i should have been informed

Alright so get this, I have never liked nuts because I once was violently ill after having a nut bar and also when I have had them on stuff it made my throat funny. So we are eating pudding last night and it had nuts in it and I am like, “nahh I don’t like this really” and my Mum just goes, “yeah not surprising really when you were younger and had allergy blood tests it came up that you were slightly allergic.” THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN VITAL INFORMATION I COULD HAVE DIED

6

junsu just never learns…

hey my other anxiety friends i’ve just been informed that if u have anxiety u should never do anything in ur life n just fuck off n die basically. just thought i’d share the knowledge since apparently this is how ur supposed 2 deal with ur mental health instead of o idk working thru it n doing what u want 2 do. lets all fuck off n die together shall we

okay wth

So, I have not seen that ‘Kingsman’ movie with Colin Firth in it yet (although I should, because, you know, Colin Firth). But I have just been informed (hi aria-lerendeair!) that it is the source of that abominably ungrammatical but-pretending-to-be-all-fancy phrase that has been doing the rounds lately, by people thinking they are speaking Good Because Archaic And Spoken In The Most Oxbridge Accent Possible phrase, ‘Manners maketh man’.

GUYS

NO

STOP

ARHGHAGH

dammit

MOVIES

and TV SHOWS

and PEOPLE GENERALLY

who think they can just go YAY YES YE OLDE ENGLISH I SHALL STICK SOME WORDS TOGETHER AND MAKE THEM SOUND SO BRITISH

what can I do to make it more fancy and ye olde I KNOW I CAN STICK IN SOME ‘THEE’S and some ‘-ETH’S and just generally do the grammatical equivalent of Captain Carrot’s approach to punctuation which is something like a dartboard.

okay

look

here is how it works

English doesn’t conjugate verbs much. Most other languages do: eg, Italian, the present tense of ‘to make’ (infinitive ‘fare’):

io faccio, tu fai, lui/lei fa, noi facciamo, voi fate, loro fanno

English (infinitive ‘to make’):

I make, you make, he/she makes, we make, you (plural) make, they make.

See, we dropped a whole bunch of changes to the verb itself centuries back, which is why we need the pronouns nowadays to know who’s doing the action of the verb. And it gets even more complicated in other tenses or moods. But compare Old English, infinitive ‘macian’:

ic mace, þu macest, he/hit/heo macaþ, we macaþ, ye macaþ, hie macaþ.

(And in fact, it’s an irregular verb: most verbs distinguish between the third person singular - he/she - and the plural forms, by having ‘eth’ rather than ‘ath’ for the third person singular. And yes, the ‘þ’ = ‘th’, and therefore ‘þu’ = later Shakespearean ‘thou’, which is always singular and usually informal, although in far later English - eg, after the 17th century, when it starts to drop out of common usage as a familiar form of address - it becomes associated with addressing God, and therefore, paradoxically, elevated.)

THE POINT I’M MAKING HERE

‘Manners maketh man.’

By the fourteenth century, the -ath ending for third person plural verbs (’they’) had been replaced by -an, -an, or just the infinitive form (’maken’ or ‘make’), depending on your dialect. By the Early Modern English which this expression is trying to mimic, they have been replaced altogether by the infinitive (’make’). ‘Maketh’ was exclusively for the third person singular:

I make, thou makest, he/she/it maketh, we make, you (plural) make, they make.

In this sentence, ‘manners’ is the subject, okay? That means it’s the ‘thing’ governing the action of the verb, and it’s plural. That means the verb needs to be plural (ie, ‘make’ - they make). Saying ‘manners maketh man’ is exactly as grammatically correct as saying ‘we makest dinner’. It maketh (hah!) you (thee, as it’s in the accusative case, which we have also mostly forgotten except in pronouns) sound right pretentious and also inaccurate. Only now there’s this movie out there with Colin Firth saying it in the most ‘don’t you dare question my grammar’ accent you can possibly imagine, and punctuating it by the sound of badass, and aarrrgrh PEOPLE JUST STOP IT YOU CANNOT MAKE UP YOUR OWN GRAMMAR AND DISSEMINATE IT UNDER THE PRETENCE OF FANCINESS.

And don’t you dare give me that ‘language evolves and changes’ line. Yes, it does, and that’s brilliant and fun. But you don’t get to play that card at the same time as playing the ‘look how much better I am than you because I can speak ye olde English as it used to be spoken’ card.

tldr it literally says ‘Manners makes man’. That is what that sentence is doing grammatically. and then it is dressing itself up in frills to make you think it is better than you. and EVERYONE IS BUYING IT.

And yes, this applies to all of you who try to use ye olde English in your fics or wherever. Please, please, come to me (or someone who knows) and ask. I will be delighted to help you, and also to help provide period-correct vocab and sentence structure. Just don’t throw random grammar at the wrong parts of the sentence and sit back and look pleased at your fancy antiquities. 

Originally posted by giffing-lazuli

I wonder if people realize that what Lapis said during Barn Mates was not “She kept me prisoner!” it was “She was the one that dragged me back to Earth.”

And Peridot replies with “Hey, it wasn’t my idea. I was headed to Earth and I needed an informant! It should have been a simple mission.” 

“It should have been a simple mission.” This statement is what really gets me. It clearly shows that Lapis was not supposed to be a prisoner and more of a unwilling agent of that one operation. But that’s not really Peridot’s fault either since they don’t exactly have much free will on Homeworld.

Not just that but when she refers to Lapis when attempting to contact Yellow Diamond she doesn’t say that she lost both her escort and the prisoner. She says she lost her informant. I’m sorry but who refers to a prisoner as an informant instead of what they really are? Even Peridot wouldn’t. She knows what a prisoner is. Please notice how she NEVER once refers to Lapis as her prisoner or even A prisoner.

I’m pretty sure what happened is that Yellow Diamond or whoever was in charge assigned Lapis as an informant.

“-it wasn’t my idea.” The whose idea was it?

BUT CHIBS SHE WAS KEPT IN A CELL!!

But here’s the thing:

a) We don’t know if Lapis was kept in the cell on the way TO Earth.

b) Peridot doesn’t have the authority (or the interest, from what we see during The Return. Jasper is the one who mistreated her visibly. It was shown in the episode. 

c) Jasper was the leader of the operation. This is confirmed by the Rubies. She was the one with the authority to keep Lapis in a cell. Not Peridot.

d) Lapis kept an important information away from her superior officer that could have jeopardized the mission. In such a military society it seems obvious that she would be considered a traitor and kept away the way she was.

Do I think Lapis is wrong for reacting to Peridot the way she did in Barn Mates?

To be honest, yes. But considering all she’s been through it’s completely understandable that she would want to blame Peridot for all that happened and be unwilling to trust her as a Homeworld Gem. I get it. 

Do I think Lapis went too far? Absolutely. It was pretty cold how she broke Peridot’s tape recorder like that even when she had just explained to her that it meant a lot. I don’t know if it was out of what she interprets as “revenge” for Peridot “taking away her freedom” by “dragging” her back to Earth or if she was just tired of Peridot insisting (and completely ignoring that Steven was also insisting/helping but I digress).

Am I saying Peridot is blameless for what happened to Lapis? No. No I am not. I’m just saying that people need to stop acting like Peridot did more than what she actually did or that she has any malicious intent while doing it. 

Peridot absolutely DOES/DID owe Lapis an apology for contributing to what happened to her, even if it wasn’t her intention at all.

I have come to believe that almost everything I do— write, sing, speak, touch, love…  is a result of one very persistent and highly impossible desire: to collapse the somatic boundary, as it were— to transmit intact my feeling to another. This fascination has spurred me— a pain in my side, a thankful impetus—  since childhood. The fatal (or is it fertile?) flaw in our communicative efforts since the development of language both rivets and reviles me. Perhaps I should have been born on a planet where telepathic, or tele-somatic, information is regularly and casually exchanged. But then, what would there have been for me to do? 

Mercy that the world is given to us not as we would like it to be— the boredom would be intolerable. Mercy, that allotted to each is this: one impossible desire. And how we will laugh to discover that ours was not to find the miracle we had been so dutifully, so desperately seeking! No, ours is— always has been— to make the miracle. To live through it.