Trying to harness the power of my autism

what kind of english is that? let's look at some famous examples of each.

Hwæt. We Gardena in geardagum, / þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon, / hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon. <- this is old english. note that it is unintelligible to a modern english speaker. (excerpt from beowulf)

Whan zephirus eek with his sweete breeth / Inspired hath in every holt and heeth / Tendre croppes, and the yonge sonne / Hath in the ram his halve cours yronne … <- this is middle english. it is more intelligible, but it’s still very different from what we speak now. (excerpt from the canterbury tales)

Is this a dagger which I see before me, / The handle toward my hand? Come, let me clutch thee. / I have thee not, and yet I see thee still. / Art thou not, fatal vision, sensible / To feeling as to sight? <- this is early modern english. this is so intelligible that we trust teenagers to read it in school. (excerpt from macbeth)

the english you are using to give a post a medieval or renaissance/shakespearean vibe is early modern english, not old english. (it's fine that you're using early modern english for a medieval vibe; no one expects you to learn middle english for a silly post about knights.)

how do you use pronouns?

'thou' is the informal second-person singular pronoun.

thou/thee/thy/thine

thou is the nominative form. you can use it for the subject of a sentence -> thou knowest me.

thee is the oblique form. you can use it for the object of a sentence -> i know thee.

thy and thine are the genitive forms. you can use them as possessive adjectives for nouns starting with consonants and vowels respectively. -> thy leg is broken. thine arm is broken too.

thine is also the possessive form. think about it like the word 'mine'*. -> my heart was once thine.

*'mine' is also used like thine as a possessive adjective in early modern english; you would say 'mine art' instead of 'my art'

ye and you

originally, 'ye' was the formal or plural nominitive second-person pronoun, and 'you' was the oblique form. so, it would be 'ye know me' and 'i know you'. 'ye' fell out of use and was replaced by 'you'. at that point it was already used as singular. but it was still much more formal than 'thou'.

the 'ye' you see in 'ye olde shoppe' stuff is not this pronoun. it is the way that printers who no longer had a thorn (þ) wrote the word 'the' (previously 'þe'). the 'y' in certain typefaces looked like a thorn, so we got 'ye' for 'the'.

how do you conjugate a verb?

you can't just slap a -th or -st onto the end of any verb. those are for specific conjugations. phrases like "i hath noticed" or "he thinkest that" are not grammatically sound. it's like saying "i has noticed" or "he think that".

the -st or -est ending is for (most) present and past tense verbs conjugated with 'thou'

some examples: thou canst, thou couldst, thou sayest, thou goest, thou wentest, thou hast, thou hadst, thou dost (or doest).

'thou' also has a few irregulars. some examples: thou wilt, thou art and thou wast (for 'to be'), thou shalt.

the -th or -eth ending is for (most) present and past tense conjugated with 'he', 'she', or 'it'

some examples: he hath, she sayeth, it doth, he goeth, she thinketh, it moveth

there are, of course, irregulars. the most important one is 'to be', which conjugates the same for this set as it does in modern english.

note: not every verb conjugates this way. for example, past tense verbs might use auxiliary verbs. so, not 'she cookedeth', but 'she did cook'.

by and large, the 'i', 'we', 'you' (or 'ye'), and 'they' conjugations were the same as they are today.

there were also some verbs that were used differently than we use them today, though (some of these fell out of use over the early modern period):

to be -> sometimes this verb is used instead of 'to have' as the auxiliary verb. 'i am arrived' means 'i have arrived', and 'she is come to see thee' means 'she has come to see you'.

to do -> sometimes this is used for the present progressive (i think that's the right name for it). 'he does speak' means 'he is speaking', and 'i do write' means 'i am writing'.

would -> this can be used to express a desire. 'i would i were a bird' means 'i wish i were a bird'

must -> this can be used without 'go' to mean 'must go'. 'i must to england' means 'i must go to england'

will -> this can be used without 'have' to mean 'will have'. 'you'll none of that' means 'you will have none of that'

there are a million other things i'm not covering, like different sentence structures for questions ('thinkest thou...?' as a valid alternative to 'dost thou think...?'), and different contractions ('she'll not' rather than 'she won't') but this post is long as fuck and i have things to do! enjoy! linguists, feel free to correct me on what name of tenses or declensions or whatever i have mixed up.

'wherefore' = 'why', not 'where'. think about it pairing with 'therefore'. an example of the two in use:

'my love, wherefore didst thou pretend to see me not?' [babe, why did you pretend not to see me?]

'thy father, from whom we do keep our love hidden, did at that moment walk nearby. therefore i turned from thee that he might not espy us together' [we're keeping our relationship secret from your dad and he was walking by. i did it so he wouldn't see us together.]

'hither' = 'to here', not 'here'. there's a whole set of these, actually. 'whither' = 'to where' and 'thither' = 'to there'. these pair with 'hence' ('from here'), 'whence' ('from where'), and 'thence' ('from there'). an example of some of these in use:

'whence came you?' [where did you come from?]

(pointing to the left) 'thence came i hither.' [i came here from there.]

'and whither go you now?' [and where are you going now?]

(pointing to the right) 'my lord calls me thither.' [my boss is calling me over there]

'very well. get you hence.' [alright, get away from here.]

'whom' ≠ fancy 'who' and this one is just also true today.

'whom' works for the object of a sentence. 'who' is for the subject. in other words, 'whom' receives the action and 'who' does the action.

'whom wrote that letter to you?' -> incorrect! this should be 'who wrote that letter to you?' because 'who' is doing the action.

'whom did you write that letter to?' (or even better, 'to whom did you write that letter?') -> correct! 'whom' here is receiving the action.

5 simple exercises to awaken dormant muscles

Quite a number of them? I know the anime adds in newer variants so i take it you're asking about the manga specific ones.

In One Piece, a promise is not frequently thrown around since that's a heavy weight to carry, especially for these freedom-loving pirates. A promise can seem like a burden but is also a mark of devotion, to family or crewmates. Each arc brings in a new promise or two, important bonds share a promise destined to fulfill, the mighty mythos itself is carried by few broken promises; yes the tragedies are all laced by promises forgotten or unfulfilled.

Eiichiro Oda is deliberate in how he emphasizes an integral promise, one which is substantial for either character or plot. For that he relies on the transitive verb, yakusoku, 約束 (a kanji literally meaning 'tied/bundled' 'pact/promise') to convey the significance of the promise. Now remember there are characters who do take personal vows, e.g Zoro and Law, which are written as 誓い instead. Anyways, allow me to post the raws to show the main known promises:

1. Shanks and Luffy's impeding reunion

I did notice Oda had to wait all the way up to Marineford to have Shanks verbalize their "promise". It's a canon acknowledgement of their pact in print to meet and "return the strawhat" when time is right.

2. Tragedy of Portgas D. Ace.

We also find out at the end of pre-ts how Ace made a deep promise to Luffy on how he won't die.. broken since he couldn't escape his fate of execution. Another tragic one revealed later in the story is the promise to take O-Tama with him to sea, and free Wano. (Luffy manages to fulfill the latter one on his brother's behalf)

3. Zoro and Kuina

Speaking of such, I'm adding this in for expository reasons on why Zoro diligently holds on to his dream. It started on a hand shaken promise afterall. He, just like Luffy, had significantly transformed after suffering from the loss of one whom he shared a promise with.

4. Luffy to the Strawhats

It all started with him promising to protect Nami. Goes on to include Laboon as well with Brook for reuniting again. Luffy exhibits most devotion to his crewmates in a shockingly violent manner. Thing about WCI arc is that Luffy's bold usage of '約束' heavily contrasts with how Pudding never says such to Sanji, and it occured to me how Oda uses this to distinguish Luffy's honesty.

5. What was Promised so long ago?

I know the Harley script is foretelling future events for the world at large. but with Rocks' confrontation with Imu we realize just how much of the world's future is dependant on some *personal* promises made in the past, awaiting fulfillment.

6. Joyboy -> Poseidon | Luffy -> Shira

Speaking of the past, Joyboy wrote a whole poneglyph as an apology for his broken promise to mermaid princess Poseidon. Very fine choice for Oda to replicate the promise in the current world between forest-loving Shirahoshi and the Strawhat crew, this time with confidence that it will be fulfilled.

(nami's right, 約束 shouldn't be made so casually)

this morning i got this comment:

and after i stopped blubbering over it, i picked up my writing notebook, and re-read all my fic research, and opened up my document again for the first time in weeks without being afraid of it