OOTS #1273 - The Discussion Thread

[faustin]

I was reading about a D&D comic, then everyone started posting in a foreign language. It has some elements of a language I recognize, but there are no glowy swords or space ships. It almost sounds like D&D-ish, but nobody rolled any dice or argued about alignment.

And none of this has anything to do with Eugene, Sabine, and Redcloak's niece cooperatively possessing Julia's body.

I'm so confused...

First time here?

[Onyavar]

I was reading about a D&D comic, then everyone started posting in a foreign language. It has some elements of a language I recognize, but there are no glowy swords or space ships. It almost sounds like D&D-ish, but nobody rolled any dice or argued about alignment.

And none of this has anything to do with Eugene, Sabine, and Redcloak's niece cooperatively possessing Julia's body.

I'm so confused...

Exactly. HP fanfiction Expelliarmus! Accio Topic!

I felt very uneasy when I read the latest comic, not the least because of the "she" in the first panel, so I am very convinced: This is either Rich throwing a subtle hint that will be glaring obvious later, or he was failing big with a good setup for the punchline, on the same page where he should have written "they" instead of "she" on the first panel.

Convinced that Rich is still the same genius who set up hundreds of subtle hints before, and who takes a lot of time to proceed these days: I am firmly in the camp that something is wrong with Julia here, if that's even her. But there are issues: There was a first Julia-Roy conversation, and it technically looks exactly like the one we follow right now: Julia is wearing the same outfit, is surrounded by the same IME down to the color, and only her reactions are odd when compared to the previous convo. Which was long and detailed enough to allow a basis for comparison.p

I was suspicious of Julia's first appearance a hundred strips before (1191-1196), already: Discovering this homebrewn contact spell so shortly before the final encounter... felt odd. But the supposed Julia ultimately convinced me to not be a cruel joke from Daddy, whom I first suspected. So I was finally convinced that the first Julia contact has been genuine, which again raises the threshold for a fake Julia on this second call.

But also: Julia apparently has the resources to scry Roy all around the clock, to learn when he has time to talk to her. And then, she just appears. I find it suspicious, Roy called it out many times before, but that was with Eugene. With Julia, I am highly sceptical she can do that. Especially within this labyrinth made out of multidimensional stone.

Whoever is doing the (supposed) fake Julia call right now, has copied her entire appearance from the first call, and also copied the whole spell's look-and-feel. That is big, so whoever is doing this, has real epic oomph. Which incidentally only the Heavens (Eugene) and the Netherworld (IFCC) provide. Can we exclude some unknown players, like a divine intervention from a god not previously involved, etc? Yes, I think we can. I really racked my brain, and nobody else comes to mind, who would be able, knowledgeable and willing to pull this off: Tarquin/Laurin would target Elan, not Roy, and not know about Julia's details. Girard and all his people are dead. Serini has a different mode of operations, and very busy. If Redcloak could reach Roy in any way, he wouldn't play mindgames, he'd cast

Much has been said about Eugene already: Well, he is a great illusionist, so if he epic-scried Julia's first call, and feels really mischievous, he can do this stunt right now, too. But that feels weird. Much more likely, he managed to decieve Roy in the first time as well, and it was him in the first call as well. But what is the motivation, exactly? All I can think of is that Roy distrusts and dislikes him, but Eugene has had some deep insights into his former wrongdoings and deceptions. So now, to give Roy better advice than before, he chose a different person whom Roy trusts. Ooff. That would be seriously effed-up. So... um... no, Eugene doesn't make a lot of sense. Too convoluted.

Which leaves the IFCC. Let me say first, I don't think Sabine can be involved, she is banned from the prime material for a year. This is not Sabine in disguise, either, it has been pointed out how she can't change skin color. BUT! This is the clearest indication, of anything I've seen recently, that would shoehorn the IFCC back into the story. The Nerds of Evil are going to be involved in the whole final battle, and they still have two invoices on Vaarsuvius's soul left.
Sooo. They could have made a whole different bargain with Julia, for example to let her find this communication spell. And also, I think their whole plan involves saving the world, but taking over their respective hells.

[Ruck]

Let me say first, I don't think Sabine can be involved, she is banned from the prime material for a year.

Where did you get that? The only thing we've seen with such an effect is the Holy Word in book 5, which banished her for 24 hours.

[Jasdoif]

Also "time travel makes everything way more complicated than it needs to and if you have to rely on it you fail life forever".

While you're correct when it comes to introducing time travel as a way for the writer to disguise their failures undo what they've already written; I want to point out that a story that's legitimately about time travel, like Back to the Future, can be quite good.

Hey, even those only escape the second part of my statement!

No; a story about time travel needs to be as complicated as time travel makes it, as exploring the complexity of time travel is what allows it to be a story about time travel...particularly since implications can vary wildly as there are basically four narrative categories of "time travel":

• Branching timeline, where changing the past creates a new future "branch" and the original future becomes inaccessible but still exists (so you can't change yourself prior to beginning time travel, since everything leading up to that is still tied to the original timeline)
• Mutable timeline, where changing the past changes the future (so you could change your history; but things become gross if that alteration stops your time travel, since time travel paradoxes are essentially a type of plot hole)
• Stable timeline, where a change in the past isn't actually possible since that "change" already happened in the past (which does sharply limit the utility of time travel)
• Timeline apathy, where the phrase "time travel" is used because that might obfuscate that it's just the writing failing to make sense (deliberately or otherwise)

[danielxcutter]

Yeah, but the fourth is way too common IIRC.

[Onyavar]

Where did you get that? The only thing we've seen with such an effect is the Holy Word in book 5, which banished her for 24 hours.

Right, I totally got that duration wrong. Will edit.

[elros]

Thanks to everyone for this discussion. I would not have picked up on the hints suggesting that Julia could be an imposter. Now I hope that is actually the case!

[Quizatzhaderac]

The biggest revelation from this strip is that the Stickverse uses Imperial weights and measures.

The pound is a Roman invention, the US and Imperial systems just formalized exact amounts for a unit that had existed for thousands of years.

Most European Countries were using some version of the "pound" prior to the French revolution.

That said, I think Roy is downplaying what a massive new asset Sunny could be.

Well, yes, but consider the reader expectations Rich is managing here.

IRL, essentially every animal's eyes can track a moving object. And also point at a new target in a fraction of a second. If Sunny's main eye worked like that, Xykon and Redcloak would have basically no chance to cast during the main fight.

OK, but if I'm reading this page in a book, then it makes even less sense to spend a page recaping pages I read approximately two minutes earlier.

Not recapping, analyzing. The take away is that the Big Showdown^tm isn't going to work like when Serini ambushed the Order.

This is obvious if you know D&D, have had weeks to think about it, and/or have read the forum discussions. But if the reader doesn't realize this, there won't be a sense of danger leading up to the main fight and common D&D tactics will feel like diablo ex machinas.

Although all of y'all suggesting this isn't really Julia are really making me a little paranoid.

Paranoia about a D&D game? I don't see where that could come from.

BTW, your sister is a succubus, the stool is a mimic, the stalactite is a spike monster, the lizard is a polymorphed T-rex, and the background wall is a multidimensional colossal dire zebra.

I felt very uneasy when I read the latest comic, not the least because of the "she" in the first panel, so I am very convinced: This is either Rich throwing a subtle hint that will be glaring obvious later, or he was failing big with a good setup for the punchline, on the same page where he should have written "they" instead of "she" on the first panel.

Arguably, "they" should never be used for the singular. That's not my opinion, but that's definitely a thing some people believe, are taught, and practice.

If you believe that, then the technically correct thing to say in panel one would be "he or she"; however, that sounds incredibly stiff and formal. Even if you accept the singular "they", it still sound stiffer and more formal that just one of "he"/"she". So the most casual thing to do is to just assume a gender and use one of "he"/"she".

Classically, most writers would assume "he" in most circumstances where the person might be a man. This is considered sexist and does seem like something that Rich, in particular, would care about. Also, notably, wizards of the coast seems to frequently refer to hypothetical people as "she".

The rule Rich seems to be using for OotS-world is that men refer to hypothetical people as "he" and women refer to hypothetical people as "she"

[Tzardok]

IRL, essentially every animal's eyes can track a moving object. And also point at a new target in a fraction of a second. If Sunny's main eye worked like that, Xykon and Redcloak would have basically no chance to cast during the main fight.

Sure, but Sunny's (and any beholder's) antimagic cone is not dependant on the direction or movement of the pupil. It radiates outward from the whole eyeball and only moves if the whole body rotates. That's also why ruleswise a beholder can only reorient its antimagic cone once per round.

[Doug Lampert]

...
Paranoia about a D&D game? I don't see where that could come from.

BTW, your sister is a succubus, the stool is a mimic, the stalactite is a spike monster, the lizard is a polymorphed T-rex, and the background wall is a multidimensional colossal dire zebra....

The key insight of this entire thread is the fact that someone spotted the multidimensional colossal dire zebra. Clearly the doon to be breakout character of the entire series.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Not recapping, analyzing. The take away is that the Big Showdown^tm isn't going to work like when Serini ambushed the Order.

There is some analyzing going on. But there is also a lot of telling-not-showing discussion of thing the comic showed-not-told not that long ago.

Arguably, "they" should never be used for the singular. That's not my opinion, but that's definitely a thing some people believe, are taught, and practice.

[citation needed]. "They" has been an accepted, acceptable and simply correct means to indicate singular people of unknown gender since, I am told, Early English. But since I cannot for the life of me read that, here's Chaucer instead (from this page):

Prologue of the Pardoner’s Tale (circa 1380s):

“And whoso fyndeth hym out of swich blame, / They wol come up and offre a Goddés name”
(“And whoso findeth him out of such blame, / They will come up and offer in God’s name”)

(emphasis mine)

Some random 18th century prescriptivist grammarian does not constitute a higher authority on the usage of the English language and the singular "They" than Chaucer. (same for split infinitives, dangling participles, etc.)

Grey Wolf

[hroþila]

You don't need a citation for the claim that some people think it's wrong. That's obviously true.
(but those people are demonstrably wrong)

Anyway, I'm puzzled by the assertion that neutral 'they' will somehow sound more formal than 'he' or 'she' even to people who accept and use it. While this kind of neutral 'they' has pretty much made its way to the standard language by now, it's overwhelmingly common particularly in colloquial and informal registers.

[gbaji]

Metric values and weights, right? :P

I refuse to use the grams setting on my kitchen scale. ;)

Although, fun fact, while "a pint's a pound the world around" is pithy and helps convert stuff, it *only* applies to water, where ounces are the same whether measured by weight or by volume (under most conditions on earth anyway). I've seen people use the volume measurements when they should use weight, which can have hillarous results. Pro-tip: even though most recipes will call for grated cheese in "cups", you should absolutely *not* look at your liquid measuring cup, note that 8 oz is one cup, and use that to determine how many ounces of cheese you should use. This is made particularly confusing since stores (in the US at least) literally sell cheese by weight (ie: x ounces). For anyone curious (and just to be universally helpful I guess), 4 oz of cheese by weight is approximately 1 cup (volume) of cheese when grated. Your casserole consumers can thank me later (unless they really really like cheese).

Or you can use metric.

OK, but if I'm reading this page in a book, then it makes even less sense to spend a page recaping pages I read approximately two minutes earlier. Unless there is something else going on, this is a really weird filler, more reminiscent of when an anime show is running out of money/source material and needs to throw together a clip show to fill time. And yes, characters getting breathing room and development is nice, but a) there ain't much of that going on (unless Julia really has mellowed since we last saw her... what, three days prior in OotS time?) and 2) they could be talking about anything else that doesn't come over as telling the audience what they just saw.

Eh. Could be. Most of the Roy/Eugene and now Roy/Julia dialogue stuff fills more of a "tell us what's going on in Roy's head" purpose than merely a plot refresh. It's a way to inform the readers why various choices are going to be made, and to make clear plot points that readers may have missed or something. We may have a better idea of this in the next couple strips.

But yeah. I agree that this may indicate that Julia will have a more significant role in the story as well. What exactly that is, I couldn't put any weight on beyond wild speculation.

Eh, Sabine spent a couple days with Julia in the warehouse, IIRC, and only the last minute, maybe, included Roy. I would not be surprised if Julia acts *really* differently towards Roy than towards anyone else and Sabine wouldn't necessarily have had a chance to see this.

Right. But the problem is that Julia has been behaving noticably more mature both in this conversation and the previous one on the airship. She's not remotely like how she acted during the 2 weeks that Sabine held her captive. Which leaves us three possibilities:

1. She's just Julia and she's matured since Cliffport.

2. The first sending was Julia and she's matured since Cliffport, but somehow someone spied on that and are imitating her based on that conversation to <do something evil>.

3. Both sendings are someone else pretending to be Julia to <do something evil>.

In 1, we're done. It's Julia.

2 gives us problems because the clues that might make us think it's not Julia are the same in both conversations (she's dressed and behaves differently than in Cliffport, and hey "created a custom sending spell", right?). There's nothing specific to this conversation that screams "it's not Julia" that wasn't present in the first. And we'd also have to speculate some means for someone to spy on the first sending to fake the second.

3. Leaves us with the problem of "why not duplicate Julia as last seen"? She should be behaving the way Roy expected. If you're going to try to pretend to be someone to someone else, you would mimic them as the same person they were the last time the person you're trying to fool experienced. Yet, in both conversations we see a more conservative and reserved and mature Julia. Also, the first conversation had some very specific family details that would be almost impossible to fake (although I suppose "Possesed Julia" can still work here).

Dunno. Any examination of 2 and 3 results in having to keep flipping back and forth from one to the other to make all the facts and actions "fit". Which suggests that we should reject them as possibilities. At least without more conclusive data. When we start pointing out flaws in 3, the argument shifts to "ok, but maybe it was 2", but when we examine flaws in 2, it flips back to "Oh. Then it must be 3". Er... Or it's neither.

There is no need of this third type you claim must exist that becomes a portkey immediately.

Well. You could cast one with a delay of "0". But yeah. No need for a separate method for the spell to work. To be fair, the idea that conditions (like a time delay/arming/whatever) is kinda obvious to have since otherwise you could never carry a portkey around with you anywhere (although that does seem somewhat handwaved away at times anyway).

To be perfectly honest, if we were asssessing this in a "how would you create these spells to make them most useful without being a pain in the butt", there should always be some sort of activation phrase or whatnot. Merely touching it seems... silly. But, of course, was necessary to make the whole Goblet thing work, so that's how they work. I suppose we could assume that a portkey could have any of a number of activation methods, with "touching it" being just one.

Prologue of the Pardoner’s Tale (circa 1380s):

“And whoso fyndeth hym out of swich blame, / They wol come up and offre a Goddés name”
(“And whoso findeth him out of such blame, / They will come up and offer in God’s name”)

Eh. Don't feel like getting into some grand discussion on this, but I will note that these supposed "exceptions" from the past seem pretty consistently to include sentences where the noun being referenced can/does include a "group" of individuals, not just exclusively one person.

Examine this (more modern) sentence:

"Anyone caught speeding will be subject to ticket and fine".

The word "anyone" (just like "whoso") is not specifically numbered pronoun. It's a reference to a group of people who meet a given criteria ("findeth him out of such blame" or "caught speeding"). The second part of the sentence, if broken out into its own clause/sentence would be "They will be subject to ticket and fine" (just like "They will come up and offer in God's name"). That does not mean, nor should it be used to support, that a single person can or should be referred to by the plural pronoun "they" when we're explicitely speaking only of just one person. "They" in this case refers to a group, not an individual. We should not substitute it in the "clearly a single named individual" situation (ie: "Jim walked into the room. They were hit with a bucket of water"). That's simply not the same as saying "Anyone who enters this room; verily, they shall be hit with a bucket of water". The latter form does not support the former.

I'm not entirely adverse to the idea of using "they" as a gender neutral pronoun (I'm not a huge fan, but hey, language changes, right?), but it does irk me when people use improper interpretations of past grammer to support it. Just say what you're trying to do and why and don't try to hide behind other claims of legitimacy from the past.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Eh. Don't feel like getting into some grand discussion on this, but I will note that these supposed "exceptions" from the past seem pretty consistently to include sentences where the noun being referenced can/does include a "group" of individuals, not just exclusively one person.

No. First, I don't consider that "it could be more than one person" to be of any significance. In Chaucer's example, the sentence is clearly talking about a singular individual encountering the MC - thus, singular they. That they belong to a category "travellers" is irrelevant, the sentence is still clearly speaking of a single individual coming across the titular guy.

Furthermore, if you keep going through other examples, it is still clear that in some cases, the idea there must always be a "group" is a fiction. From the same link, another example, from a passage from a letter written by Lord Chesterfield in 1759: "If a person is born of a … gloomy temper … they cannot help it.”. You can claim that "the group" is "people born", I suppose, but it gets silly really quickly - the sentence is talking about a singular individual, of any gender, and therefore they is appropriate, just as it is in the comic.

And ultimately, if this is a line in the sand you want to draw, for whatever reason, I'll point out that "the group" Julia fails to use the singular they on is "people that have joined Roy's team" and therefore is still appropriate.

Grey Wolf

[KorvinStarmast]

I was finally convinced that the first Julia contact has been genuine, which again raises the threshold for a fake Julia on this second call.

That's what the IFCC wants you to think. The allusion that the three made to a vessel and Sabine before the end of Utterly Dwarfed preceded the first Julia visit. If the IFCC is involved, and if Sabine is involved, at least Sabine knows what Julia looks like, and she can, posing as Julia-the-wizard-student, present to Roy her cool hack on Dad's blood curse. I suppose that there would need to be a way for the IFCC to know about Eugene's blood curse and the connection with Roy and the sword. I can't for the moment recall where it is shown that they know that, but Sabine might.

So it's possible, but for my satisfaction a few more pieces need to be shown before it settles. The mechanics of how multidimensional stone works remains fuzzy, but it might not need much of a loophole to wiggle through.

Another indicator of the first visit not being Julia is the "yeah, cool spell hack, but I can't teach it to your wizard for *reasons* complete with uh, er, stumbling by Julia) Strip 1192. The voice sounds more like Eugene in a few of those panels, but not in some others and not as much in 1193 ... and she does keep harping on Roy beating Xykon ... which is Eugene's obsession. One thing about Eugene is that he's a bit of a nag to Roy about the oath, and that he is, or was, an illusionist, and he knows Julia and Roy well. And he wasn't at Roy's fighter school test, I think.
This being another Eugene trick to keep nagging Roy about ending Xykon is a less complicated take if the Julia we see here isn't Julia.

Julia apparently has the resources to scry Roy all around the clock, to learn when he has time to talk to her. And then, she just appears. I find it suspicious, Roy called it out many times before, but that was with Eugene. With Julia, I am highly sceptical she can do that. Especially within this labyrinth made out of multidimensional stone.

The usual answer to stuff like that is "A wizard did it" and "it's magic, you really wouldn't understand" but Rich usually doesn't go for that.

The key insight of this entire thread is the fact that someone spotted the multidimensional colossal dire zebra. Clearly the doon to be breakout character of the entire series.

I presume that's the 'soon to be breakout character of the entire series' which puts the Chaotic Giaffes Hilgya summoned back in the unemployment line.

[Onyavar]

Arguably, "they" should never be used for the singular. That's not my opinion, but that's definitely a thing some people believe, are taught, and practice.

If you believe that, then ...

Maaaybe,

Spoiler: maybe, well...

Show

I am not a native speaker, just a foreign observer of the English language. We have a similar debate in German as well, where the gender flections are grammatically much stronger enforced than in English, and the debate can get ugly about the "correct usage of language". I too have mixed feelings, loving the language I grew up with, while also knowing it is highly patriarchaic and should change for the better - but most newfangled flections sound and read weird and artificial. But all that is neither here nor there, this is not about the broader gender-in-language debate.

This is about a specific speech bubble: Julia already knows (or presumes) there is a singular female ally, when all Roy just said so far was "hey we have a new ally".

For all the real Julia would know, the hypothetical ally could be an entire new group of people, like "another group of Paladins" (those were the last allies Roy talked about, last page!) or someone completely surprising, like "the dire penguins" or "the polar were-bears".

"They", "it", "that ally" seems really most appropriate when you are inquiring about an unknown number of people of unknown gender: "Oh, who is it?" or "Oh, who are they?"

The allusion that the three made to a vessel and Sabine before the end of Utterly Dwarfed preceded the first Julia visit.

Oh, I didn't remember that interaction. The last time where I remembered the IFCC going on about the technicalities of vessels, was here, and it totally threw me off.

[KorvinStarmast]

For all the real Julia would know, the hypothetical ally could be an entire new group of people, like "another group of Paladins" (those were the last allies Roy talked about, last page!) or someone completely surprising, like "the dire penguins" or "the polar were-bears".

The dire penguins wanted too much money - Haley objected, obviously.

[Quizatzhaderac]

Some random 18th century prescriptivist grammarian does not constitute a higher authority on the usage of the English language and the singular "They" than Chaucer. (same for split infinitives, dangling participles, etc.)

I'm not making a prescriptive argument (in fact, I said my prescription is that other way) I was just describing the way some people talk/write.

We may not like the influence of some grammarians, but that doesn't erase their influence.

Anyway, I'm puzzled by the assertion that neutral 'they' will somehow sound more formal than 'he' or 'she' even to people who accept and use it. While this kind of neutral 'they' has pretty much made its way to the standard language by now, it's overwhelmingly common particularly in colloquial and informal registers.

This was nothing more than my impression. I disagree with you about the relative frequency, but I don't have data so I can't expect to change your mind.

Although, fun fact, while "a pint's a pound the world around" is pithy and helps convert stuff, it *only* applies to water....

Not even water.

The expression is particularly stupid as the pint is the one unit that is significantly different between the US and Imperial systems.

For all the real Julia would know, the hypothetical ally could be an entire new group of people, like "another group of Paladins" (those were the last allies Roy talked about, last page!) or someone completely surprising, like "the dire penguins" or "the polar were-bears".

That's conceivable, but at this scale it would seem weird to talk about a group as "an ally". Like, Roy said "two paladins" not "the Sapphire Guard".

[Ruck]

The biggest revelation from this strip is that the Stickverse uses Imperial weights and measures.

Been that way for a while.

Right. But the problem is that Julia has been behaving noticably more mature both in this conversation and the previous one on the airship. She's not remotely like how she acted during the 2 weeks that Sabine held her captive. Which leaves us three possibilities:

1. She's just Julia and she's matured since Cliffport.

I think this one is true regardless. Note how she dresses significantly more conservatively in her appearances in this book than she did in Cliffport. (Which, come to think of it, unless she's really done her research, is the kind of thing Sabine would decidedly not do.)

[gbaji]

No. First, I don't consider that "it could be more than one person" to be of any significance. In Chaucer's example, the sentence is clearly talking about a singular individual encountering the MC - thus, singular they. That they belong to a category "travellers" is irrelevant, the sentence is still clearly speaking of a single individual coming across the titular guy.

Grammatically, the fact that it's a reference to any individual among a set of individuals in a group or category is absolutely significant. It's what the "they" (plural) refers to. It's why that form has been used historically.

Furthermore, if you keep going through other examples, it is still clear that in some cases, the idea there must always be a "group" is a fiction.

Is it?

From the same link, another example, from a passage from a letter written by Lord Chesterfield in 1759: "If a person is born of a … gloomy temper … they cannot help it.”. You can claim that "the group" is "people born", I suppose, but it gets silly really quickly - the sentence is talking about a singular individual, of any gender, and therefore they is appropriate, just as it is in the comic.

And yet, once again, we have a non-specific (non named) reference being used. "A person... of a gloomy temper" is any person within a set of people who have gloomy tempers. "They" refers not to any one specific individual, but to any member of that group. In the same way that we may say something like "Anyone who wishes to attend the course must bring their own book".

To follow your own link, cases 2a and 2b are historical and all follow the pattern I'm speaking of. It's 2c that is "new", and no amount of "but in those other cases it was ok" change the fact that we're making a very new change that isn't supported by historical fact. They is used in those other cases to provide a pronoun where specific information about the noun is unknown and (as I mentioned earlier) is referred to by some group descriptive criteria ("the student" is a member of a group of students). It's about allowing ease of communication when specific information is unknown. Case 2c is specifically about concealing information that is known, which has the function of doing the opposite of "ease of communication".

And ultimately, if this is a line in the sand you want to draw, for whatever reason, I'll point out that "the group" Julia fails to use the singular they on is "people that have joined Roy's team" and therefore is still appropriate.

Maybe I missed something, but the statement you responded to was a specific response to comments about Julia using "she" instead of "they". This is not a case where Serini is concealing her gender, or has requested to be referred to by "they", so I'm a bit confused at the entire line of reasoning here (again, unless I missed something, which is entirely possible).

There are also a number of methods to get around using a singular pronoun when the gender of the subject is uknown:

Roy: "We have a new ally"

Julia: "And you think that person will help defeat Xkon?"
Julia: "And you think this new ally will help defeat Xykon?"
Julia: "And you think whomever it is will help you defeat Xykon" (this form also doubles as a dig for more information about the ally).

The idea that the one and only way to resolve this is to use "they" when referring to a specific single person is extremely questionable. But, again, I'm not upset or anything if someone chooses to use the pronoun "they" in that case. It's clear enough in that case what "they" refers to, grammatically speaking. My issue is when people insist on doing this in cases where it serves only to confuse the statement and make it unclear who they are speaking about (hah. Grammar loses there too!).

[gbaji]

Not even water.

The expression is particularly stupid as the pint is the one unit that is significantly different between the US and Imperial systems.

Well, I live in the US, and Rich lives in the US, and it's the US measurement that the expression refers to, so...

And yeah, I bake (bread, not cake), and I measure water and flour by weight and not volume, and I can state with quite some certainty that for any given weight of water in ounces, it's the same number of ounces of water by volume (close enough for eyeball in a measuring cup anyway). Water has low compressibility, and low enough thermal expansion, so this is true for any temperature and pressure ranges you're ever likely to encounter (especially in a kitchen). So yes. Converting a pint of water by volume to weight will result in a pound of water. Well, close enough for anything outside of a lab environment.

All the volume measurements are different between the US and UK (imperial) measurements, not just pints. US has 8oz cups. UK is 10. All other relative measurements are the same (2cups=1 pint. 4 cups=1 quart. 4 quarts=1 gallon). The pint is a bit odd because it's right between cups and quarts, but doesn't follow the same (multiply by 4) method. And yes, this means that a UK gallon is 160oz instead of 128 like in the US (did I mention that I also brew beer?).

The expression is useful because it helps you remember that 16 oz by weight is a pound, but 16 oz by volume is a pint, which in turn is 2 cups, etc. Which in turn, hopefully, lets you avoid mixing up volume and weight measurements. It's not my fault that folks in the UK adopted a different system at some point and mucked the whole thing up.

And sure. You could use metric measurements, but that way leads to insanity...

[Precure]

Julia's panic attacks since her first appearance in ghost form:

Panel 6: She panics when Roy asked her to teach the same spell to V, and makes up a excuse that her spell is somehow linked to Blood Oath, which seems strange in hindsight considering she claimed to create it as part of her academic studies.

Panel 5: She was totally nonchalant about the possibility that earth might be destroyed. When Roy confused by that, she panics and then exclaims an unusual trust on Roy's capabilities to not let that happen, which, again, seems strange.

Panel 10: She overreacts to Roy when he mentioned about the possibility of her direct involvement, and overcorrects him that she's only interested in giving her advice.

Panel 7: She panics when Roy reveals that he tricked her about how he knows that she's here.

Panel 12: She panicked when Roy interrogated her about the audition, implying she had no idea what happened there and whether she supposed to remember it or not.

I think it's probably Eugene himself and he's pretending to be his daughter. Why? Because at his last visit, Roy rebuked him and was unwilling to talk to him due to Eugene's past misdeeds. Roy also wished his sword to "pawn these visits to Julia", and Eugene is doing just that, using "Julia" to talk his son.

[Peelee]

Well, I live in the US, and Rich lives in the US, and it's the US measurement that the expression refers to, so...

Digging your heels in on US centricism to defend a saying which has "the world around" as a key facet is certainly a bold stance to take.

[KorvinStarmast]

I think it's probably Eugene himself and he's pretending to be his daughter. Why? Because at his last visit, Roy rebuked him and was unwilling to talk to him due to Eugene's past misdeeds. Roy also wished his sword to "pawn these visits to Julia", and Eugene is doing just that, using "Julia" to talk his son.

Kinda where I was going in my thought process, but you put into words what I was thinking very concisely. +1

[brian 333]

He is cute.
She is cute.
They is cute.

Hmm, the singular pronoun 'they' works quite well with singular verbs.

If we use a singular verb and a plural pronoun, we encounter subject-verb agreement issues.

They goes to the market.
They robs a store.
They eats cake.
They builds houses.

If one reconstructs the sentence to correct the subject-verb agreement issues, there is an altogether different issue.

They go to the market.
They rob a store.
They eat cake.
They build houses.

Now our intended singular 'they' has become plural. One should check historical references to determine how 'they' was actually used. It's an easy test: singular verbs end with an s.

[danielxcutter]

Many non-binary people use "they" as a singular pronoun these days.

[brian 333]

Many non-binary people use "they" as a singular pronoun these days.

Do they use 'are' as a singular verb?

[danielxcutter]

Honestly I don't remember.

[Peelee]

Do they use 'are' as a singular verb?

Like saying "hey, Brian 333, as a singular person with a singular verb, you are happy with that 'are' there, yeah?"

[hroþila]

Singular they goes with 'are' and with historically plural verbs in general, much like singular you. But I'm not sure it makes a lot of sense to say the verb is still plural, sinchronically speaking. It's just the unmarked form, except with the verb 'to be' which is too irregular to analyze like this.