Not quite. "It" is a general reference pronoun with a function akin to "the". It can be used to refer to anything that is a thing, even if said thing is animate and/or living.

When referring indiscriminately to a specimen of fauna, "it" is a linguistically appropriate identifier whereas "they" would only really be entirely appropriate when referring to an individual or subset of individuals, regardless of species or animacy.

Since this fish has no distinguishable identity apart from the cultural impact it may spawn, I reckon it's more appropriate to use "it" but "they" could also work.

I am not a linguist. But if you are, feel free to correct me. If you feel like pretending to be a linguist, go talk to an LLM cause IDC.

[–] zarkanian@sh.itjust.works 7 points 7 months ago (3 children)

If you wouldn't call a human being "it", then you shouldn't call a non-human animal "it", either.

[–] casual_turtle_stew_enjoyer@sh.itjust.works 9 points 7 months ago

yeah no I'm not taking that bait, bud.

[–] Literal@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 7 months ago

I'll call human beings "it" if that's what they prefer!

[–] Deme@sopuli.xyz 3 points 7 months ago

Funnily enough, in spoken Finnish "it" has all but replaced "they".

[–] TheFriar@lemm.ee 5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I mean, it’s English. The “rules” work sometimes and sometimes they don’t. But we’re taught that they exist, and then told “well, in that case that rule doesn’t apply.”

So neither of us is technically right, at least not in every case. But, generally, if I were teaching someone English, I would tell them, most of the time, “they” is for animate objects, “it” for inanimate—when we’re discussing a singular object or subject. Does it apply every time? No, and that’s still a loose rule. Some people call an animal “it,” but that is a little outmoded.

No, I’m not a linguist either. We’re just two unqualified assholes talking on the internet.

[–] casual_turtle_stew_enjoyer@sh.itjust.works 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Ok but you're second paragraph raises a new issue, or moreso an angle to what I was originally being pessimistic of: is that really adequate linguistic knowledge to impart on the future generation?

I wasn't taught they for animate, it for inanimate, or at least not that I recall. Maybe for a young child it could serve as a good rule of thumb to be reshaped in school. But besides that, I feel like it would cause more confusion for a non-native English speaker trying to learn the language if you shared that knowledge with them and then they in turn sublimate it into their personal linguist theory for some indeterminate amount of time. Then it could cause language barriers and potentially lead native English speakers to think less of them for their lack of grasp on what we call our stupid language where the rules are made up and the points don't matter.

Then again, I can't immediately conjure any examples of where this linguistic confusion may occur in this hypothetical English learner's day-to-day life. But I personally wouldn't be comfortable dispensing to a learner some less-than-entirely accurate disambiguation about our language, especially if I had reason to believe they could end up blindly parroting it.

This kinda worries me because I don't want to imagine immigrants and future generations alike being conditioned to ignore nuances in dialogue due to ambiguity introduced by some quixotic lesson they received under the notion it was "good enough".

Also, I hope you don't mistake me for trying to argue, I simply enjoy the banter as that concern I shared is a very intriguing thought to me, and I appreciate your willingness to "debate"/discuss it. Otherwise: so true, the Internet was of course originally made so assholes could argue semantics, among optionally more productive things.

[–] OrnateLuna@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

A point I want to raise is that if someone is gonna think less of a foreigner bc they use English slightly differently then well it was never the difference in the use of English, it was them being a foreigner.

Also the more you learn a language the more nuance you understand and use, even if that scenario would result of them not noticing the nuance they will eventually learn it

[–] casual_turtle_stew_enjoyer@sh.itjust.works 1 points 7 months ago

Yes but consider that not everyone is fortunate enough to grow up in diverse environments with exposure to other cultures. If everyone you've ever met from 0-18 is a redneck, how ya think they'll react to x accent. That's unfortunately your floor for expectable initial reactions from mutually non-impressed peoples. I'm not psychologist, figure you aren't either, but there is some principle that elaborates on this, keywords probably akin to cultural exposure in child development, environmental conditioning, and ventures out into other related principles. But idfk what I'm talking about, take this as the ramblings of a madman or whatever.