>Some have even suggested “y’all,” a word that reads as much too slangy, regional or what you might even call ethnic to ever gain universal acceptance.
Heaven forbid we embrace something that could be called "ethnic"! Something something must secure a future for our linguistic monoculture.
I wonder if this writer would've written the same thing, but with "bruh" or "fam" swapped in:
>Some have even suggested “bruh,” a word that reads as much too slangy, regional or what you might even call ethnic to ever gain universal acceptance.
Probably not, as that would've been immediately recognized as racist (because "bruh" is ethnic, despite its recent widespread adoption, in the sense that its roots are in black-culture slang – just like how "y'all" is ethnic, despite its recent widespread adoption, in the sense that its roots are in southern-culture slang).
I dunno why the NYT author feels the need to find ways to be linguistically xenophobic.
>Some have even suggested “y’all,” a word that reads as much too slangy, regional or what you might even call ethnic to ever gain universal acceptance.
Heaven forbid we embrace something that could be called "ethnic"! Something something must secure a future for our linguistic monoculture.
I wonder if this writer would've written the same thing, but with "bruh" or "fam" swapped in:
>Some have even suggested “bruh,” a word that reads as much too slangy, regional or what you might even call ethnic to ever gain universal acceptance.
Probably not, as that would've been immediately recognized as racist (because "bruh" is ethnic, despite its recent widespread adoption, in the sense that its roots are in black-culture slang – just like how "y'all" is ethnic, despite its recent widespread adoption, in the sense that its roots are in southern-culture slang).
I dunno why the NYT author feels the need to find ways to be linguistically xenophobic.