It’s not confusing at all, except in the very specific case of nouns referring to people or animals that don’t have gendered variants.
For example, in my language, the word corresponding to “(a) sheep” has a masculine and feminine form, with the feminine used neutrally. Consequently, when seeing “sheep” in English, I assume the feminine and seeing it used with “he” is a bit of cognitive dissonance.
Similarly, most words for human professions are by default masculine.
Do keep in mind that, amazingly, he was probably the most moderate actor in the government.
I can follow this, up to
they are neopronouns
I believe that that's a decision made by translators of the bible. Hebrew doesn't have lowercase letters, and the Greek versions of the New Testament that I found don't capitalize as much. And are they distinct?
That's quite the level of trust there to just give out your cello
According to the Bible, yes. Which is most likely not true. Remember that Zionism started as a secular movement, with religious people getting more (very) on board relatively recently
…but I can say its name!
(maybe)
Have you ever seen transcribed Georgian?
In Latin for example it’s just a “…near the noun? Whatever, just don’t be ambiguous."
It doesn't need to be remotely close to the noun lol
Though Latin syntax can get annoying sometimes (when do I use the subjunctive? What's the correct negation? Perfect or imperfect… maybe pluperfect? Which noun is this random genitive modifying?), it does make sense eventually. I guess that is also true for English, but I still mess up the tenses sometimes.
English syntax hard?
Yes. Sequence of tenses. It's harder than Latin. As in, what the hell does "future-in-the-past" mean?
Or tenses (+aspect+mood) in general, I guess. You guys have too many of them.
As for the orthography, you know what is to blame. The Great Vowel Shift.
Does anyone have a link to her actual findings? I tend to be skeptical of headlines like this.
Also, the first woman? Props to her but I’m quite surprised no one else has done that
This is still just within the current borders (since ‘67), not the new occupation (…yet?)