If I just say Pope, how are you gonna tell if I'm talking about the pope or Alexander Pope?
this post was submitted on 13 Aug 2026
28 points (100.0% liked)
Asklemmy
55234 readers
189 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
They are titles not phrases, its correct grammar. Specifically, nouns that are names of places, titles, or something of the sort it helps to clarify that we are talking about The captain and not just a captain in general. Or we are going to The Mall (which probably translates colloquially to the one the speaker frequents) and not just any mall in general.
The devil’s name isn’t “Devil.” it’s Satan or Lucifer or Beelzebub, etc. The Pope’s name isn’t “Pope.” It’s Leo XIV or Robert Francis Prevos.
The holy spirit is a funny exception, since it doesn't have an actual name, but this still feels right, even there.
The sun and moon are other examples. Historically there's no reason to have a name for them, since they're the only one. Sol gets called Sol in some contexts now, and there's Luna, but that hasn't really caught on - it's usually "Earth's moon".
You can definitely talk about Popes plural, if you don't just mean the current one.
I'm pretty sure they're all distinct entities. There's a whole Pantheon of demons, devils, and so forth. Lucifer took a third of the Angels with Her.
Hmm, her. What tradition are you coming from, exactly? I've heard the devil described as female before, but it's usually "he" in my background.
Preface: I'm not a christian. And, of the religion teachers I've had, at least one had certain *ehum* interesting interpretations about the books, so my understanding of the lore may contain a bit of non-canon fanfiction. (I'm not from a very religious area, but she was a bit weird)
If I've understood correctly, "the devil" is more of a title, but not exactly? At least, "devil" should only refer to a single character at a time, and it should be obvious which one.
But, there are many demons. Still, if it's common to refer to a certain demon, or if it's apparent from the context, "the demon" could be fine, even if "demon" is very generic. If I tell my friends "You can't believe what the idiot did this time.", they know what I'm talking about, even though there are lots of idiots out there.
with Her
Is "her" the correct pronoun? A lot of art depicts Lucifer as pretty masculine, so perhaps "he"? Though, I'd probably use the neutral "they".
I'm not sure if this is from the official canon, but one religion teacher taught that angels were genderless, and the "weird" one taught that they were both male and female, possessing the parts from both sexes at the same time.
Angels have been depicted in many ways, but I think that I like the weird teacher's futanari version the most.
IIRC angels as genderless comes from the scholastics and St. Thomas Aquinas. They tried to reason out (guess, basically) a bunch of things about angels, and came up with them being detached, bodyless consciousnesses that exist at or around a point.
Hebrew, Greek and Latin all have grammatical gender, which must complicate any readings from the bible on the matter. Angels are described as either indistinguishable from humans or completely monstrous - in the case of the ophanim, more abstract or machine-like than animal, even. The fluffy winged person idea came after, and almost certainly was borrowed from Germanic and/or Persian paganism.
I wouldn't be surprised if the weird teacher wasn't totally alone in that cracked interpretation, but only because medieval monks can be weird, as well.
my understanding of the lore may contain a bit of non-canon fanfiction
The catholic canon is but the biggest canon, and all of it is fanfiction. In fact, religious people are the most hardcore fans of them all!
If anything, your interpretation is likely less off-the-rails than theirs.
Yeah, that guy is definitely tripping.
You like chicks with dicks. Cool. Me too! Balls or no balls, though? Personally I prefer futa without the balls. Anyways.... Back to your question.
The Bible doesn't actually introduce a character named “Lucifer” as the Devil. The name comes from the Latin translation of the Hebrew "hêlēl ben šāḥar", roughly “shining one, son of dawn.” Lucifer in Latin. The identification of this figure with Satan/Devils developed much later in Christian interpretation.
Is her not the correct pronoun? It's a fictional, mythical creature. Like a futa! If I want to draw a sexy feminine Lucifer, than yes. That's her pronoun. Maybe she even has a dick. :)
Note: I am a scholar and I'm not religious.
Sort of. Whether they’re distinct or synonymous varies by religion.
The Batman
And eth Joker!
Meth joker or colloquially Jared letos joker.
In Portuguese you put the equivalent of 'the" in front of people's names. (A Michelle or O Robert)
In some Catalan dialects you use a special determinate article just for people (en Robert, na Michelle), one for "common" things there could be many of (sa house, es car) and a third for things there's only one of (el Pope, la Reina).
Languages are fun!
Balearic Catalan has them all.
Not when you are a monolingual American living in Portugal trying to learn Portuguese. Lol
Portuguese is pretty tough. I just completed my B2 level class and I still can barely understand more than 40% of what Portuguese people say to me, and that's coming from a background of also having taken other languages in American high school. I have since determined that what we learned probably wasn't very functional, and much was probably just wrong, but we only had to pass tests, not actually understand a native speaker.
Technically, "the Holy Spirit" isn't a proper noun. That's because it contains an adjective also. Personally, I wouldn't capitalize any of those terms. The head of the Catholic church only really when talking about it as a title in front of the assumed name, Pope Leo. Somebody's style guide may have them capitalize all nouns with religious notoriety. That's a style choice then rather than grammatical necessity.
Also, grammar is the attempt at formulating rules about how people talk. Meaning the talking came first and then somebody tried to codify it. That means there is virtually no grammar rule that doesn't come with at least one exception. Learning when to use an article or not, when it should be the indefinite or the definite one, is killing students who come from languages that don't use articles at all. And in some cases also those who speak other article-infested languages. That's because it doesn't make any sense and you had to grow up being corrected by other speakers to get this mostly right. It is convention more than clean cut rules.
Technically, "the Holy Spirit" isn't a proper noun.
That's the spirit.