I usually stop reading as soon as I notice it. I just can't ignore/forget the fact that it is some grown person sitting behind computer typing it...
Silver_Strider wrote: »
There are languages that don't have unique personal pronouns (like some Japanese terms that function as 'I' but also have other meanings that suggest status). But 'this one' basically is just the meaning of 'I,' and is also not unique: it's convoluted, adds no status clues and allows potential misinterpretations. You would anticipate that in this case an actual pronoun with that meaning would develop, because most languages strive for efficiency to some degree. Or you'd expect that the 'I' would be replaced by some kind of status marker, especially in a Khajiit culture obsessed with using them in naming conventions.
But who knows, I'm not a linguist.
newtinmpls wrote: »There are languages that don't have unique personal pronouns (like some Japanese terms that function as 'I' but also have other meanings that suggest status). But 'this one' basically is just the meaning of 'I,' and is also not unique: it's convoluted, adds no status clues and allows potential misinterpretations. You would anticipate that in this case an actual pronoun with that meaning would develop, because most languages strive for efficiency to some degree. Or you'd expect that the 'I' would be replaced by some kind of status marker, especially in a Khajiit culture obsessed with using them in naming conventions.
But who knows, I'm not a linguist.
I like hearing your thoughts on the matter.
I was (briefly and painfully) studying Gaelic (I think - it was a tough time) and one of the things that was "different" about how the language worked was that if you looked at the literal translation for "I am [name]" it was closer to "[name] is upon me" - it was a subtle distinction between use of a name as:
"who I am"
as opposed to "the label that I am called"
So when I hear the Khajiit turns of phrase, I find myself wondering about the mindset that would create them, and what subtle meanings could be there.
newtinmpls wrote: »There are languages that don't have unique personal pronouns (like some Japanese terms that function as 'I' but also have other meanings that suggest status). But 'this one' basically is just the meaning of 'I,' and is also not unique: it's convoluted, adds no status clues and allows potential misinterpretations. You would anticipate that in this case an actual pronoun with that meaning would develop, because most languages strive for efficiency to some degree. Or you'd expect that the 'I' would be replaced by some kind of status marker, especially in a Khajiit culture obsessed with using them in naming conventions.
But who knows, I'm not a linguist.
I like hearing your thoughts on the matter.
I was (briefly and painfully) studying Gaelic (I think - it was a tough time) and one of the things that was "different" about how the language worked was that if you looked at the literal translation for "I am [name]" it was closer to "[name] is upon me" - it was a subtle distinction between use of a name as:
"who I am"
as opposed to "the label that I am called"
So when I hear the Khajiit turns of phrase, I find myself wondering about the mindset that would create them, and what subtle meanings could be there.
Verbal_Earthworm wrote: »leave khajiit-roleplay out of zone chat and off the forums.
it only ever comes across as attention-seeking cringe-worthy cliche.