The Grammar Discussion

[Fwib]

1178053346[/unixtime]]NineInchNall: I tend to be linguistically reactionary as well, but in this case the issue is clear - lots of people probably do have implicit expectations of maleness upon seeing "he", exactly as you do when seeing "she"; that alone is the cause of my support to "they". But that's only because nobody made an attempt to establish "it" - we already acknowledged (or not, according to Crissa ) that both sexes are equal; now we should go and remember our place is in kingdom Animalia as well.

Catharz: leet tends to take way longer to convey information to me, so I'll give myself the luxury of calling that a non-example ...

Ever read Feersum Endjinn?

[NineInchNall]

Wow, bitnine, despite the mood icons, for a moment I didn't catch the sarcasm.

The last time a new pronoun entered the English language was a long ass time ago, but it may be a good time to break that drought. Things would be so much simpler with a pronoun applicable for all references to indefinite objects and only for references to indefinite objects.

*sigh*

In Japanese, they hardly ever use gender specific terminology. It's occasionally confusing, but since the syntax is set up such that gender (and in fact number) has no effect on inflection, declension, or conjugation, it works pretty well. Until the subject is identified, there's literally no way to determine the subject's gender.

[Crissa]

1178047677[/unixtime]]That's absurd. The neutral 'he' is at least as etablished in english as 'they.' For people who[...]

...It's only absurd if you're willing to be sexist. The male indeterminant also followed the male dominated society - if we're to not have a sexist society, then there needs to be choices made to step away from it.

While it may be difficult for you to understand (being male, and getting preferential treatment under this system), I can accept that some men were not sexist when they used an indeterminate masculine.

But this is today, when you have been brought the information that there are misogynist, sexist people exist and use this language to be sexist. You have the choice to put the language behind you.

Your choice to sound sexist.

O-o

-Crissa

[RandomCasualty]

1178061446[/unixtime]]

1178047677[/unixtime]]That's absurd. The neutral 'he' is at least as etablished in english as 'they.' For people who[...]

...It's only absurd if you're willing to be sexist. The male indeterminant also followed the male dominated society - if we're to not have a sexist society, then there needs to be choices made to step away from it.

99%+ of people who use 'he' instead of 'they' are not being sexist, they're just doing things the way they were taught, as NineInchNail said he was. They feel it's the right way to do things and it's their choice.

If you choose to interpret every little thing as a sexist attack, then you really need to get a bit more tolerant. The 'he versus they' debate is just silly. There are more important things to worry about than nitpick based feminism.

Your choice to sound sexist.

No, it's your choice to interpret it as sexist.

You could see things as they are, and simply realize it's how he was taught to use english and that he isn't doing it just to offend you, or you can get all paranoid and see sexists where they don't exist.

[NineInchNall]

I made that argument in my first linguistics course. It didn't go over well, and I was pounded down for being

• sexist,
• insensitive,
• callous,
• irrational,
• inflexible,
• Republican,
• misogynistic,
• stupid.

Off the top of my head. That was certainly an enlightening experience.

[Crissa]

Maybe 99% of people pointing guns at other people don't intend to shoot them.

Does that mean we should treat those pointing guns at people as if they didn't intend to shoot them?

Look, it's your choice to choose what words you want to use. If they make you look sexist or stupid - it was your choice.

-Crissa

[bitnine]

1178061726[/unixtime]]You could see things as they are, and simply realize it's how he was taught to use english and that he isn't doing it just to offend you, or you can get all paranoid and see sexists where they don't exist.

No, these sorts of things are utterly serious. Didn't you hear about the campaign to change translations of the Bible so that references of God's "right hand" were to be instead God's "mighty hand"?

I, for one, have had enough of these handist bastards. These sick people enjoy the persecution of those with handed differences and our right-hand dominated society. They go around using antiquated terms like "sinister" and pushing for such degrading language in the very bible! Backwards, close-minded hateful bastards like them make me feel ill. It's your choice - be a worthwhile human being and never use handed language again!

For serious, though, in a line that shows a marginal tangent, some newspapers publish lists of wanted criminals and their descriptions. Those in the Chicago region and probably elsewhere do not, however, include race in the description of the criminals. The newspapers do not want to be viewed as racist, given the particular demographics of violent offenders. This sort of thing's been going on since my father grew up around there.

I find the idea that this has very likely cost real human lives either very sad or circumspectly hilarious. Not sure which. Just remember, people: the appearance of enlightenment is worth human blood.

[RandomCasualty]

1178066216[/unixtime]] If they make you look sexist or stupid - it was your choice.

And it's your choice how to interpret what others say. I could go around saying that your words make you look racist against Asians. There wouldn't be any actual fact or backing behind it, but I could go and make that interpretation.

People can interpret stuff however they want, and you can't be held accountable for false interpretations made of stuff you say. Nor should you be forced to change what you say simply because some people might misinterpret what you're saying out of paranoia.

This is the day an age where people cry racism or sexism at the slightest little trivial things and that offends me. Much like the boy who cried wolf, it often results in legitimate claims being ignored. I mean there are actual people being discriminated against who have real complaints. When someone takes offense to stupid crap, they trivialize the plight of those people and make it harder for people who are legitimate victims of discrimination to be heard.

[Catharz]

1178061446[/unixtime]]
Your choice to sound sexist.

So, I talked to my woman, and I came to the conclusion that at least two people do in fact percieve the use of "he" as a neutral pronoun sexist ("I'd think my criminal justice textbook was very sexist if every hypothetical criminal was refered to as 'he'").

So if I don't want to be sexist, and I want to use something explicitly singular, I guess I'm stuck with either 'it, she, h/she, he, s/he, or other gendered person not necessarily in that order,' 'a person,' or 'it.'*



After all, using 'she' would be sexist because it isn't neutral, and switching between 'he' and 'she' would be sexist because neither is a neutral and you're therefore implicitly excluding intersexed persons and nullos.


*-I say 'it' because I haven't figured out a context in which it would be considered sexist, but it certainly is confusing due to its common use as a dummy subject.-

[NineInchNall]

1178071069[/unixtime]]

1178061446[/unixtime]]
Your choice to sound sexist.

... and switching between 'he' and 'she' would be sexist because neither is a neutral and you're therefore implicitly excluding intersexed persons and nullos.

Heh. That's the type of thing one of my best D&D buds is known for saying.

*-I say 'it' because I haven't figured out a context in which it would be considered sexist, but it certainly is confusing due to its common use as a dummy subject.-

Isn't it sexist in that it is excluding those who actually have a gender? Unless I miss my guess, it would be the pronoun for, your term, "nullos."


Now you gotta love this.

Main Entry: they
Pronunciation: '[th]A
Function: pronoun, plural in construction
Etymology: Middle English, from Old Norse their, masculine plural demonstrative & personal pronoun; akin to Old English thæt that
1 a : those ones -- used as third person pronoun serving as the plural of he, she, or it or referring to a group of two or more individuals not all of the same sex <they dance well> b : HE -- often used with an indefinite third person singular antecedent <everyone knew where they stood -- E. L. Doctorow> <nobody has to go to school if they don't want to -- N. Y. Times>

Ya see? They is sexist, too! :tonguesmile: But then, if you're going to go by the "use is meaning, meaning is use" line of reasoning, which is pretty much a foregone conclusion, then the fact that they has masculine roots and refers back to the singular, masculine pronoun does not imply sexism. Likewise, the fact that he serves a dual purpose should not be seen as sexist, as the meaning of that use is not.

[User3]

1178061726[/unixtime]]

99%+ of people who use 'he' instead of 'they' are not being sexist, they're just doing things the way they were taught, as NineInchNail said he was. They feel it's the right way to do things and it's their choice.

(snip)

You could see things as they are, and simply realize it's how he was taught to use english and that he isn't doing it just to offend you, or you can get all paranoid and see sexists where they don't exist.

"I just didn't know any better" is indeed an excellent excuse. At least, until someone tells you otherwise. Then you know better.

[User3]

1178072938[/unixtime
Ya see? They is sexist, too! :tonguesmile: But then, if you're going to go by the "use is meaning, meaning is use" line of reasoning, which is pretty much a foregone conclusion, then the fact that they has masculine roots and refers back to the singular, masculine pronoun does not imply sexism. Likewise, the fact that he serves a dual purpose should not be seen as sexist, as the meaning of that use is not.

That would be a good argument, if "he" were actually unsexist in use. The fact is, it isn't, at least not always.

I'll set aside, for now, more complex arguments I might make about how the pronoun "he" tends, for most people, to conjure images of men, because many people's idea of a generic person IS a male person

For simplicity's sake, consider this:

"They" is not used in a specifically masculine way anymore. Not ever.

"He" is sometimes used in a specifically masculine way by current speakers.

Why on earth would you *want* your male pronoun and your neutral pronoun to be the same? That's needless confusion that could be avoided by using singular "they."

PS

I am playing devil's advocate here, as I do not, myself, use singular "they" except very rarely. I usually prefer not to rewrite the sentence with plurals or avoid using pronouns.

[NineInchNall]

By the same token, why would you want your third person plural pronoun and your third person singular indefinite pronoun to be one and the same? The objection is the same, except that they has the added mechanical incongruity of requiring a number change midsentence. That's really why I prefer using he: it doesn't cause that abrupt shift.

That said, if there were a new pronoun introduced into the language that didn't sound bloody silly, then I'd jump on the bandwagon to use it.

In my own writing, I'm rather careful to make it clear that my use of indefinite he is in fact indefinite. For example, when writing to Kolja about the Swiftblade, I described an ability using he, and my illustrative character was female.

[Crissa]

1178080772[/unixtime]]In my own writing, I'm rather careful to make it clear that my use of indefinite he is in fact indefinite. For example, when writing to Kolja about the Swiftblade, I described an ability using he, and my illustrative character was female.

Wow, sexist and violating writing standards.

You radical, you.

-Crissa

[Weir]

PS

I am playing devil's advocate here, as I do not, myself, use singular "they" except very rarely. I usually prefer not to rewrite the sentence with plurals or avoid using pronouns.

Oh, absolutely, because we all know the devil uses sexist pronouns.

They need to get their souls over here, damnit!

*gasp*

On another note (the same subject), my English professor (who was a native German speaker and not a native English speaker) made me read some article about how women will get equal rights if we stop using the expression "you guys" in everyday speech. If only feminists put their effort into something like, you know, getting equal pay for women for jobs and stuff. Or a female president. Or more male hookers. Or laser eyes. Or something similar. Honestly, if someone called me "she" for a while, I don't think I would mind. If you don't believe me, just ask Cielingcat.

You guys get over here! I want to drink your life force before Married With Children comes on!

[Catharz]

1178084086[/unixtime]] If only feminists put their effort into something like, you know, getting equal pay for women for jobs and stuff.

Not all of us are Cultural Studies people.

[Draco_Argentum]

How about I start interpreting all the references to receiving anal sex being bad as homophobic?

[the_taken]

Now this thread is making me laugh. And cry.

[CalibronXXX]

1178091301[/unixtime]]Now this thread is making me laugh. And cry.

QFT

[Cielingcat]

1178091301[/unixtime]]Now this thread is making me laugh. And cry.

Irony is a bitch.

[MrWaeseL]

Can we split off the language discussion from this otherwise gem-encrusted thread?

[bitnine]

1178107431[/unixtime]]Can we split off the language discussion from this otherwise gem-encrusted thread?

Second to that. Besides, like most attractive people, I am fairly disinterested in discussions of sexism.

Towards that end I invite you to just try to wrap your head around this line of thought. You see, part of the reason that spellcrafters are balanced is that when they take the time to craft the other party members go out and fight 4 encounters/day and make sure they reach level 20 by age 17. That's right, this person is citing the farming of green mobs and epic level teenagers as part of the class balance dynamic and why things work as is.

[PhoneLobster]

Can someone scrape the crust of the fricking gems while they're at it.

[User3]

1178080772[/unixtime]]By the same token, why would you want your third person plural pronoun and your third person singular indefinite pronoun to be one and the same? The objection is the same, except that they has the added mechanical incongruity of requiring a number change midsentence. That's really why I prefer using he: it doesn't cause that abrupt shift.

The number change is a bit of a problem, yes. It might be better to treat singular they as an actual singular and use singular verbs. I'm not sure.

To be honest, though, I don't really have a problem with singular and plural being the same word. Japanese is one of my favorite languages, and in the years that I've spoken it, I cna't say I ever missed having number.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

Man, I can't beleive I missed this thread, this is the best thread I've ever seen here! And I didn't have to do anything to piss anyone off this time!

But to make everyone mad, I'd like to point out that everyone in this forum except for me is a homosexual. Except for the people who are openly homosexual on this board. They're actually heterosexual.