (Whole different topic for another day)

But now... People are insisting that it's "aroallo" but aces still get "alloace" why is that?

Maybe it's not that deep, idk. I still don't like it.

[jesperweidemann]

Master the Comma

The comma, a seemingly simple punctuation mark, holds significant power in shaping the clarity and flow of written language. Its correct usage can transform a piece of writing from confusing to coherent, making it an essential tool for any writer. Understanding the various roles of the comma and how to apply them effectively is crucial for enhancing readability and ensuring your message is conveyed with precision.

The Role of the Comma in Lists

One of the primary functions of the comma is to separate items in a list. When you enumerate three or more items, commas help to distinguish each element clearly. For instance, consider the sentence: “For breakfast, I had eggs, toast, and orange juice.” Here, the commas separate the items, making the list easy to read. The comma before the conjunction “and” is known as the Oxford comma. While its use is optional, it often helps to prevent ambiguity. For example, “I dedicate this book to my parents, Oprah Winfrey, and God” is clearer than “I dedicate this book to my parents, Oprah Winfrey and God,” which could imply that Oprah Winfrey and God are the parents.

Setting Off Introductory Elements

Commas are also used to set off introductory elements in a sentence. These elements can be words, phrases, or clauses that precede the main clause. For example, “After the meeting, we went out for lunch.” The comma after “After the meeting” signals a pause, helping the reader to understand that the introductory phrase is separate from the main action of the sentence. This use of the comma enhances readability by clarifying the sentence structure.

Joining Independent Clauses

When two independent clauses are joined by a coordinating conjunction (such as for, and, nor, but, or, yet, so), a comma is placed before the conjunction. For instance, “I wanted to go for a walk, but it started raining.” This rule helps to avoid run-on sentences and maintains the flow of ideas. Without the comma, the sentence might feel rushed or jumbled, making it harder for the reader to follow the writer’s train of thought.

Nonessential Information

Commas are also used to set off nonessential information—details that add extra context but are not crucial to the meaning of the sentence. For example, “My brother, who lives in New York, is visiting us next week.” The clause “who lives in New York” provides additional information about the brother but is not essential to the main point of the sentence. Removing it still leaves a complete thought: “My brother is visiting us next week.”

Avoiding Common Mistakes

Despite their importance, commas are often misused. One common mistake is the comma splice, which occurs when two independent clauses are joined by a comma without a coordinating conjunction. For example, “I love reading, it’s my favorite hobby.” This can be corrected by adding a conjunction or changing the comma to a semicolon: “I love reading, and it’s my favorite hobby” or “I love reading; it’s my favorite hobby.”

Another frequent error is the overuse of commas, which can disrupt the flow of writing. For instance, “The cake, was delicious” includes an unnecessary comma that interrupts the sentence. Conversely, omitting necessary commas can lead to confusion. Consider the difference between “Let’s eat Grandma” and “Let’s eat, Grandma.” The first suggests cannibalism, while the second is an invitation to dine.

Advanced Comma Usage

Beyond the basics, commas can be used in more sophisticated ways to enhance writing. When two or more adjectives equally modify a noun, commas are used to separate them. For example, “She wore a bright, colorful dress.” If the adjectives are not equal, no comma is needed: “She wore a bright summer dress.”

Transitional phrases such as “however,” “therefore,” and “for example” should also be set off with commas. For instance, “I wanted to join the team; however, I was too late.” This helps to clarify the relationship between ideas. Additionally, when addressing someone directly, commas are used to set off their name or title, as in “Thank you, Dr. Smith, for your assistance.”

Conclusion

Mastering the comma is essential for effective writing. By understanding the basic rules and avoiding common mistakes, you can use commas to enhance the clarity and flow of your writing. Whether you are listing items, joining clauses, or setting off nonessential information, the comma is a powerful tool that, when used wisely, can significantly improve readability. Remember, the key to mastering the comma is practice and attention to detail. With time and effort, you can become proficient in using this versatile punctuation mark to enhance your writing.

[icyrambles]

of all my transformers takes, i feel like the one that'll get me sent directly to fandom hell is my feral hatred of the term "femme"

like genuinely it's such a stupid term. not because i don't think the robots can't have gender. because i do think they have some concept of gender. but because it's just woman 2.0

like you've got this super interesting alien species. they've got their own culture, their own language, their own ideas of sexuality and right and wrong, and their own religion. and to see most of the fandom look at that and go "but what if i just made man and woman but for robots" pisses me off

it makes me mad because it's fucking boring as shit. you've got all this cool worldbuilding and lore and you decide that the best thing to do when discussing robot gender is just to give them human gender but slightly to the left

"but icy, how to you distinguish the women transformers from the male ones?"

just fucking use mech for all of them. i use mech/mecha as a catch all term. it's my replacement for person or man or guy. like when someone says "you guys" they could obviously be referring to a group of all men, but let's be real here, "you guys" as it is used in colloquial english, is a gender neutral term despite having a more gendered term within it.

and it's specifically the term femme that grinds my gears. i don't have any issues with people headcanoning characters using she/her pronouns. i think that's cool as hell because pronouns do not equate to gender and in a fandom where like, 90% of the characters use he/him it's nice to see some switchups for pronouns because it gets a little repetitive after a while. but the term femme just tells me that you subscribe to the idea that the alien robot species who do not have the same concepts and ideas of gender as humans do, somehow managed to craft together the exact same gender concepts as an organic species halfway across the galaxy.

and i'm sure someone might be like "well it's not a gender thing" but i only ever see the term femme used to describe a canon character who uses she/her pronouns (like arcee or elita-1) or to describe a fandom headcanon that revolves around a character using she/her pronouns (like starscream or ravage) it has everything to do with how the fandom seems to cling to the idea that cybertronians have to have the same concepts of gender for humans

i've been in this fandom for a little over a year and despite going through forums and tumblr posts and even looking at twitter for a tiny bit, i've yet to see an actual attempt at exploring the concepts of cybertronian gender.

so here's mine; taken from my worldbuilding ideas that i'm sorting out for my in the works fan continuity

cybertronian gender, like a lot of their societal norms, is tied to one's altmode.

as taken from the marriam-webster dictionary: gender is - a subclass within a grammatical class (such as noun, pronoun, adjective, or verb) of a language that is partly arbitrary but also partly based on distinguishable characteristics (such as shape, social rank, manner of existence, or sex) and that determines agreement with and selection of other words or grammatical forms

now applying that to a species that has the specific characteristic of being able to literally change shape with the assistance of an internal organ (ie the t-cog) leads me to the idea that instead of gender being based on the biological sex like it is for humans, gender is instead rooted in the altmode.

the terms of seeker and speedster are adjectives to describe the altmode of a cybertronian, but also can describe the gender. this isn't meant to be a direct 1-1 copy of human ideas of sex and gender but instead a theoretical worldbuilding exercise in how a species that does not reproduce in a sexual manner would develop similar concepts of personal expressions through their established canon biology.

within my worldbuilding. the common language packs of cybertron come with three sets of standard, altmode neutral pronouns. these roughly translated into english, are he, she, and they. notice how i said altmode neutral pronouns. that's because most altmodes have their own sets of established pronouns that crop up within the groups.

this particular idea ties in with how my versions of cybertronians communicate. basically cybertronians communicate both via verbal speech, such as talking using a vocaliser, but also via manipulating their EM fields, and attaching non-verbal alterations to their spoken words via radio waves and the EM field.

so the pronoun [He] when used in a sentence, might have extra attachments added onto it.

EX: [He (positive/neutral) went to my house the other day.]

So in this case the speaker is referring to someone in a positive or neutral manner.

Here's another one using pronouns on a personal level when referring to one's self.

EX: [Hello. (courteous) My name is Starscream (Vosian - Seeker). I use He/Him (Neutral) pronouns.]

This is a typical cybertronian style of greeting. It includes a hello to the other party/s, the title of the individual along with their region of origin/residence and altmode, and finally their preferred set or sets of altmode neutral pronouns. In this case, Starscream would tag his "Hello" with a neutral emotion, being courteous but not excited because the mech he's talking to is someone he doesn't know but isn't enemies with. He then attaches his region of origin "Vos" and his altmode group "Seeker" and finally caps it off with his preferred set of pronouns "He/Him" which has a neutral emotion modifier tagged onto it because while it's his preferred set of pronouns in the neutral sense, it's not what he'd like to be using all the time.

he/him, she/her, and they/them are all equally neutral and for all cybertronians they exist in a state of purely personal preference. there's nothing about arcee using she/her pronouns that makes her more woman gendered anymore than starscream using he/him pronouns makes him male gendered. that's just human bias. they're robots, so they don't view themselves in the same way. those sets of pronouns, again, are merely translated into english for the reader's convenience.

Now I've thrown around the term "altmode neutral" quite a bit so here's an explanation for that.

Cybertronians with the same or similar altmodes will often develop languages and cultures surrounding those altmodes, similar to how many cultures and identities are developed through similarities with each other. This varies from region to region, with many languages and cultures not meshing together even if those mecha have the same altmode.

A jet like Pharma who was raised in Iacon around primarily ground based altmodes tends to use pronouns specific to grounder based language families while someone like Starscream or Thundercracker, who are from Vos, use altmode specific pronouns indicative of language families developed by mostly flight frames.

The common language data pack exists as an easy way for mecha to communicate with each other without potentially butchering another individual's native language. While one could theoretically download a whole language into their brain module, their actual speech would likely sound distorted or unnatural due to the fact that the brain module only retains the information that was on the download and is unable to account for things like accents, region dialects, and other such nuances in languages

Altmode specific pronouns are often tagged with extra modifiers and would function similarly to the concept of neo pronouns in english.

Megatron as an example has a tank altmode and his specific altmode pronouns are chk/chiks and using them in spoken dialogue would require one to either create a noice similar to a tank canon loading with their vocaliser, or in another tank's case, would simply have them use their own tank barrel to produce the noise.

flight frames often clank their wings together or whistle as their altmode specific pronouns. speedsters will revv their engines. smaller cars like bumblebee or cliffjumper will beep their horns, and ambulances like ratchet will whoop their sirens.

going back to my "pharma raised in iacon" example. he's a jet, but rather than clanking his wings together, he'll utilize his inbuilt siren (installed while he was in medical school) as his altmode specific pronouns. it, roughly translated to written form is wheep/whoop

this also extends to preferences for partners. i've seen people joke about how ratchet has a thing for speedsters because of his thing with drift and rodimus, but genuinely i do think that within the idea of altmodes being tied to gender, mecha would develop preferences for certain altmodes.

and when i say preference, i do mean just a preference. altmodes are fluid things within cybertronian society. megatron, as an example, is a gun, a tank, and a heavy bomber plane across varying continuities, yet at the end of the day, he's still megatron. his altmode is not what defines him as a character.

therefore i think changing altmodes is purely a thing that's tied to economic status. it's very expensive to have the whole exoframe completely reformatted so those who regularly change their altmodes either have shanix to spare, or have saved up enough money to have the procedures done.

this is even touched upon within idw's version of cybertron, what with the existence of relinquishment clinics, where mecha will go and donate their frames for money, and then those shells can be bought so another individual can have a new altmode.

when a mech decides to have their altmode changed they'll often shift up their altmode specific pronouns too. a smaller car changing altmodes into a bigger vehicle will instead honk their horn instead of beeping or maybe they'll revv their engines louder just to signify that they've changed altmodes.

going back to my sentence examples. here's one with ratchet and pharma introducing themselves to a patient

EX:

Ratchet: Hello (positive/friendly/welcoming) My name is Ratchet (Vaporex - Ambulance - Medic) I use He/Him (Positive) and siren whoops pronouns.

Pharma: Hello (kind). My name is Pharma (Iacon - Jet - Medic). I use He/Him and clanks wings/whoops sirens pronouns.

like i said, this isn't meant to be a direct 1-1 with human genders. cybertronian altmodes within my fan continuity defy more than just how another individual views them. they can signify occupation, social standing, and economic class. and some mecha even choose to disregard their altmodes entirely when it comes to their personal expression, sticking exclusively to the gender neutral pronouns.

anyways this post is half rant half worldbuilding so if ya made it to the end i'd be happy to hear your thoughts. and as always, if you liked this post please feel free to reblog :]

[petermorwood]

Word changes...

All of the following is IMO, so YMMV. :->

*****

Anyone noticed how "weaponry" is used nowadays in places where "weapons" would work just fine (and is often more correct)?

Yes, they ARE interchangeable, sort-of, but it's clunky and sounds to me either slightly journo-pompous or like a failure to remember the right word so plugging the most similar one into its place.

ETA: I checked one of my dictionaries, and while "weapons" is more modern, "weaponry" is an obsolete word which has come back into favour. I wonder why...?

*****

"Decimate" turns up all the time, usually when the correct word is "devastate".

Merriam-Webster says: "It's totally fine to use 'decimate' as a synonym for 'devastate'. This is why."

Beg to differ.

As the M-W article points out, "decimate" originally meant a Roman military punishment applied to one man in ten of a guilty unit. (Initially execution, but this had a rotten effect on unit morale, so it was reduced in severity to fatigues, extra drill or restricted rations.)

That's now considered a far too specific meaning and only linguistic pedants dig their heels in. Quite right too, and I speak here as a (bit of a) linguistic pedant...

However, it remains a useful word for more generalised incomplete destruction of living things - saying a regiment, flock, herd or population was "decimated" implies there are some survivors without quibbling over how many tenths. If totally wiped out, however, that's when words like "destroyed" or "obliterated" are more appropriate.

On the other hand something inanimate like a factory, city or region would be "devastated" - and in addition, saying someone is emotionally devastated is understandable, but saying they're emotionally decimated is peculiar.

Two words, several meanings.

It's like cutlery: a spork can replace knife, fork and spoon, but individual utensils give a lot more precision and variation of use.

*****

There are also a couple of real howlers, not just transposed words but actual errors.

One I've heard several times is using "siege" (a noun, or thing) instead of "besiege" (a verb, or action).

For reference, there's a term called noun-verbing, and the practice is quite old: "table the motion / pencil you in / butter him up / he tasks me", but all are either when there isn't already a verb-form of the word, or as a more picturesque way of saying something.

(Interesting side-note about "table the motion": in US English, it means "to postpone discussion" while in UK, CA and I think AU English, it means the complete opposite, "to begin discussion". Why there's this difference, I have no idea, but it's worth remembering as a Brit-fix when writing, also in a real-life business context.)

There IS an existing verb for the action of surrounding a castle and cutting it off from outside help, and that verb isn't "sieged". It's "besieged" or "under siege". Anywhere using "sieged" as a verb is wrong. The Firefox spellchecker in Tumblr Edit Mode is telling me it's wrong right now.

Merriam-Webster, I'm looking at you again.

*****

There's also "coronate" used as a verb. "The King was coronated at Westminster Abbey". Nope. He was CROWNED.

Coronate is an adjective (meaning crown-shaped) and was coined in in the 1600s by a botanist, as a word to describe the shape of certain plants.

The current Royal-associated usage seems to be a bastard back-formation from "coronation", because the act of putting on a crown is the verb "to crown".

This is almost identical in German, French, Italian and Spanish, with noun and verb the same. The only difference is that their verbs have, what a surprise, verb-endings (-en, -er, -re and -ar) on the noun while English does not.

Because English doesn't like to make things that easy...

"Coronated" might be people trying to sound archaic, or those who've bought into the dopey "said-is-dead" school, who perform any linguistic contortion to avoid common words, and who've been taught that repetition in a sentence - "crowned with a crown" - is BAD.

Is "coronated at a coronation" in some way better?

Guess what's got uncritical examples...

If that's M-W scholarship, I'll stick to the OED and my old but utterly reliable New Elizabethan Dictionary, thanks very much.

*****

Language is funny: sometimes funny ha-ha, sometimes funny annoying, but often just funny peculiar, because English etc. etc...

[literaryvein-reblogs]

Writing Refresher: "Each"

Each - refers to every one of two (or more) individuals/objects within a group.

Typically describes countable nouns (which you can represent in singular or plural form), rather than uncountable nouns (which cannot occur in plural form).

Can function as a distributive, pronoun, adjective, or adverb:

Distributive - a word that refers to one or multiple entities within a group of countable nouns. In some situations, words like “individually,” “exclusively,” or “separately” can be synonyms for “each.”

As an indefinite pronoun - “each” refers to a general group without naming who or what it refers to.

As an indefinite adjective, "which "each" describes nouns in a general manner without specifically naming who or what they are.

As an adverb, you can use “each” to mean “apiece.”

SINGULAR & PLURAL FORMS

The word “each” refers to a singular subject (within a group of countable nouns), so it is technically a singular word.

Writers who use “each” to refer to the subject of a sentence should modify the number of the verb depending on whether the subject is singular or plural.

If “each” appears before a singular noun or subject, use the singular verb form.

If it follows a plural subject, use the plural verb form.

THE PRONOUN PHRASE: "EACH OF"

Can be confusing to use before a plural noun or other pronoun.

Often incorrectly used: the plural verb form (“each of them have”).

In this case, the correct choice is the singular form of the verb (“each of them has”).

EXAMPLES

“Each member of the team is interested in becoming a leader.”

The phrase “each member of the team�� (which is singular) calls for using the singular present tense form of the verb “to be” (which is “is”).

“They each have multiple degrees in different subjects.”

In this example, the plural pronoun “they” requires the plural verb “have,” separated by “each,” which means that every individual member of the group possesses the same distinctions (“multiple degrees in different subjects”).

“Each one of the houses has a brand new window treatment.”

A singular verb is still correct to use with collective nouns (which are singular nouns that refer to more than one person, place, or thing).

Using the phrase “each one of” before the collective noun “the houses” makes the singular verb “has” correct.

This rule also applies to plural pronouns such as “them.”

“Each photograph in the collection was beautiful.”

In this example, “was” is the correct verb choice to refer to each singular photograph in the whole collection, which is a group.

“Each of my siblings is going to school.”

Even though “siblings” is a plural subject, the modifying phrase “each of my” requires using the singular form of the verb “to be,” which is “is.”

Source ⚜ More: Writing Basics & Refreshers

[amphibious-thing]

I would absolutely love to see examples of historical terminology? I feel like I've only scraped the surface.

So I'm going to focus mostly on 18th century English because that's what I read the most (we will dip a little into French but mostly from an English perspective). Even narrowing the focus there's still kind of a lot. Like I'm probably going to forget something cause there is so much to talk about.

Sexuality

The first thing that's important to understand is sexuality labels were action based not attraction based. This doesn't mean people didn't understand sexual attraction, they very much did, it's just that terminology was based on action not attraction. Terminology was essentially separated into men who have sex with men and women who have sex with women. It also important to remember that these terms were not exclusive to men who only had sex with men and women who only had sex with women but also applied to people who had sex with both men and women.

Men Who Had Sex With Men

Sodomy/Buggery

The terms most commonly used in formal/legal contexts were sodomite and bugger. Bugger comes from buggery and sodomite from sodomy, both of which broadly speaking referred to anal intercourse or bestiality regardless of sex/gender but was most commonly associated with sex between men. The legal definition of sodomy in English common law was as follows:

Sodomy is a carnal Knowledge of the Body of Man or Beast, against the Order of Nature; It way be committed by Man with Man, (which is the most common Crime) or Man with Woman; or by Man or Woman with a Brute Beast. Some Kind of Penetration and Emission is to be proved, to make this Crime, which is Felony both by the Common and Statute Law, in the Agent and all that a present, aiding and abetting; also in the Patient consenting, not being within the Age of Discretion.

~ The Student’s Companion or, the Reason of the Laws of England by Giles Jacob, 1734, p239

However colloquially it was generally used to describe sex between men without the focus on Penetration and Emission.

Related to sodomy were the words sodomitical, sodomitically and sodomiting, these terms were used to describe a person, action or place that was related to sodomy (esp. sex between men) but did not necessarily constitute legal sodomy. (for examples see Trial of Martin Mackintosh, 11 July 1726, A Treatise of Laws by Giles Jacob, 1721, p165 and Trial of Thomas Gordon, 5 July 1732 respectively)

From buggery we get the presumably derogatory term buggeranto. (for an example see The London Spy, part III, published 1703)

Molly

The preferred term used by the community was molly. Rictor Norton explains in Mother Clap’s Molly House:

The early church fathers stigmatised homosexuals as molls or sissies, and secular society called effeminate men molly-coddles and homosexuals mollies; having no other self-referring terms except the even less appealing Sodomite or Bugger, gay men transformed Molly into a term of positive self-identification, in exactly the same way that the modern subculture has transformed Gay (which derived originally from ‘gay girl’, meaning a female prostitute) into a term of pride and self-liberation.

Molly (plural mollies) was a noun:

Sukey Haws, being one Day in a pleasant Humour, inform’d Dalton of a Wedding (as they call it) some Time since, between Moll Irons, and another Molly,

~ James Dalton’s Narrative (1728)

Molly/mollied/mollying could also be a verb:

I was going down Fleet-Street, I was just come out of Jail. This Man, the Prosecutor, is as great a Villain as ever appear'd in the World. I was coming down Fleet-Street, so Molly says he; I said, I never mollied you. My Lord, I never laid my Hand upon him, nor touch'd him; I never touch'd the Man in my Life.

~ Trial of Richard Manning, (17 January 1746)

And mollying could be used as an adjective:

But they look'd a skew upon Mark Partridge, and call'd him a treacherous, blowing-up Mollying Bitch, and threatned that they'd Massacre any body that betray'd them.

~ Trial of Thomas Wright, (20 April 1726)

A molly house was house or tavern that catered to mollies. Molly houses would typically serve alcohol and often had music and dancing. Usually there was a room where mollies could have sex known as the chapel. (see Trial of Gabriel Lawrence, 20 April 1726 for an example of the term molly house in use, Trial of George Whytle, 20 April 1726 and Trial of Margaret Clap, 11 July 1726 for details on the chapel, and Trial of William Griffin, 20 April 1726 for molly houses taking lodgers.)

Mollies also had their own slang which I have a separate post on if you want to learn more about that.

Euphemisms

Euphemisms for men who had sex with other men included Back Gammon Player and Usher, or Gentleman of the Back Door. To navigate the windward passage was a euphemism for anal sex. (see The Classical Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue, 1785.)

References to the classics were also sometimes used as euphemisms. A common example is Zeus's male lover Ganymede. (for an example see Public Advertiser, 4 Sept 1781)

Anal Sex Roles

The roles in anal sex were known as pathic (sometimes spelt Pathick) or patient (bottom) and agent (top). I have a longer post about the cultural perception of roles in anal sex if you're interested in that sort of thing.

Other Terms for Men Who Had Sex With Men

Pederast: In the 18th century the word pederasty was used synonymously with sodomy and did not denote age simply sex. An Universal Etymological English Dictionary (1726) defines “A pederast” as “a Buggerer” and “Pederasty” as “Buggery”.

Catamite: In particular catamite often, but not always, denoted the younger partner in a male-male sexual relationship. It was sometimes used to specifically describe boys but it was sometimes used it to describe men. Cocker's English Dictionary (1704) defines catamite as "a boy hired to be used contrary to nature, for Sodomy" but The New Royal and Universal English Dictionary (1763) defines catamite simply as "a sodomite." Catamite was also sometimes used as synonym for pathic.

Gomorrean: Like sodomite this one comes from the biblical story of Sodom and Gomorrah. However it wasn't nearly as commonly used. (for an example see The London Chronicle, 4 - 6 Jan 1757)

Madge Cull: This one came about towards the end of the century. It comes from a combination of Madge a slang term for “the female genitals” and Cull slang for “a man, a fellow, a chap.” (see Green’s Dictionary of Slang)

Women Who Had Sex With Women

Sodomy

While English common law did not consider sex between women sodomy this was not true across Europe. (see Louis Crompton, The Myth of Lesbian Impunity Capital Laws from 1270 to 1791) Most English colonies followed English common law however this aspect of the law was not unanimously agreed upon.

In 1636 Rev. John Cotton proposed to the General Court of Massachusetts a body of laws that would define sodomy as "a carnal fellowship of man with man, or woman with woman". (Crompton, p19)

In a 1779 bill submitted to the Virginia Assembly on crime and punishment Thomas Jefferson explicitly includes sex between women. He quotes Henry Finch's Law, or, a Discourse Thereof; in Four Books which defines sodomy as "carnal copulation against nature, to wit, of man or woman in the same sex, or of either of them with beasts." Jefferson disagrees with Finch on including bestiality because it "can never make any progress" and "cannot therefore be injurious to society in any great degree". However he doesn't dispute the inclusion of sex between women. He proposes that the punishment for sodomy be "if a man, by castration, if a woman, by cutting thro’ the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch diameter at the least." (see A Bill for Proportioning Crimes and Punishments in Cases Heretofore Capital, 18 June 1779)

While there was some disagreement on the legal definition of sodomy, colloquially if someone was talking about sodomy they were probably talking about sex between men. A clarification would likely be added if they were talking about women e.g. female sodomite.

Tribade

Coming from French tribade was defined in The New Pocket Dictionary of the French and English Languages (1781) as a "female sodomite". Tribade was used in English at least as early as 1585. It originally comes from the ancient Greek word τρίβειν meaning "rub" and is a reference to tribadism. The word tribadism however did not come into use until the 19th century. (see OED)

Sappho was a famous Tribade; as appears by the Testimonies of all the old Poets, but particularly from that beautiful Ode (addressed to one of the Ladies, with whom she was in Love) which Longinus has preserved, and which has ever been so highly esteemed by all the Critics.

~ William King, The Toast (1732)

Sapphic

Sapphic (sometimes spelt sapphick) originally meant "relating to, characteristic of, or reminiscent of Sappho or her writings". (OED) It became a term for sexual activity and sexual desire between women in reference of course to the accent Greek poet Sappho's love poems addressed to women. In fact in 18th century England Sappho was often cited as being the first woman who had ever had sex with another women.

Sappho, as she was one of the wittiest Women that ever the World bred, so she though with Reason, it would be expected she should make some Additions to a Science in which Womankind had been so successful: What dose she do then? Not content with our Sex, begins Amours with her own, and teaches the Female World a new Sort of Sin, call’d the Flats, that was follow’d not only in Lucian’s Time, but is practis’d frequently in Turkey, as well as at Twickenham at this day.

~ Satan’s Harvest Home (1749)

Sapphic is an adjective:

Look on that mountain of delight, Where grace and beauty doth unite, Where wreathed smiles must thrive; While Strawberry-hill at once doth prove, Taste, elegance, and Sapphick love, In gentle Kitty *****.

~ A Sapphick Epistle (1778)

Sapphism is a noun for the act or desire:

it has a Greek name now & is call’d Sapphism, but I never did hear of it in Italy where the Ladies are today exactly what Juvenal described them in his Time – neither better nor worse as I can find. Mrs Siddons has told me that her Sister was in personal Danger once from a female Fiend of this Sort; & I have no Reason to disbelieve the Assertion. Bath is a Cage of these unclean Birds I have a Notion, and London is a Sink for every Sin.

~ Hester Thrale Piozzi, Thraliana, 9 Dec 1795

Sapphist is a noun for the person:

Nature does get strangely out of Fashion sure enough: One hears of Things now, fit for the Pens of Petronius only, or Juvenal to record and satyrize: The Queen of France is at the Head of a Set of Monsters call’d by each other Sapphists, who boast her Example; and deserve to be thrown with the He Demons that haunt each other likewise, into Mount Vesuvius.

~ Hester Thrale Piozzi, Thraliana, 1 April 1789

Lesbian

Originally meaning "a native or inhabitant of the Greek island of Lesbos" (OED) this is another reference to Sappho who was from Lesbos.

However, this little Woman gave Myra more Pleasure than all the rest of her Lovers and Mistresses. She was therefore dignified with the Title of Chief of the Tribades or Lesbians.

~ William King, The Toast (1732)

Tommy

Tommy (plural tommies) is a fairly uniquely 18th century term as it doesn't seen to have been used earlier and is rarely used later. Speculatively it may be etymologically linked to tomboy which dates back to 1656. (OED)

Women and Men, in these unnat'ral Times, Are guilty equal of unnat'ral crimes: Woman with Woman act the Many Part, And kiss and press each other to the heart. Unnat'ral Crimes like these my Satire vex; I know a thousand Tommies 'mongst the Sex: And if they don't relinquish such a Crime, I'll give their Names to be the scoff of Time.

~ The Adulteress (1773)

Euphemisms

The game of flats, game at flats or simply flats was a euphemism for sex between women. Rictor Norton explains it was “a reference to games with playing cards, called ‘flats’, and an allusion to the rubbing together of two ‘flat’ female pudenda.” (Mother Clap’s Molly House, p233)

I am credibly informed, in order to render the Scheme of Iniquity still more extensive amongst us, a new and most abominable Vice has got footing among the W—n of Q—–y, by some call’d the Game at Flats;

~ Satan’s Harvest Home (1749)

In a diary entry Hester Thrale Piozzi repots "’tis a Joke in London now to say such a one visits Mrs. Darner". This was in reference to the rumours of sapphism that surrounded the sculptor Anne Damer. Piozzi goes on to recored a poem concerning Anne Damer's relationship with actress Elizabeth Farren that was being passed around her social circle:

Her little Stock of private Fame Will fall a Wreck to public Clamour, If Farren herds with her whose Name Approaches very near to Damn her.

~ Hester Thrale Piozzi, Thraliana, 9 Dec 1795 (see ‘Random Shafts of Malice?': The Outings of Anne Damer by Emma Donoghue for more on the rumours surrounding Anne Damer)

Absence of Sexual Attraction

With 18th century sexuality labels being action based rather than attraction based we have no exact equivalent for the word asexual. Just as we have no exact equivalent for the word homosexual. There was of course words for people who had never had sex (virgin, maiden) and words for people who planned on never having sex (celibate).

However this doesn't mean 18th century people had no way of talking about a lack of sexual attraction. The Chevalière d'Eon in a letter to the Comte de Broglie talks of "the natural lack of passion in my temperament, which has prevented my engaging in amorous intrigues”. Her lack of sexual interest became part of her self-styling as La Pucelle de Tonnerre (The Maiden of Tonnerre) after Joan of Arc who was known a La Pucelle d'Orléans (The Maiden of Orleans). (see D’Eon to the Comte de Broglie, 7 May 1771. Translated by Alfred Rieu, D'Eon de Beaumont, His Life and Times, p141; also for examples of the English press calling her La Pucelle d'Orléans see the Public Advertiser, 4 May & 11 June 1792)

The Third Sex/Gender

In the 18th century intersex people were predominantly referred to as hermaphrodites (while it is now considered offensive I will use it in this post as I think there is educational value in understanding it's historical use). In The Mysteries of Conjugal Love Reveal'd Written in French Nicholas de Venette explains that intersex people were permitted to "chuse either of the two Sexes". However if they strayed from the chosen role of man or woman they could be "punished like a Sodomite". (p465)

In the 18th century the words sex and gender were used somewhat synonymously. The word hermaphrodite along with third sex and third gender were used to describe not only intersex people but also gender nonconforming endosex people. Your clothes, interests, speech patterns and the way you move were all considered part of your sex.

Consider The Fribbleriad by David Garrick. Garrick was an actor known for playing fops. In the poem he portrays his critics as a group of effeminate men who were angry at him for they way he mocked them in his work:

In forty-eight— I well remember— Twelve years or more— the month November— May we no more such misery know! Since Garrick made OUR SEX a shew; And gave us up to such rude laughter, That few, ‘twas said, could hold their water: For He, that play'r, so mock’d our motions, Our dress, amusements, fancies, notions, So lisp’d our words and minc’d our steps, He made us pass for demi-reps. Tho’ wisely then we laugh’d it off, We’ll now return his wicked scoff.

"OUR SEX" is understood to be the sex of effeminate men. A sex distinct from that of acceptable manhood or womanhood which is defined by their "dress, amusements, fancies, notions" as well as the way they "lisp'd" their words and "minc’d" their steps.

John Bennett in his popular conduct book Letters to a Young Lady on a Variety of Useful and Interesting Subjects advises young women against wearing riding habits warning that they would "wholly unsex her". The Guardian reports that some people had "not injudiciously stiled" the riding Habit "Hermaphroditical". And The Spectator complains about riding Habits calling them an "Amphibious Dress" and describing women who wear them as "Hermaphrodites" and a "Mixture of two Sexes in one Person". (The Guardian, 1 September 1713, reprinted in The Guardian edited by John Calhoun Stephens, p 486; The Spectator 19 July, 1712)

The word amphibious is one that comes up a lot in the 18th century in regards to gender. A dictionary of the English language (1794) defines amphibious as "living in two elements". John Bennett describes effeminate men as "poor amphibious animals, that the best naturalists know not under what class to arrange."

Alexander Pope famously called Lord Hervey an "Amphibious Thing!" that acts "either Part". Lady Mary Wortley Montagu said that "this world consisted of men, women, and Herveys". And William Pulteney describes him as "delicate Hermaphodite", "a pretty, little, Master-Miss" and "a Lady Himself; or at least such a nice Composition of the two Sexes, that it is difficult to distinguish which is most predominant." (Alexander Pope, Epistle to Dr Arbuthnot; The Letters and Works of Lady Mary Wortley Montagu edited by Lord Wharncliffe, v1, p95; William Pulteney, A Proper Reply To a late Scurrilous Libel)

Macaroni, amazon, virago, fop, petit-maitre, coxcomb, amphibious, unsex, dandy, namby-pamby, he-she things, lady-fellow, master-miss, fribble, dubious gender. These were all terms to describe gender nonconforming people. Many of these terms were used in a derogatory way but not all of them were intended as such and some GNC people identified with some of these terms. For example a young Charles James Fox described himself as a petit-maitre in his 18 Oct, 1763 letter to his father. While at Eton, which he found "more disagreeable than I imagined", he laments "you may see the petit maître de Paris is converted into an Oxford Pedant."

Many of the people who were labeled as third sex/gender would not necessarily have identified as such. With even the smallest deviation from the norm giving rise to the label. Including one 1737 article which claimed that "Ugly Women" may "more properly be call'd a Third Sex, than a Part of the Fair one". (Common Sense, or The Englishman's Journal, 28, Feb)

Gender Presentation Through Gendered Language

While there is no real equivalent for the word transgender in 18th century English this doesn't mean people had no way of expressing their gender though language. People referred to themselves as being men, women, both or neither. Gendered names, titles and pronouns were also used to express one's gender.

The Chevalière d'Eon

D'Eon asserted her gender identity though gendered names, pronouns and titles. When she started openly living as a women she changed her first name to Charlotte making her full name Charlotte-Geneviève-Louise-Auguste-André-Timothée d’Eon de Beaumont. However she preferred the name Geneviève and would often write her name simply Geneviève d'Eon.

[Admission-ticket for Geneviéve d'Eon, with red seal; c.1793; via The British Museum (C,2.3)]

D'Eon used she/her pronouns. Here is an example of her using she/her pronouns for herself when writing in third person:

[Invitation from the Chevalière d’Eon to Lord Besborough; c.1791; via The British Museum (D,1.268-272)]

As she was French d'Eon used French titles even in English. She would sometimes use the title Mademoiselle (a title for unmarried women) but other times she used Chevalière. In 1763 she was awarded the Cross of Saint-Louis and with that came the masculine title Chevalier. When she started openly living as a women she switched from the masculine Chevalier to the feminine Chevalière. Perhaps the most fun example of her using the feminine Chevalière is the sword she gifted to George Keate which was inscribed: "Donné par la Chevalïere d’Eon à son ancïen Amï Geo: Keate Esquïre. 1777"

[The Chevalière d’Eon’s Sword, hilt: c.1700s, blade: c.mid-1600s, inscription: c.1777, photos via the Royal Armouries Museum (IX.2034A)]

Public Universal Friend

The Public Universal Friend claimed to be a genderless spirit sent by god resurrected in the body of Jemima Wilkinson after she had succumbed to a fever in 1776. The Public Universal Friend gained a small but devoted group of followers that understood and respected the Friend as a genderless being. When one traveler asked for directions to "Jemima Wilkinson's house" a women replied that "she knew no such person; "the friend" lived a little piece below." (A Ride to Niagara in 1809 by Cooper Thomas, p37)

For the most part followers of the Public Universal Friend avoided using gendered pronouns for the Friend*. However they did not use gender neutral pronouns (such as they/them) but instead avoided third person pronouns completely. You can see an example of the sort of gender neutral language used for the friend in this letter from Sarah Richards to Ruth Pritchard:

Dear Ruth This is to be a Messenger of my Love to thee. Hold out faith and patience. Thy letter was very welcome to me. I want Thee should make ready to come where the Friend is in this Town. The Friend has got land enough here for all that will be faithful & true. Dear Ruth, I will inform thee that Benedict has given the Friend a Deed of some land in the second Seventh in the Boston perhemption, which Deed contains five lotts and the Friend has made use of my name to hold it in trust for the Friend, and now I hope the Friends will have a home, and like wise for the poor friends and such as have no helper, here no intruding feet cant enter. Farewell form thy Affectionate Friend, Sarah Richards

~ Sarah Richards to Ruth Pritchard, March 1793 (printed in The Unquiet World by Frances Dumas, p166)

* In contrast to followers that avoided gendered pronouns completely ex-follower Abner Brownell claimed that some followers called the Friend "him." (see A Mighty Baptism edited by Susan Juster & Lisa MacFarlane, p28)

It's impossible to seperate the Friend's genderlessness from the claim that the Friend was a messenger sent by god resurrected in the body of Jemima Wilkinson. The followers of the Public Universal Friend used genderless language as a way to indicate their religious devotion. In "Indescribable Being" Theological Performances of Genderlessness in the Society of the Publick Universal Friend, 1776-1819 Scott Larson explains:

The language one chose to describe the Friend indicated whether one was part of the community of the saved or part of the "wicked world." Conversely, community members and followers used the name "the Friend" quite deliberately, and that use became a marker of belonging. This sense of belonging could last longer than the community itself did. Huldah Davis, who was a child when the Friend left time in 1819, shared her memories of the Friend in 1895. In her recollections, Davis refers to Jemima Wilkinson but is careful to note that her parents, followers of the Friend, always referred to "the Friend," and Davis uses the community's language through most of her account. Language choices could also mark points of entering and exiting the community, as the apostate and denouncer Abner Brownell refers to "The Friend" in diary entries written during the time of his membership in the Friend's community but then calls "her" "Jemima Wilkinson" in his later published denunciation, Enthusiastical Errors, Described and Decried.

Mollies and Maiden Names

Gendered language could be used to express queer identity without necessarily expressing a transgender identity. Mollies took on feminine sobriquets known as maiden names. A maiden name was a typically made up of a combination of either a feminine title or name (molly and variations being the most popular) and often a reference to something notable about the individual. It could be a reference to their profession for example Orange Mary was an orange merchant, Dip-Candle Mary was a tallow chandler and Old Fish Hannah a fisherman. It could be a reference to where they were from for example Mrs. Girl of Redriff was presumably from Redriff. Some maiden names were somewhat suggestive like Miss Sweet Lips or Molly Soft-buttocks.

(Sources for maiden names: Orange Mary, Dip-Candle Mary, Old Fish Hannah, and Mrs. Girl of Redriff are mentioned in James Dalton's Narrative; Miss Sweet Lips is mentioned in The Phoenix of Sodom by Robert Holloway; Molly Soft-buttocks is mentioned in Account of the Life and Actions of Joseph Powis)

While mollies took on these feminine names, they more often than not still lived as men. Most mollies wore men's clothes, used he/him pronouns and referred to their partners as their husbands not their wives. (for the use of husband in the molly subculture see the trial of Martin Mackintosh, 11 July 1726 and the trial of George Whytle, 20 April 1726)

However some mollies did wear women's clothes and used (at least some of the time) feminine pronouns. Take for example Princess Seraphina who during the trial of Thomas Gordon (5 July 1732) is described by Mary Poplet as follows:

I have known her Highness a pretty while, she us’d to come to my House from Mr. Tull, to enquire after some Gentlemen of no very good Character; I have seen her several times in Women’s Cloaths, she commonly us’d to wear a white Gown, and a scarlet Cloak, with her Hair frizzled and curl’d all round her Forehead; and then she would so flutter her Fan, and make such fine Curties, that you would not have known her from a Woman: She takes great Delight in Balls and Masquerades, and always chuses to appear at them in a Female Dress, that she may have the Satisfaction of dancing with fine Gentlemen. Her Highness lives with Mr. Tull in Eagle-Court in the Strand, and calls him her Master, because she was Nurse to him and his Wife when they were both in a Salivation; but the Princess is rather Mr. Tull’s Friend, than his domestick Servant. I never heard that she had any other Name than the Princess Sraphina.

On a final note I would also recommend looking up many of these terms in the Oxford English Dictionary (you might be able to access this for free through your library) and Green's Dictionary of Slang both of which include multiple examples in use.

[rebel-wrath]

Adding Humour to Serious Stories

With Chad having a rare communicable foreign disease in the last chapter of Noun and Noun of Adjective, I figured this would be a good time to talk to you about STDs.

Particularly, I want to talk to you about a scene in the movie The Predators. And about STDs. And about jokes in fiction.

There's a scene in that movie where it's setting the location, letting you know the next scene is taking place in a school, so it shows you the outside of the school, and there's this noticeboard that says something about an open night, parents and STDs welcome.

Now clearly STD means student, and clearly it's intended to be funny. It's there long enough for you to read it, and there were a lot of laughs in the crowded cinema I saw this movie in. But the movie makers forgot about Chekhov's gun.

Chekhov's gun is that thing where if you see a gun in Act One, it has to be fired in Act Three. We saw STDs in Act One soooo there should have been some gonorrhoea in Act Three.

Its common now for films that aren't comedies to have moments of humour in them – action movies never used to be funny – how many times did you giggle when Swarzenegger fought the Predator in the Jungles of Guatamala? If you haven't seen it, you should watch it.

Anyway, action movies are now funny, and that's not a bad thing – a laugh can relieve tension. It's why people laugh after jumping at a scare in a horror movie.

But action movie writers and directors don't always think things through when adding a joke. They don't consider the consequences of the joke. They don't think about the message the joke brings with it, and how it impacts on a film, and The Predators is the best example of this I've seen.

This doesn't really apply to comedy. There's no point applying something like logic to something like Monty Python's Holy Grail, and even something like a Judd Apatow movie might have moments of absurdity in it. However, action is a subset of drama – it tends to present itself as a serious endeavour, except in the action sequences, which can be totally over the top.

It's like how fantasy can have magic but it also has consistency between characters and in its worldbuilding.

If there is a sign outside a school – someone put that sign there. Maybe a teacher, janitor, administrator, whoever. If the sign says something dodgy, like calling students STDs, that tells us something about the person who put the sign there. They maybe aren't big thinkers, big planners, they maybe don't foresee problems.

The Predators could have used this. They could have had that character actually in the film, made them screw up a plan to stop the predator – the joke would have added characterisation and foreshadowed the fuck up to come. But instead The Predators completely dropped the ball – they shoehorned in a joke that gives a momentary laugh and then goes nowhere – for no reason other than the fact that every single movie has to be funny now.

It was a complete waste of something that could have been wonderful.

But it's a good lesson. Learn from it, apply it to your fiction. Think about the jokes you include – it's nice to make your audience laugh. But don't go for laughs at the expense of character. Don't sacrifice the integrity of your serious story to get a giggle. Have your humour also add meaning. It will have a greater impact on readers and they will love it.

And get your beta readers to test your story for STDs. 

THIS CHAPTER IS - Lethal Weapon

NEXT CHAPTER IS - Princess and the pony

ALL - Noun of Noun and Adjective