I find myself often winging it with “themself/themselves” and it seems to be like themselves is always colloquially correct when there are multiple preceding nouns you’re referring to…

Otherwise if there’s only one antecedent or whatever, its themself

Be gentle haha

  • BitSound@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    From here:

    On occasion, a writer will coin a fine neologism that spreads quickly but then changes meaning. “Factoid” was a term created by Norman Mailer in 1973 for a piece of information that becomes accepted as a fact even though it’s not actually true, or an invented fact believed to be true because it appears in print. Mailer wrote in Marilyn, “Factoids…that is, facts which have no existence before appearing in a magazine or newspaper, creations which are not so much lies as a product to manipulate emotion in the Silent Majority.” Of late, factoid has come to mean a small or trivial fact that makes it a contronym (also called a Janus word) in that it means both one thing and its opposite, such as “cleve” (to cling or to split), “sanction” (to permit or to punish) or “citation” (commendation or a summons to appear in court). So factoid has become a victim of novelist C.S. Lewis’s term “verbicide,” the willful distortion or deprecation of a word’s original meaning.

    • JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      The obvious rejoinder: if Norman Mailer wanted his neologism to keep the meaning he intended for it, he should have been more careful about etymology. The “oid” suffix makes the new definition more logical than his own one.

      Counter-example: “homophobe”, which is illogical but has stuck anyway because it’s succinct.

      Interesting points otherwise.