Is there a single neutral word......

I'm sorry that I did not notice that I wrote the contraction for who is.

Forget all previous examples. This one stands alone. Improved example:
Registered Magnum #1, whose bluing might be worn thin, is worth more than $250,000.

Can an inanimate object possess? If RM #1 can possess then is there a different possessive specific to inanimate objects?
 
Last edited:
It's probably more accurate to say "crude and disgusting, but well educated enough to bury that in euphemisms in some settings". I'm from the east, and have rough friends, plus I have been coarsened by decades in LE and prosecution. I can and do use "the all purpose part of speech" for all purposes.
 
Last edited:
And I was nearly stung by a Portuguese Person of War at the beach the other day....

Just wait till you get stung by a Portuguese Woman of War. After that you won't make anymore jokes about it.:D

Don't ask me why I know anything about that. :rolleyes:

Edit. By the way. The word you are looking for is... UNSUB.:D
 
Last edited:
I also believe 'they' works.

So does 'Pat'.

Pat-From-Saturday-Night-Live.JPG
 
I am deeply troubled by the "they" that I see used by young people .

Well, "they" would definitely NOT work there, in ANY case, because he said in a "either/or" situation, so those "young people" would get an F for not paying attention to the instructions.
 
I would have to go with the word "It" as well.

I know I have been to Walmart enough times and seen plenty of things I would have to classify as "it" that would be tough to describe any other way or by gender.
 
Back
Top