oh look it’s this thread again helen.png

@iamtakingiteasy @BleachChan @lina @menherahair > Either way, it predates zoomers by great margin, being in wide use throughout the late 90s and 00s at very least.
Late 90s and 00s is exactly the time when zoomers’ speech was being shaped. Also I don’t know what “wide use” do you speak of, I haven’t seen it on the internet yet in the early 2010s. It started to appear often since about 2016–2018. That’s when those born in the mid-to-late 90s emerged on the plains of the internet.

Observing written material is important, – and especially in this case – because how a person chooses to write something, reflects his considerations on how it should be correct to convey the thought. Implying that a person can put at least some sense into speech, and any deviation passed against the written norm is conscious and intentional. Provided, again, that the person in question has an understanding of the norm, at least for the case which concerns the word, whose form deviates. Hope you’re bored already.

In the case with the word “блять” the observation of the written form is important, because in the speech (*yawns*) the distinction cannot be discerned often, due to the characteristic devoicing of the consonant at the end of word in the spoken Russian. You cannot insist, that a word existed, when only its pronunciation was around, and nobody made a distinction. It is when the ‘-ть’ suffix began to appear at the end of the written word, that people started to see a distinction. Perceiving the devoicing as a norm has been growing together with zoomers and made into a separate concept (in fact, cleaving a part of the existing concept) and to a word by them. (Still here? You will regret reading further, I promise.) I refuse to recognise this word, because its basis is in mishearing an actual word. Everyone insisting that it should be a real word is the same to me, as a person insisting we should have “кросавчег”, “[Нина] але-Гавна” и “зобыл”. It is not hard to realise the difference between the volatile spoken variants of real words, changed for a stylistic effect, words that appear and die within a couple decades, –and the rock-solid actual words that are comprising the language and serving as the source for the following generations of variants to come. There’s no real reason for this crafted word to be, because it doesn’t introduce neither a new sense, nor a specific tone or clarity. Niggers not using words and avoiding punctuation is no new thing. Bunin said, that the word “лҍс” loses all of its resin-y aroma together with rescinding the ‘ҍ’, and while I’ll be among the first to advocate for getting “лҍс” back as a stylistic alternative (the reason for which Bunin provided in that very expression of his), it would obviously be wrong, if we allowed it as an ⧸equal alternative to the standard word⧸, as in case with “[нет] носков — [нет] носок”. Because people would hardly pick the alternative, because they would be thinking of a picturesque image of a pinery they remember, along what Bunin has implied. No, the word would be picked because people are just always hungry for something new, they are like magpies collecting any trash, as long as it’s shiny or has a fancy shape. Should we then take the trash home, because some people do it, and accommodate space for it in our living rooms? Normal people take the trash out. The word “лҍс” was an example of a word, that might work. With a limited use, employed consciously, cleverly and when it’d be fitting, this could be an enrichment. The word “блять”, however, has no qualities like that. It’s but a misheard word, that some think to make into an alternative variant of an existing word, and why? simply because they ⧸got accustomed to thinking of it as a correct one⧸ – instead of straightening their awry perception of their native tongue. Mutations are not always good, and people, beginning with V. I. Dal and ending with K. G. Paustovsky wrote about it at length. It required generations of word smiths to bring the Russian language to a coherent shape, to enrich it, and to finally structurise it, making it more orderly – in part, by deprecating some dialect spellings and former norms (and no, I’m not speaking of the 1918 reform, though it is, indeed, a part of the reformation that took place between Lomonosov and Rosental). Even if we forget about everything above, the word “блять” does not even serve the job well – it is supposedly ⧸the⧸ word to be used for an exclamation, an interjection (and an obscene one at that), as opposite to the sense of referring to a ‘promiscuous woman’. Now how does it work for this purpose? If we use “блять” in a sentence like “Да ну, блять…” it kinda works. But if we put it as an interjection, “Блять!” then the spelling contradicts the purpose: an exclamation is pronounced with added loudness, which makes even a devoiced consonant at the end (if the person pronounces it so) sound louder, more like a voiced one. And the spelling via ‘-ть’ conveys the opposite, a hushed tone. To whoever mouth this word is to be put, he would sound like a schizophrenic: wanting to yell, but in reality only mumbling to himself.

With this I think that my point is explained in enough detail. Burning with anticipation to see a top-class intellectual discussion rn fr fr

oh look it’s this thread again helen.png
1377627892001.png

Public

oh look it’s this thread again helen.png

Notices where this attachment appears