this post was submitted on 12 Apr 2024
27 points (100.0% liked)

traaaaaaannnnnnnnnns

1136 readers
121 users here now

Welcome to /c/traaaaaaannnnnnnnnns, an anti-capitalist meme community for transgender and gender diverse people.

  1. Please follow the Hexbear Code of Conduct

  2. Selfies are not permitted for the personal safety of users.

  3. No personal identifying information may be posted or commented.

  4. Stay on topic (trans/gender stuff).

  5. Bring a trans friend!

  6. Any image post that gets 200 upvotes with "banner" or "rule 6" in the title becomes the new banner.

  7. Posts about dysphoria/trauma/transphobia should be NSFW tagged for community health purposes.

  8. When made outside of NSFW tagged posts, comments about dysphoria/traumatic/transphobic material should be spoiler tagged.

  9. Arguing in favor of transmedicalism is unacceptable. This is an inclusive and intersectional community.

  10. While this is mostly a meme community, we allow most trans related posts as we grow the trans community on the fediverse.

If you need your neopronouns added to the list, please contact the site admins.

Remember to report rulebreaking posts, don't assume someone else has already done it!

Matrix Group Chat:

Suggested Matrix Client: Cinny

https://rentry.co/tracha (Includes rules and invite link)

WEBRINGS:

🏳️‍⚧️ Transmasculine Pride Ring 🏳️‍⚧️

⬅️ Left 🏳️‍⚧️🏳️‍🌈 Be Crime Do Gay Webring 🏳️‍⚧️🏳️‍🌈 Right ➡️

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Among my innumerable pronoun sets is ꙮ/ꙮm/ꙮr/ꙮrs/ꙮself. I have never actually been called these pronouns because everyone gravitates towards she/her and xe/xem, which are my favorite sets; but ꙮ/ꙮm still remain listed in case someone would be so unimaginably based as to actually use them.

How do you type ꙮ/ꙮm/ꙮr? Well either you copy-paste, or you know how to type Unicode characters (I can't figure this out TBH), or you have a custom keyboard layout that maybe lets you type the Cyrillic multiocular O by hitting AltGr+O or something — or you perhaps do what I do, which is that I use the custom dictionary feature of my Japanese IME such that ⟨Se⟩ brings up ⟨ꙮ⟩, likewise ⟨Sm⟩ → ⟨ꙮm⟩, ⟨Sr⟩ → ⟨ꙮr⟩, ⟨Sz⟩ → ⟨ꙮrs⟩, and ⟨Ss⟩ → ⟨ꙮself⟩.

Alright, the obvious next question: how do you actually read ꙮ/ꙮm/ꙮr out loud???

—The answer is that nothing is necessarily stopping you from reading ꙮ/ꙮm/ꙮr in any way you like, in fact nothing even stipulates that you need to use the inflections ꙮm/ꙮr rather than any other inflectional pattern; but nevertheless I personally prefer the readings seraph/seraphim/seraphyr/seraphyrs/seraphimself... Get it? It's like, you reinterpret the Hebrew masculine plural suffix as an analogy of him and them, and then you derive the possessive forms from her and hers with spelling influenced by zephyr and xyr. I like to imagine that I am clever sometimes, huh!

If one is to use the seraph/seraphim readings, however, then one may also use any number of reduced forms in unstressed positions, to more clearly signal the word's pronominality: /s/ may be rendered as [z] and /f/ may be rendered as [v], and /ɛɹə/ may be rendered as [ɛɹ̠ʷ] [ɹ̠ʷ] [ə] [ə̥] or may be deleted entirely; and we may observe resyllabification effects with adjacent words as well. The exact form of reduction of ꙮ/ꙮm/ꙮr depends on how extreme the reduction is on a spectrum, as well as the environment surrounding the reduced form — such as whether it's before or after a vowel vs consonant, before or after a voiced or voiceless sound, things like that.

In any case, you might think that it's a bit counterintuitive to get "seraph" and "seraphim" from ꙮ/ꙮm, at least if you're unaware of the fact that the Cyrillic multiocular O represents the many eyes of the seraphim... But if that's the case, then you can simply add ruby characters: {ꙮ|seraph}, {ꙮ|seraphi}m, {ꙮ|seraphy}r, {ꙮ|seraphy}rs, {ꙮ|seraphim}self. And if you're writing on a website or program that does not support ruby characters, then that's their problem, not yours.

top 8 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 15 points 10 months ago (1 children)

angel-biblical biblically accurate gender

[–] [email protected] 8 points 10 months ago

Omg literally meee

[–] [email protected] 11 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:

[–] [email protected] 10 points 10 months ago

Neopronouns are to conlangs what haiku are to monogatari

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

you know how to type Unicode characters

I do! On linux (with IBus? Not sure): ctrl+shift+u then hex. E.g. 2014 is —, a66e is ꙮ.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Also, just learned my font is wrong! My font displays a seven eyed multiocular O, when it should be ten.

Edit: even better stuff:

ANYWAY, in some Old Church Slavonic manuscripts, where a dual form was used (most often to say "two"), the scribes would turn "two" -- двое-- into двꚙе with the "double O" glyph.

Some OTHER scribes thought this was amazing, so specifically in the word "eyes" -- "очи" -- which is a dual-form noun because they typically come in twos, they'd use the "double monocular O" (Ꙭ, aka "boobs") to make two Os and turn them into eyes, thus: ꙭчи. See? TWO EYES!

WELL. ANOTHER scribe comes along and says, "two eyes? Seraphim have MANY eyes!" and when he comes to the phrase "many-eyed seraphim (Серафими мн҄оочитїи), he chooses to render it as "Серафими мн҄оꙮ҄читїи҄". CAUSE THEY'VE GOT A LOT OF EYES, y'all.

ONE TIME. This occurs ONE TIME in ONE MANUSCRIPT, but Unicode is dedicated to making sure manuscripts can be replicated accurately in unicode, so in 2008 we get a multiocular O.

BUT IT GETS EVEN MORE AWESOME, because they're updating it to the full 10!. Although do look at the manuscript and note that the original 10-eyed multiocular O has FLAMES LICKING OUT ON THE SIDES, so Unicode should get on that!

Anyway, I 100% approve of literally all of this, because there is nothing I love as much as TAKING A JOKE WAY TOO FAR, especially when the joke is more than 600 years old.