Discussion:
Shout-out to James on Bloomberg.com today
(too old to reply)
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
2014-10-31 12:54:33 UTC
Permalink
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-10-30/they-say-you-should-break-this-grammar-rule

( http://tinyurl.com/p56lpau )

Though I am still unalterably opposed to singular "they".
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
Don Kuenz
2014-10-31 14:09:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-10-30/they-say-you-should-break-this-grammar-rule
( http://tinyurl.com/p56lpau )
Though I am still unalterably opposed to singular "they".
Singular "they" works great for me. It's a "no brainer." It gets the job
done without needless phrase propriety pain. It appeals to my sense of
engineering expediency. Bloomberg promoted this:

The problem with defending the purity of the English language is
that the English language is as pure as a crib-house whore. It
not only borrows words from other languages; it has on occasion
chased other languages down dark alley-ways, clubbed them
unconscious and rifled their pockets for new vocabulary.
James Nicoll (b. 1961), "The King's English", rec.arts.sf-lovers,
15 May 1990

I'm of two minds in regards to Bloomberg's promotion. James' colorful
description is excellent. It's also great for him to get noticed by
mainstream media.

And as for my feelings about Bloomberg...

"Never miss a good chance to shut up." - Will Rogers

--
Don Kuenz
James Nicoll
2014-10-31 15:51:37 UTC
Permalink
Thank you!
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My Livejournal at http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
http://www.cafepress.com/jdnicoll (For all your "The problem with
defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)
Brian M. Scott
2014-10-31 18:55:34 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 14:09:59 +0000 (UTC), Don Kuenz
<***@crcomp.net> wrote in
<news:m3056i$fn0$***@dont-email.me> in rec.arts.sf.written:

[...]
Post by Don Kuenz
Singular "they" works great for me. It's a "no brainer."
Indeed: it signals a lack of brains.

Yes, I’m aware of its long and illustrious history and other
arguments for using, and no, I don’t actually condemn its
use -- by others. The fact remains, however, that that *is*
my gut reaction to it and at this point probably always will
be.

[...]

Brian
--
It was the neap tide, when the baga venture out of their
holes to root for sandtatties. The waves whispered
rhythmically over the packed sand: haggisss, haggisss,
haggisss.
Kurt Busiek
2014-10-31 19:41:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian M. Scott
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 14:09:59 +0000 (UTC), Don Kuenz
[...]
Post by Don Kuenz
Singular "they" works great for me. It's a "no brainer."
Indeed: it signals a lack of brains.
Yes, I’m aware of its long and illustrious history and other
arguments for using, and no, I don’t actually condemn its
use -- by others. The fact remains, however, that that *is*
my gut reaction to it and at this point probably always will
be.
[...]
I've had a lot of discussions about it with my teenage daughter, and
figured out my particular sticking point.

Using "they" as a singular pronoun for an unknown someone, male or
female, works fine for me. It's simpler and cleaner than using "he or
she" all the time, and fairer than using "he" as a default.

My daughter, however, knows a fair number of trans or genderfluid
people, and for some, she uses "they" as a singular pronoun for a
_known_ someone, who simply prefers not to use a gendered pronoun.

I find I can't do that -- I'm fine with "And then the driver buckles
their seatbelt" if the driver is an unknown generic. But I can't bring
myself to say "And then Sam buckles their seatbelt"...if I know the
person, "they" sounds utterly wrong to me, like I've just switched from
singular to plural, and every English teacher I ever had is dancing the
stompanato on my skull.

And there are various made-up ungendered pronouncs, too, but they sound
artificial and wrong in my mouth. To the next generation, I'm a
dinosaur, however well-meaning.

But at the same time, I don't want to give offense with my saurian
backwardness.

So I just avoid the pronoun. "And then Sam needs to buckle up..."

kdb
--
Visit http://www.busiek.com -- for all your Busiek needs!
Brian M. Scott
2014-10-31 19:53:40 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 12:41:20 -0700, Kurt Busiek
On 2014-10-31 18:55:34 +0000, "Brian M. Scott"
Post by Brian M. Scott
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 14:09:59 +0000 (UTC), Don Kuenz
[...]
Post by Don Kuenz
Singular "they" works great for me. It's a "no brainer."
Indeed: it signals a lack of brains.
Yes, I’m aware of its long and illustrious history and other
arguments for using, and no, I don’t actually condemn its
use -- by others. The fact remains, however, that that *is*
my gut reaction to it and at this point probably always will
be.
I've had a lot of discussions about it with my teenage daughter, and
figured out my particular sticking point.
Using "they" as a singular pronoun for an unknown someone, male or
female, works fine for me. It's simpler and cleaner than using "he or
she" all the time, and fairer than using "he" as a default.
I can’t use it. I am usually not believed when I say that
‘he’ actually is gender-neutral for me, or very close to it,
in such contexts, but it’s true. However, I prefer to find
ways to avoid the issue; failing to do so on the fly, I’ll
usually fall back on ‘he or she’.
My daughter, however, knows a fair number of trans or
genderfluid people, and for some, she uses "they" as a
singular pronoun for a _known_ someone, who simply
prefers not to use a gendered pronoun.
I’m not aware of having known any genderfluid people, so I
don’t know what I’d do -- probably ask for a preference. I
have (knowingly) known a few trans people, and with them
I’ve simply used the appropriate gendered pronoun. (Except
once, when I was burned by old habit, having known the
person some years earlier when she was a young man.)

[...]
And there are various made-up ungendered pronouncs, too,
but they sound artificial and wrong in my mouth. To the
next generation, I'm a dinosaur, however well-meaning.
But at the same time, I don't want to give offense with my
saurian backwardness.
So I just avoid the pronoun. "And then Sam needs to buckle
up..."
Yep, that’s pretty much my situation as well.

Brian
--
It was the neap tide, when the baga venture out of their
holes to root for sandtatties. The waves whispered
rhythmically over the packed sand: haggisss, haggisss,
haggisss.
Greg Goss
2014-10-31 21:15:45 UTC
Permalink
I can’t use it. I am usually not believed when I say that
‘he’ actually is gender-neutral for me, or very close to it,
in such contexts, but it’s true. However, I prefer to find
ways to avoid the issue; failing to do so on the fly, I’ll
usually fall back on ‘he or she’.
I'm a transitional case. "Their" works for me, but "they" doesn't.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
David Goldfarb
2014-11-01 00:33:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian M. Scott
I am usually not believed when I say that
‘he’ actually is gender-neutral for me, or very close to it,
in such contexts, but it’s true.
I'm sure you believe it to be true.

Have you read _Ancillary Justice_? Were you able to get into a
mindset, by the end of the book, in which "she" was gender-neutral?
--
David Goldfarb |"You know, squids are really an underutilized
***@gmail.com | villain origin in many comic books today."
***@ocf.berkeley.edu | -- David R. Henry
Brian M. Scott
2014-11-01 04:15:53 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 1 Nov 2014 00:33:41 GMT, David Goldfarb
Post by David Goldfarb
I am usually not believed when I say that ‘he’ actually
is gender-neutral for me, or very close to it, in such
contexts, but it’s true.
I'm sure you believe it to be true.
Indeed. Do you realize how smugly superior that comment
sounds?
Post by David Goldfarb
Have you read _Ancillary Justice_? Were you able to get
into a mindset, by the end of the book, in which "she"
was gender-neutral?
For the most part; it would have been easier had it been the
only convention in use in that setting, and it may take me a
little while to get back into it when I get to _Ancillary
Sword_ one of these days soon.

And by now I’m completely accustomed to the Manticoran
convention in which the gender-neutral pronoun is the one
that matches the speaker’s gender.

Brian
--
It was the neap tide, when the baga venture out of their
holes to root for sandtatties. The waves whispered
rhythmically over the packed sand: haggisss, haggisss,
haggisss.
Greg Goss
2014-11-01 08:30:33 UTC
Permalink
And by now I’m completely accustomed to the Manticoran
convention in which the gender-neutral pronoun is the one
that matches the speaker’s gender.
It still bugs me. Especially in a couple of cases where the speaker
is switching back and forth between the current specific person (known
to be male) and the generic case (spoken as matching the female
speaker/thinker).
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
David DeLaney
2014-11-01 12:10:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian M. Scott
On Sat, 1 Nov 2014 00:33:41 GMT, David Goldfarb
Post by David Goldfarb
I am usually not believed when I say that ???he??? actually
is gender-neutral for me, or very close to it, in such
contexts, but it???s true.
I'm sure you believe it to be true.
Indeed. Do you realize how smugly superior that comment sounds?
...I'm sure you don't realize that you made just such a smugly superior comment
_first_. "Oh, _I_ don't have gender bias, no, not at all! No, I'm pure and
innocent, so I am allowed to use 'he' for persons of unknown gender because
my linguistic ability and intent shine through!"

Sheesh.
Post by Brian M. Scott
And by now I???m completely accustomed to the Manticoran
convention in which the gender-neutral pronoun is the one
that matches the speaker???s gender.
This at least doesn't let down half the sky - but you've specifically noted
it's NOT the convention you're using...

Dave, remove the [REDACTED] from thine own
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Brian M. Scott
2014-11-01 20:29:38 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 01 Nov 2014 07:10:14 -0500, David DeLaney
Post by David DeLaney
Post by Brian M. Scott
On Sat, 1 Nov 2014 00:33:41 GMT, David Goldfarb
Post by David Goldfarb
I am usually not believed when I say that 'he' actually
is gender-neutral for me, or very close to it, in such
contexts, but it's true.
I'm sure you believe it to be true.
Indeed. Do you realize how smugly superior that comment
sounds?
...I'm sure you don't realize that you made just such a
smugly superior comment _first_. "Oh, _I_ don't have
gender bias, no, not at all! No, I'm pure and innocent,
so I am allowed to use 'he' for persons of unknown gender
because my linguistic ability and intent shine through!"
That is a truly bizarre reading of what I actually said. I
clearly indicated that I *don’t* use ‘he’ for persons of
unknown gender, and I gave no indication that I think -- as
indeed I don’t -- that the facts of my particular idiolect
ought to entitle me to offend in such a way. Nor do I see
that my original statement makes any claim to linguistic
ability or knowledge; to a certain degree of introspection
about my own use of language, yes, but not to linguistic
ability. I do, however, react badly to relative strangers
who presume to suggest that they know better than I what
goes on in my head.

By the way, I do have a mild gender bias in at least one
respect: I tend to prefer the company of women.

[...]

Brian
--
It was the neap tide, when the baga venture out of their
holes to root for sandtatties. The waves whispered
rhythmically over the packed sand: haggisss, haggisss,
haggisss.
David DeLaney
2014-11-04 04:08:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian M. Scott
Post by David DeLaney
Post by Brian M. Scott
On Sat, 1 Nov 2014 00:33:41 GMT, David Goldfarb
Post by David Goldfarb
I am usually not believed when I say that 'he' actually
is gender-neutral for me, or very close to it, in such
contexts, but it's true.
I'm sure you believe it to be true.
Indeed. Do you realize how smugly superior that comment
sounds?
...I'm sure you don't realize that you made just such a
smugly superior comment _first_. "Oh, _I_ don't have
gender bias, no, not at all! No, I'm pure and innocent,
so I am allowed to use 'he' for persons of unknown gender
because my linguistic ability and intent shine through!"
That is a truly bizarre reading of what I actually said. I
clearly indicated that I *don???t* use ???he??? for persons of
unknown gender, and I gave no indication that I think -- as
indeed I don???t -- that the facts of my particular idiolect
ought to entitle me to offend in such a way.
Alas, what you said is STILL UP THERE. "'he' actually is gender-neutral for
me, or very close to it". That's nice... but incredibly arrogant in that
you're assuming everyone ELSE knows that too, agrees, and follows. In general,
"he" is NOT gender-neutral, and you don't get to just declare that it is for
you and, after that, use it as such assuming everyone else is in on the secret.

Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Kurt Busiek
2014-11-04 04:22:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by David DeLaney
Post by Brian M. Scott
Post by David DeLaney
Post by Brian M. Scott
On Sat, 1 Nov 2014 00:33:41 GMT, David Goldfarb
Post by David Goldfarb
I am usually not believed when I say that 'he' actually
is gender-neutral for me, or very close to it, in such
contexts, but it's true.
I'm sure you believe it to be true.
Indeed. Do you realize how smugly superior that comment
sounds?
...I'm sure you don't realize that you made just such a
smugly superior comment _first_. "Oh, _I_ don't have
gender bias, no, not at all! No, I'm pure and innocent,
so I am allowed to use 'he' for persons of unknown gender
because my linguistic ability and intent shine through!"
That is a truly bizarre reading of what I actually said. I
clearly indicated that I *don???t* use ???he??? for persons of
unknown gender, and I gave no indication that I think -- as
indeed I don???t -- that the facts of my particular idiolect
ought to entitle me to offend in such a way.
Alas, what you said is STILL UP THERE. "'he' actually is gender-neutral for
me, or very close to it". That's nice... but incredibly arrogant in that
you're assuming everyone ELSE knows that too, agrees, and follows. In general,
"he" is NOT gender-neutral, and you don't get to just declare that it is for
you and, after that, use it as such assuming everyone else is in on the secret.
He didn't say he uses it that way. You cut what he said immediately
afterward, which was:

"However, I prefer to find ways to avoid
the issue; failing to do so on the fly, I’ll
usually fall back on ‘he or she’."

Presumably, what he means is he reads it that way, and would be
comfortable using it that way in writing and speech if he weren't aware
that it was an issue for others. So he doesn't actually use it that
way, as he notes.

kdb
--
Visit http://www.busiek.com -- for all your Busiek needs!
Greg Goss
2014-11-04 04:40:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kurt Busiek
"However, I prefer to find ways to avoid
the issue; failing to do so on the fly, I’ll
usually fall back on ‘he or she’."
I generally use "s/he/it" for the humour of the pronunciation.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
Brian M. Scott
2014-11-04 05:02:17 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 3 Nov 2014 20:22:36 -0800, Kurt Busiek
On 2014-11-04 04:08:01 +0000, David DeLaney
Post by David DeLaney
Post by Brian M. Scott
Post by David DeLaney
Post by Brian M. Scott
On Sat, 1 Nov 2014 00:33:41 GMT, David Goldfarb
Post by David Goldfarb
I am usually not believed when I say that 'he' actually
is gender-neutral for me, or very close to it, in such
contexts, but it's true.
I'm sure you believe it to be true.
Indeed. Do you realize how smugly superior that comment
sounds?
...I'm sure you don't realize that you made just such a
smugly superior comment _first_. "Oh, _I_ don't have
gender bias, no, not at all! No, I'm pure and innocent,
so I am allowed to use 'he' for persons of unknown gender
because my linguistic ability and intent shine through!"
That is a truly bizarre reading of what I actually said. I
clearly indicated that I *don't* use 'he' for persons of
unknown gender, and I gave no indication that I think -- as
indeed I don't -- that the facts of my particular idiolect
ought to entitle me to offend in such a way.
Alas, what you said is STILL UP THERE. "'he' actually is
gender-neutral for me, or very close to it". That's
nice... but incredibly arrogant in that you're assuming
everyone ELSE knows that too, agrees, and follows.
I am not. You're ignoring a large part of what I actually
said -- the part in which I explicitly noted that I have
accommodated my usage to the fact that, as you say,
Post by David DeLaney
In general, "he" is NOT gender-neutral, and
This is precisely because I agree that
Post by David DeLaney
you don't get to just declare that it is for you and,
after that, use it as such assuming everyone else is in
on the secret.
He didn't say he uses it that way. You cut what he said
"However, I prefer to find ways to avoid
the issue; failing to do so on the fly, I’ll
usually fall back on ‘he or she’."
Presumably, what he means is he reads it that way, and
would be comfortable using it that way in writing and
speech if he weren't aware that it was an issue for
others. So he doesn't actually use it that way, as he
notes.
Yes, this is exactly what I meant. I did later acknowledge
in a response to Kay Shapero that once in a while I slip up
and lapse into my native ‘he’. (This is rare, however: when
I was 12 or so I started making a conscious effort to listen
to myself when I speak, and 54 years later the habit is
pretty well established.)

Brian
--
It was the neap tide, when the baga venture out of their
holes to root for sandtatties. The waves whispered
rhythmically over the packed sand: haggisss, haggisss,
haggisss.
Quadibloc
2014-11-15 05:25:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by David DeLaney
assuming everyone else is in on the secret.
This is where your logic breaks down. The historical convention in a given
language is hardly a "secret" from its native speakers.

Yes, you can argue that following traditional norms of grammatical correctness is
less important than avoiding giving reinforcement to cultural forces that inflict
inequality on women. But inaccurate claims don't help an argument.

John Savard
Gene Wirchenko
2014-11-12 06:06:50 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 1 Nov 2014 00:15:53 -0400, "Brian M. Scott"
<***@csuohio.edu> wrote:

[snip]
And by now I’m completely accustomed to the Manticoran
convention in which the gender-neutral pronoun is the one
that matches the speaker’s gender.
Yuck! I would not want that complication.

What if you can not tell the speaker's gender?

What about something written?

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko
Greg Goss
2014-11-12 16:32:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gene Wirchenko
On Sat, 1 Nov 2014 00:15:53 -0400, "Brian M. Scott"
[snip]
And by now I’m completely accustomed to the Manticoran
convention in which the gender-neutral pronoun is the one
that matches the speaker’s gender.
Yuck! I would not want that complication.
What if you can not tell the speaker's gender?
What about something written?
I had not recognized the rule when I was first reading the series.
Since most of the viewpoint characters are female, I picked up the
impression that he was using "he" or "she" randomly, but most often
"she".

Like most gender stuff in language, this would be easy and automatic
for a native using the language.

What if you cannot tell the speaker's gender? Well, the pronoun he
uses would give you a pretty strong hint. The speaker knows (unless
he's Bel Thorne) and it's the speaker who's creating the sentences.
Same with written stuff. The author knows his gender.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
Gene Wirchenko
2014-11-12 23:18:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Greg Goss
Post by Gene Wirchenko
On Sat, 1 Nov 2014 00:15:53 -0400, "Brian M. Scott"
[snip]
And by now I’m completely accustomed to the Manticoran
convention in which the gender-neutral pronoun is the one
that matches the speaker’s gender.
Yuck! I would not want that complication.
What if you can not tell the speaker's gender?
What about something written?
I had not recognized the rule when I was first reading the series.
Since most of the viewpoint characters are female, I picked up the
impression that he was using "he" or "she" randomly, but most often
"she".
Like most gender stuff in language, this would be easy and automatic
for a native using the language.
What if you cannot tell the speaker's gender? Well, the pronoun he
uses would give you a pretty strong hint. The speaker knows (unless
he's Bel Thorne) and it's the speaker who's creating the sentences.
Same with written stuff. The author knows his gender.
Yes, but if I do not know the author's gender, then I will not
know the subject's gender either. Barring clues, but why have to
guess?

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko
Greg Goss
2014-11-12 23:49:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gene Wirchenko
Post by Greg Goss
Post by Gene Wirchenko
On Sat, 1 Nov 2014 00:15:53 -0400, "Brian M. Scott"
[snip]
And by now I’m completely accustomed to the Manticoran
convention in which the gender-neutral pronoun is the one
that matches the speaker’s gender.
Yuck! I would not want that complication.
What if you can not tell the speaker's gender?
What about something written?
I had not recognized the rule when I was first reading the series.
Since most of the viewpoint characters are female, I picked up the
impression that he was using "he" or "she" randomly, but most often
"she".
Like most gender stuff in language, this would be easy and automatic
for a native using the language.
What if you cannot tell the speaker's gender? Well, the pronoun he
uses would give you a pretty strong hint. The speaker knows (unless
he's Bel Thorne) and it's the speaker who's creating the sentences.
Same with written stuff. The author knows his gender.
Yes, but if I do not know the author's gender, then I will not
know the subject's gender either. Barring clues, but why have to
guess?
You don't have to guess. It's right there in the text. "He" or
"She". Only the speaker has to determine the gender of the speaker.

I'm not understanding your objection.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
Gene Wirchenko
2014-11-13 21:01:01 UTC
Permalink
[snip]
Post by Greg Goss
Post by Gene Wirchenko
Yes, but if I do not know the author's gender, then I will not
know the subject's gender either. Barring clues, but why have to
guess?
You don't have to guess. It's right there in the text. "He" or
"She". Only the speaker has to determine the gender of the speaker.
I'm not understanding your objection.
If "Chris" uses a pronoun and I do not know the sex of Chris, I
do not know whether the pronoun used was gendered or gender-neutral.
Consequently, determining the sex of the person referred to is
difficult.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko
Greg Goss
2014-11-13 21:47:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gene Wirchenko
[snip]
Post by Greg Goss
Post by Gene Wirchenko
Yes, but if I do not know the author's gender, then I will not
know the subject's gender either. Barring clues, but why have to
guess?
You don't have to guess. It's right there in the text. "He" or
"She". Only the speaker has to determine the gender of the speaker.
I'm not understanding your objection.
If "Chris" uses a pronoun and I do not know the sex of Chris, I
do not know whether the pronoun used was gendered or gender-neutral.
Consequently, determining the sex of the person referred to is
difficult.
It's like "he" that way. If it mattered, you would know. If it
didn't matter, it didn't matter.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
2014-11-13 23:47:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gene Wirchenko
[snip]
Post by Greg Goss
Post by Gene Wirchenko
Yes, but if I do not know the author's gender, then I will not
know the subject's gender either. Barring clues, but why have to
guess?
You don't have to guess. It's right there in the text. "He" or
"She". Only the speaker has to determine the gender of the speaker.
I'm not understanding your objection.
If "Chris" uses a pronoun and I do not know the sex of Chris, I
do not know whether the pronoun used was gendered or gender-neutral.
Consequently, determining the sex of the person referred to is
difficult.
I think you're not getting the idea. If I understand correctly, it
means that THE PERSON SPEAKING uses THEIR gender for the neutral. I.e.,
I, being male, would say "he" when referring to an unknown person, while
my wife, being female, would use "she" when referring to an unknown.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Brian M. Scott
2014-11-14 00:03:19 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 18:47:32 -0500, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E.
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
On Wed, 12 Nov 2014 16:49:52 -0700, Greg Goss
[snip]
Post by Greg Goss
Post by Gene Wirchenko
Yes, but if I do not know the author's gender, then I
will not know the subject's gender either. Barring
clues, but why have to guess?
You don't have to guess. It's right there in the text. "He" or
"She". Only the speaker has to determine the gender of the speaker.
I'm not understanding your objection.
If "Chris" uses a pronoun and I do not know the sex of
Chris, I do not know whether the pronoun used was
gendered or gender-neutral. Consequently, determining
the sex of the person referred to is difficult.
I think you're not getting the idea. If I understand
correctly, it means that THE PERSON SPEAKING uses THEIR
gender for the neutral. I.e., I, being male, would say
"he" when referring to an unknown person, while my wife,
being female, would use "she" when referring to an
unknown.
You understand correctly.

Brian
--
It was the neap tide, when the baga venture out of their
holes to root for sandtatties. The waves whispered
rhythmically over the packed sand: haggisss, haggisss,
haggisss.
David Goldfarb
2014-11-14 04:13:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
I think you're not getting the idea. If I understand correctly, it
means that THE PERSON SPEAKING uses THEIR gender for the neutral.
From what you've said upthread, Wasp, I'd have expected you to write "HIS".
--
David Goldfarb |"'The truth will set you free.'
***@gmail.com | If you love the truth, you'll inevitably
***@ocf.berkeley.edu | come back!" -- Hitherby Dragons
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
2014-11-14 12:54:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Goldfarb
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
I think you're not getting the idea. If I understand correctly, it
means that THE PERSON SPEAKING uses THEIR gender for the neutral.
From what you've said upthread, Wasp, I'd have expected you to write "HIS".
?Why? I use "their" often as a neutral pronoun. I'm not one of the ones
against it.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Gene Wirchenko
2014-11-15 04:14:52 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 18:47:32 -0500, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
<***@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:

[snip]
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
I think you're not getting the idea. If I understand correctly, it
means that THE PERSON SPEAKING uses THEIR gender for the neutral. I.e.,
I, being male, would say "he" when referring to an unknown person, while
my wife, being female, would use "she" when referring to an unknown.
I do get the idea. Really.

If I do not know the gender of the speaker, then I do not know if
the speaker is using gender-neutral or not.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko
Walter Bushell
2014-11-14 13:39:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gene Wirchenko
On Sat, 1 Nov 2014 00:15:53 -0400, "Brian M. Scott"
[snip]
And by now I‚m completely accustomed to the Manticoran
convention in which the gender-neutral pronoun is the one
that matches the speaker‚s gender.
Yuck! I would not want that complication.
What if you can not tell the speaker's gender?
What about something written?
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
And in Harry Turtle Dove's Videos series their main rivals religion
has it's people refer to God with the same gender. Eunuchs refer to
God as it.
--
Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greed. Me.
Gene Wirchenko
2014-11-15 04:17:18 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 08:39:54 -0500, Walter Bushell <***@panix.com>
wrote:

[snip]
Post by Walter Bushell
And in Harry Turtle Dove's Videos series their main rivals religion
has it's people refer to God with the same gender. Eunuchs refer to
God as it.
You have obviously been reading too much sf and need more
fantasy. It is "Videssos".

And it's "its".

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko
Robert Carnegie
2014-11-15 17:33:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gene Wirchenko
[snip]
Post by Walter Bushell
And in Harry Turtle Dove's Videos series their main rivals religion
has it's people refer to God with the same gender. Eunuchs refer to
God as it.
You have obviously been reading too much sf and need more
fantasy. It is "Videssos".
And it's "its".
That is to say, "it's" is "its" - or ought to be -
not that God is "its".

I wonder if there are three reasons here not to use
speech recognition software to dictate into rasfw,
which I've sometimes considered doing - because
I'm also quite confident that it's Turtledove as
one word. And if this is the case, I'm surprised
that "Eunuchs" survived intact.
Greg Goss
2014-11-16 04:38:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Carnegie
I wonder if there are three reasons here not to use
speech recognition software to dictate into rasfw,
which I've sometimes considered doing - ...
And if this is the case, I'm surprised
that "Eunuchs" survived intact.
I'm told that the inventor of the OS once told someone that "Unix" is
"Multics" without the bits that get hard.

Which could be read either with a straight face or tongue in cheek.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
Walter Bushell
2014-11-16 13:46:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Gene Wirchenko
[snip]
Post by Walter Bushell
And in Harry Turtle Dove's Videos series their main rivals religion
has it's people refer to God with the same gender. Eunuchs refer to
God as it.
You have obviously been reading too much sf and need more
fantasy. It is "Videssos".
And it's "its".
That is to say, "it's" is "its" - or ought to be -
not that God is "its".
I wonder if there are three reasons here not to use
speech recognition software to dictate into rasfw,
which I've sometimes considered doing - because
I'm also quite confident that it's Turtledove as
one word. And if this is the case, I'm surprised
that "Eunuchs" survived intact.
Ah, eunuchs are not intact by definition. And I don't know how I
mangled Turtledove's name.
--
Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greed. Me.
Gene Wirchenko
2014-11-12 05:39:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Goldfarb
Post by Brian M. Scott
I am usually not believed when I say that
‘he’ actually is gender-neutral for me, or very close to it,
in such contexts, but it’s true.
I'm sure you believe it to be true.
I have a private language (not quite a shorthand) which does have
a neuter third-person pronoun. I can indicate sex by adding a flag to
the pronoun, but I rarely have or see any need to do so. Oh, how I
wish English had such a pronoun. "he" may be neuter, but becuase it
is also masculine, it is not truly neuter.
Post by David Goldfarb
Have you read _Ancillary Justice_? Were you able to get into a
mindset, by the end of the book, in which "she" was gender-neutral?
I was once reading a description of a program for children and
hit the pronoun "she". Instant confusion. Had I missed something
previous? I reread and found nothing and ended up concluding that
"she" was being used as neuter. I do not like such unclear writing.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko
Leif Roar Moldskred
2014-11-12 07:08:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gene Wirchenko
I was once reading a description of a program for children and
hit the pronoun "she". Instant confusion. Had I missed something
previous? I reread and found nothing and ended up concluding that
"she" was being used as neuter. I do not like such unclear writing.
I think it was some of the White Wolf roleplaying games that used
"he" as the neutral pronoun of a _player_, but "she" as the neutral
pronoun of a storyteller (dungeon master). It _was_ explained as
a convention in the preamble, and from what I recall it actually
worked pretty well.
--
Leif Roar Moldskred
Walter Bushell
2014-11-14 13:36:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Leif Roar Moldskred
Post by Gene Wirchenko
I was once reading a description of a program for children and
hit the pronoun "she". Instant confusion. Had I missed something
previous? I reread and found nothing and ended up concluding that
"she" was being used as neuter. I do not like such unclear writing.
I think it was some of the White Wolf roleplaying games that used
"he" as the neutral pronoun of a _player_, but "she" as the neutral
pronoun of a storyteller (dungeon master). It _was_ explained as
a convention in the preamble, and from what I recall it actually
worked pretty well.
In Go literature, black who goes first is male and white second female.
--
Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greed. Me.
David Goldfarb
2014-11-14 22:40:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Walter Bushell
In Go literature, black who goes first is male and white second female.
I've read a fair amount of books on Go in English, and I can't
recall ever seeing that convention.
--
David Goldfarb | "It's not called 'The Net of a Million Lies'
***@gmail.com | for nothing."
***@ocf.berkeley.edu | -- Vernor Vinge, _A Fire Upon the Deep_
Jaimie Vandenbergh
2014-11-12 10:00:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gene Wirchenko
Post by David Goldfarb
Post by Brian M. Scott
I am usually not believed when I say that
‘he’ actually is gender-neutral for me, or very close to it,
in such contexts, but it’s true.
I'm sure you believe it to be true.
I have a private language (not quite a shorthand) which does have
a neuter third-person pronoun. I can indicate sex by adding a flag to
the pronoun, but I rarely have or see any need to do so. Oh, how I
wish English had such a pronoun. "he" may be neuter, but becuase it
is also masculine, it is not truly neuter.
Post by David Goldfarb
Have you read _Ancillary Justice_? Were you able to get into a
mindset, by the end of the book, in which "she" was gender-neutral?
I was once reading a description of a program for children and
hit the pronoun "she". Instant confusion. Had I missed something
previous? I reread and found nothing and ended up concluding that
"she" was being used as neuter. I do not like such unclear writing.
Which demonstrates beautifully how "he" is not at all neuter.

Cheers - Jaimie
--
The square root of rope is string. -- Core 3, Valve
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
2014-11-12 12:45:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jaimie Vandenbergh
Post by Gene Wirchenko
I was once reading a description of a program for children and
hit the pronoun "she". Instant confusion. Had I missed something
previous? I reread and found nothing and ended up concluding that
"she" was being used as neuter. I do not like such unclear writing.
Which demonstrates beautifully how "he" is not at all neuter.
Er... how? It demonstrates beautifully that *SHE* is not neuter; that
using "she" specifies sex in text. It doesn't demonstrate that "he" is
not neuter in text.

Note that I don't say that you are incorrect about "he" not being
neuter, just that the above certainly does not prove it.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Jaimie Vandenbergh
2014-11-12 12:48:00 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 12 Nov 2014 07:45:38 -0500, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by Jaimie Vandenbergh
Post by Gene Wirchenko
I was once reading a description of a program for children and
hit the pronoun "she". Instant confusion. Had I missed something
previous? I reread and found nothing and ended up concluding that
"she" was being used as neuter. I do not like such unclear writing.
Which demonstrates beautifully how "he" is not at all neuter.
Er... how? It demonstrates beautifully that *SHE* is not neuter; that
using "she" specifies sex in text. It doesn't demonstrate that "he" is
not neuter in text.
If a use of "he" without prior information regarding the subject's
gender made you wonder what gender the person being referred to is, I'll
give you that.

If it didn't, then well.

Cheers - Jaimie
--
The person who says it cannot be done should not interrupt the person doing it.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
2014-11-12 12:52:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jaimie Vandenbergh
On Wed, 12 Nov 2014 07:45:38 -0500, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by Jaimie Vandenbergh
Post by Gene Wirchenko
I was once reading a description of a program for children and
hit the pronoun "she". Instant confusion. Had I missed something
previous? I reread and found nothing and ended up concluding that
"she" was being used as neuter. I do not like such unclear writing.
Which demonstrates beautifully how "he" is not at all neuter.
Er... how? It demonstrates beautifully that *SHE* is not neuter; that
using "she" specifies sex in text. It doesn't demonstrate that "he" is
not neuter in text.
If a use of "he" without prior information regarding the subject's
gender made you wonder what gender the person being referred to is, I'll
give you that.
If it didn't, then well.
In the generic context I don't "wonder"; I "await further information".
If "she" is used, I have to perform some effort to ELIMINATE the
assumption of "female" from my reading.

In a non-generic context, of course, "he" is referring to a known male
target.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Kay Shapero
2014-11-02 01:32:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kurt Busiek
My daughter, however, knows a fair number of trans or genderfluid
people, and for some, she uses "they" as a singular pronoun for a
_known_ someone, who simply prefers not to use a gendered pronoun.
I find I can't do that -- I'm fine with "And then the driver buckles
their seatbelt" if the driver is an unknown generic. But I can't bring
myself to say "And then Sam buckles their seatbelt"...if I know the
person, "they" sounds utterly wrong to me, like I've just switched from
singular to plural, and every English teacher I ever had is dancing the
stompanato on my skull.
Sympathies - try being the parent of a trans-gendered person where
simply referring to "my son" or "my daughter" to someone who knows you
both can be a direct trip to TMIville. :)
--
Kay Shapero
Address munged, try my first name at kayshapero dot net.
Robert Carnegie
2014-11-02 19:53:09 UTC
Permalink
My daughter knows a fair number of trans or genderfluid
people, and for some, she uses "they" as a singular pronoun for a
_known_ someone, who simply prefers not to use a gendered pronoun.
I find I can't do that -- I'm fine with "And then the driver buckles
their seatbelt" if the driver is an unknown generic. But I can't bring
myself to say "And then Sam buckles their seatbelt"...if I know the
person, "they" sounds utterly wrong to me, like I've just switched from
singular to plural, and every English teacher I ever had is dancing the
stompanato on my skull.
And there are various made-up ungendered pronouncs, too, but they sound
artificial and wrong in my mouth. To the next generation, I'm a
dinosaur, however well-meaning.
How about "one"? Of course it does mean something else.

I suppose if it comes up in your professional writing,
you can (1) make up your own and/or (2) write "he*"
throughout your text and then search-replace it.

Is it allowed to say "he" while doing finger air-quotes?
Do fingers still do that? I think it happened in the
1990s, which isn't to say that it should then or now.
Dorothy J Heydt
2014-10-31 22:32:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian M. Scott
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 14:09:59 +0000 (UTC), Don Kuenz
[...]
Post by Don Kuenz
Singular "they" works great for me. It's a "no brainer."
Indeed: it signals a lack of brains.
Yes, I’m aware of its long and illustrious history and other
arguments for using, and no, I don’t actually condemn its
use -- by others. The fact remains, however, that that *is*
my gut reaction to it and at this point probably always will
be.
We do need a genderless, neutral (which is not quite the same
thing) pronoun. "One" sounds stilted and snooty, "they" is a
grammatical abomination, and I fear that the old rule "the
masculine pronoun includes the feminine and neuter, and the
single number the plural" will never recover. But nobody can
agree on what genderless, neutral pronoun to use. I saw dozens
when I was living in Berkeley; "co" is the only one I can
remember now. LeGuin used "a" in the staged version of _The
Left Hand of Darkness_. I like Poul Anderson's "heesh," except
that Poul was using it not for an unspecified individual of
irrelevant gender, but for any specific individual composed of
three cooperative species. I have the uncomfortable feeling that
by the time we can all agree on a suitable pronoun, we will no
longer need one.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the gmail edress.
Kithrup's all spammy and hotmail's been hacked.
J. Clarke
2014-10-31 23:39:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Brian M. Scott
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 14:09:59 +0000 (UTC), Don Kuenz
[...]
Post by Don Kuenz
Singular "they" works great for me. It's a "no brainer."
Indeed: it signals a lack of brains.
Yes, I�m aware of its long and illustrious history and other
arguments for using, and no, I don�t actually condemn its
use -- by others. The fact remains, however, that that *is*
my gut reaction to it and at this point probably always will
be.
We do need a genderless, neutral (which is not quite the same
thing) pronoun. "One" sounds stilted and snooty, "they" is a
grammatical abomination, and I fear that the old rule "the
masculine pronoun includes the feminine and neuter, and the
single number the plural" will never recover. But nobody can
agree on what genderless, neutral pronoun to use. I saw dozens
when I was living in Berkeley; "co" is the only one I can
remember now. LeGuin used "a" in the staged version of _The
Left Hand of Darkness_. I like Poul Anderson's "heesh," except
that Poul was using it not for an unspecified individual of
irrelevant gender, but for any specific individual composed of
three cooperative species. I have the uncomfortable feeling that
by the time we can all agree on a suitable pronoun, we will no
longer need one.
My personal favorite is "hse", which is from Doctor Buwei Yang Chou's
delightful "How to Cook and Eat in Chinese", which is credited with
introducing the expression "Stir Fry" into the English language. That
book appears to be out of print unfortunately.
Jack Bohn
2014-11-01 14:12:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
We do need a genderless, neutral (which is not quite the same
thing) pronoun. "One" sounds stilted and snooty, "they" is a
grammatical abomination, and I fear that the old rule "the
masculine pronoun includes the feminine and neuter, and the
single number the plural" will never recover. But nobody can
agree on what genderless, neutral pronoun to use. I saw dozens
when I was living in Berkeley; "co" is the only one I can
remember now. LeGuin used "a" in the staged version of _The
Left Hand of Darkness_. I like Poul Anderson's "heesh," except
that Poul was using it not for an unspecified individual of
irrelevant gender, but for any specific individual composed of
three cooperative species. I have the uncomfortable feeling that
by the time we can all agree on a suitable pronoun, we will no
longer need one.
My personal favorite is "hse", which is from Doctor Buwei Yang Chou's
delightful "How to Cook and Eat in Chinese", which is credited with
introducing the expression "Stir Fry" into the English language. That
book appears to be out of print unfortunately.
Douglas R. Hofstadter recommended a Japanese pronoun (Ob chase other languages down dark alley-ways), it seems to be pronounced "ta," but if it were pronounced "tay" with the possessive "tair" it would work fine, and allow the grammatically fussy to pretend tay aren't hearing the word "they."

(As sf readers, we can come up with situations where "they" will be claimed for other uses: "Callistae should fasten their safety belt in the back seats as well as the driver's seat." "AnnTony wasn't wearing their seatbelt and smashed their face against the windshield."
--
-Jack
David Goldfarb
2014-11-01 00:34:22 UTC
Permalink
"they" is a grammatical abomination
And do you find singular "you" to be one also?
--
David Goldfarb |
***@gmail.com | [This space intentionally left blank.]
***@ocf.berkeley.edu |
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
2014-11-01 03:26:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Goldfarb
"they" is a grammatical abomination
And do you find singular "you" to be one also?
We don't have that problem down here.
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
Brian M. Scott
2014-11-01 04:38:09 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 1 Nov 2014 00:34:22 GMT, David Goldfarb
Post by David Goldfarb
"they" is a grammatical abomination
And do you find singular "you" to be one also?
No. Neither do I consider the combination of progressive
and passive (‘The house is being built’) ungrammatical,
though it became possible only a couple of centuries ago.
Both of those changes were firmly in place long before
anyone now alive learned the language. They are therefore
largely irrelevant to a discussion of attitudes towards
changes taking place in a person’s lifetime.

Brian
--
It was the neap tide, when the baga venture out of their
holes to root for sandtatties. The waves whispered
rhythmically over the packed sand: haggisss, haggisss,
haggisss.
Leif Roar Moldskred
2014-11-01 14:38:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
We do need a genderless, neutral (which is not quite the same
thing) pronoun. "One" sounds stilted and snooty, "they" is a
grammatical abomination, and I fear that the old rule "the
masculine pronoun includes the feminine and neuter, and the
single number the plural" will never recover.
I don't understand the opposition to singular "they" in English
considering that nobody complains about singular "you."
--
Leif Roar Moldskred
James Silverton
2014-11-01 17:35:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Leif Roar Moldskred
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
We do need a genderless, neutral (which is not quite the same
thing) pronoun. "One" sounds stilted and snooty, "they" is a
grammatical abomination, and I fear that the old rule "the
masculine pronoun includes the feminine and neuter, and the
single number the plural" will never recover.
I don't understand the opposition to singular "they" in English
considering that nobody complains about singular "you."
I wish there were an acceptable set of gender neutral words but I think
the use of plurals, following The Times of London, is the method I
prefer and have used for several years.
--
Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

Extraneous "not." in Reply To.
Brian M. Scott
2014-11-01 21:09:08 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 01 Nov 2014 09:38:43 -0500, Leif Roar Moldskred
Post by Leif Roar Moldskred
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
We do need a genderless, neutral (which is not quite the same
thing) pronoun. "One" sounds stilted and snooty, "they" is a
grammatical abomination, and I fear that the old rule "the
masculine pronoun includes the feminine and neuter, and the
single number the plural" will never recover.
I don't understand the opposition to singular "they" in English
considering that nobody complains about singular "you."
I don’t understand why you think that singular ‘you’ is
relevant. If you’re thinking of the fact that ‘you’ is
historically a plural and not a singular form, bear in mind
that this fact is opaque to the vast majority of living
speakers of English: it’s the result of a change that went
to completion long ago.

If you’re simply thinking that because English doesn’t
distinguish number in the second person pronoun, there’s no
reason for it to do so in the third person, either, you’re
imputing to language a kind of consistency that it just
doesn’t have. For many speakers, especially older ones,
using singular ‘they’ feels as awkward and
self-contradictory as saying ‘she are’. By now these
speakers are almost certainly a minority, and I shouldn’t be
at all surprised if their numbers decline to insignificance
over the next two or three decades. I also suspect that
most of them have, like me, become so accustomed to seeing
and hearing the usage that it has become for the most part
unnoticeable, even though it remains foreign to our
productive grammars.

Brian
--
It was the neap tide, when the baga venture out of their
holes to root for sandtatties. The waves whispered
rhythmically over the packed sand: haggisss, haggisss,
haggisss.
David DeLaney
2014-11-04 04:10:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Leif Roar Moldskred
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
We do need a genderless, neutral (which is not quite the same
thing) pronoun. "One" sounds stilted and snooty, "they" is a
grammatical abomination, and I fear that the old rule "the
masculine pronoun includes the feminine and neuter, and the
single number the plural" will never recover.
I don't understand the opposition to singular "they" in English
considering that nobody complains about singular "you."
This is only because, since "thou" fell out of style decades ago except in
very specialized communities, and "y'all" is peculiarly Southern and so is
seen as an indication of uncouthness etc., it's usually not POSSIBLE to tell
whether 'you' is singular or plural, except by seeing whether the rest of the
sentence is. For most of us, it's both/either-or and has been since we learnt
it, and it isn't weird for us to have the same pronoun in both places in the
declension chart.

Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Quadibloc
2014-11-15 05:27:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Leif Roar Moldskred
I don't understand the opposition to singular "they" in English
considering that nobody complains about singular "you."
That doesn't make sense. "You" is singular, even if it is also plural. "They" is
plural, and plural only.

John Savard
Leif Roar Moldskred
2014-11-15 07:58:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Leif Roar Moldskred
I don't understand the opposition to singular "they" in English
considering that nobody complains about singular "you."
That doesn't make sense. "You" is singular, even if it is also plural. "They" is
plural, and plural only.
The point I was failing to make is that it strikes me as odd to be figthing for
the grammatical purity of "they" as plural-and-nothing-but-plural-so-help-me-Zuul
in a language where you've already loosened up the rules for "you" as plural only
to the point where it has actually completely supplanted "thou".

We've _already_ established what kind of language English is; now we're just
haggling over price.
--
Leif Roar Moldskred
David Goldfarb
2014-11-15 07:46:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Leif Roar Moldskred
I don't understand the opposition to singular "they" in English
considering that nobody complains about singular "you."
That doesn't make sense. "You" is singular, even if it is also plural. "They" is
plural, and plural only.
In the past, "you" was plural only; the singular was "thou". In the
present, "you" is both singular and plural. If "you" can move from
"plural only" to "either, under different circumstances", why can't "they"?
--
David Goldfarb |"'Playing with the use-mention distinction"
***@gmail.com | isn't 'everything in life, you know.'"
***@ocf.berkeley.edu | -- Douglas R. Hofstadter
David DeLaney
2014-11-16 06:05:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Leif Roar Moldskred
I don't understand the opposition to singular "they" in English
considering that nobody complains about singular "you."
That doesn't make sense. "You" is singular, even if it is also plural. "They"
is plural, and plural only.
Well then, it should be `"They" _are_ plural, and plural only.`. Hmf.

Dave, we be jammin' wif' de pointyn' vector
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Greg Goss
2014-11-16 07:25:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by David DeLaney
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Leif Roar Moldskred
I don't understand the opposition to singular "they" in English
considering that nobody complains about singular "you."
That doesn't make sense. "You" is singular, even if it is also plural. "They"
is plural, and plural only.
Well then, it should be `"They" _are_ plural, and plural only.`. Hmf.
grin. I disagree.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
David Johnston
2014-11-01 17:51:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Brian M. Scott
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 14:09:59 +0000 (UTC), Don Kuenz
[...]
Post by Don Kuenz
Singular "they" works great for me. It's a "no brainer."
Indeed: it signals a lack of brains.
Yes, I’m aware of its long and illustrious history and other
arguments for using, and no, I don’t actually condemn its
use -- by others. The fact remains, however, that that *is*
my gut reaction to it and at this point probably always will
be.
We do need a genderless, neutral (which is not quite the same
thing) pronoun. "
"It".
David DeLaney
2014-11-04 04:13:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Brian M. Scott
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 14:09:59 +0000 (UTC), Don Kuenz
Post by Don Kuenz
Singular "they" works great for me. It's a "no brainer."
Indeed: it signals a lack of brains.
Yes, Iâ??????m aware of its long and illustrious history and other
arguments for using, and no, I donâ??????t actually condemn its
use -- by others. The fact remains, however, that that *is*
my gut reaction to it and at this point probably always will be.
We do need a genderless, neutral (which is not quite the same
thing) pronoun. "
"It".
...that can be used FOR PEOPLE without causing them great offense, which that
one would for a medium-large majority of folks. We need a genderless, neutral,
NON-GENDER-DENYING pronoun, another words - one which just says "I don't know"
rather than "There isn't any there".

Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Greg Goss
2014-11-04 04:41:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by David DeLaney
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
We do need a genderless, neutral (which is not quite the same
thing) pronoun. "
"It".
...that can be used FOR PEOPLE without causing them great offense, which that
one would for a medium-large majority of folks. We need a genderless, neutral,
NON-GENDER-DENYING pronoun, another words - one which just says "I don't know"
rather than "There isn't any there".
It always bothers me that Bujold's herms prefer "it".
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
Jaimie Vandenbergh
2014-11-04 18:13:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Greg Goss
Post by David DeLaney
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
We do need a genderless, neutral (which is not quite the same
thing) pronoun. "
"It".
...that can be used FOR PEOPLE without causing them great offense, which that
one would for a medium-large majority of folks. We need a genderless, neutral,
NON-GENDER-DENYING pronoun, another words - one which just says "I don't know"
rather than "There isn't any there".
It always bothers me that Bujold's herms prefer "it".
While speaking what language? Bujold is rendering down to English and
nuance may be lost.

Cheers - Jaimie
--
"The problem is not that the world is full of fools, it's that lightning
isn't being distributed correctly." - Mark Twain
Greg Goss
2014-11-04 18:44:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jaimie Vandenbergh
Post by Greg Goss
Post by David DeLaney
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
We do need a genderless, neutral (which is not quite the same
thing) pronoun. "
"It".
...that can be used FOR PEOPLE without causing them great offense, which that
one would for a medium-large majority of folks. We need a genderless, neutral,
NON-GENDER-DENYING pronoun, another words - one which just says "I don't know"
rather than "There isn't any there".
It always bothers me that Bujold's herms prefer "it".
While speaking what language? Bujold is rendering down to English and
nuance may be lost.
All the non-herms in the surrounding conversations get "he" or "she",
so I don't think that explanation works.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
2014-11-05 00:20:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Greg Goss
Post by Jaimie Vandenbergh
Post by Greg Goss
Post by David DeLaney
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
We do need a genderless, neutral (which is not quite the same
thing) pronoun. "
"It".
...that can be used FOR PEOPLE without causing them great offense, which that
one would for a medium-large majority of folks. We need a genderless, neutral,
NON-GENDER-DENYING pronoun, another words - one which just says "I don't know"
rather than "There isn't any there".
It always bothers me that Bujold's herms prefer "it".
While speaking what language? Bujold is rendering down to English and
nuance may be lost.
All the non-herms in the surrounding conversations get "he" or "she",
so I don't think that explanation works.
Works for me. They have a term that's best interpreted as "it" for
herms, which has less stupid baggage than "it" in English, but there's
no equivalent term in English that fits better.

If people can't handle "they" as singular, then said people are stuck
with "it".
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Walter Bushell
2014-11-10 22:20:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Greg Goss
Post by Jaimie Vandenbergh
Post by Greg Goss
Post by David DeLaney
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
We do need a genderless, neutral (which is not quite the same
thing) pronoun. "
"It".
...that can be used FOR PEOPLE without causing them great offense, which that
one would for a medium-large majority of folks. We need a genderless, neutral,
NON-GENDER-DENYING pronoun, another words - one which just says "I don't know"
rather than "There isn't any there".
It always bothers me that Bujold's herms prefer "it".
While speaking what language? Bujold is rendering down to English and
nuance may be lost.
All the non-herms in the surrounding conversations get "he" or "she",
so I don't think that explanation works.
Except the ba.
--
Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greed. Me.
Greg Goss
2014-11-11 16:41:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Walter Bushell
Post by Greg Goss
Post by Greg Goss
It always bothers me that Bujold's herms prefer "it".
All the non-herms in the surrounding conversations get "he" or "she",
so I don't think that explanation works.
Except the ba.
I forget what the ba got. It never annoyed me like the herm referent.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
David E. Siegel
2014-11-11 18:25:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Greg Goss
Post by Walter Bushell
Post by Greg Goss
Post by Greg Goss
It always bothers me that Bujold's herms prefer "it".
All the non-herms in the surrounding conversations get "he" or "she",
so I don't think that explanation works.
Except the ba.
I forget what the ba got. It never annoyed me like the herm referent.
My memory is that the Haut, at least, referred to Ba as "it".

-DES
Greg Goss
2014-11-11 18:40:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by David E. Siegel
Post by Greg Goss
Post by Walter Bushell
Post by Greg Goss
Post by Greg Goss
It always bothers me that Bujold's herms prefer "it".
All the non-herms in the surrounding conversations get "he" or "she",
so I don't think that explanation works.
Except the ba.
I forget what the ba got. It never annoyed me like the herm referent.
My memory is that the Haut, at least, referred to Ba as "it".
Hmmm, but it never bothered me. Perhaps because the herms are sexual
beings and the ba aren't. It is good (in my mind) for neuter, but not
for BOTH?

Heisenberg. If you look too closely at your own use of language, you
will probably find patterns that really aren't there.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
David E. Siegel
2014-11-11 18:50:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Greg Goss
Post by David E. Siegel
Post by Greg Goss
Post by Walter Bushell
Post by Greg Goss
Post by Greg Goss
It always bothers me that Bujold's herms prefer "it".
All the non-herms in the surrounding conversations get "he" or "she",
so I don't think that explanation works.
Except the ba.
I forget what the ba got. It never annoyed me like the herm referent.
My memory is that the Haut, at least, referred to Ba as "it".
Hmmm, but it never bothered me. Perhaps because the herms are sexual
beings and the ba aren't. It is good (in my mind) for neuter, but not
for BOTH?
Heisenberg. If you look too closely at your own use of language, you
will probably find patterns that really aren't there.
Whereas I saw it as one of the many indicators of the contempt that the Haut
had for the Ba, one of the things that perhaps induced the Ba in _Diplomatic
Immunity_ to act as it did.

The herms OTOH, apparently chose, or at least accepted, the use of "it", and
told non-Beatans that it was their preferred form, IIRC.

-DES

-DES
Walter Bushell
2014-11-14 13:33:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by David E. Siegel
Whereas I saw it as one of the many indicators of the contempt that the Haut
had for the Ba, one of the things that perhaps induced the Ba in _Diplomatic
Immunity_ to act as it did.
Especially since the ba were basically Haut in genetics. For testing
genes, they should have been employed in competitive fields, how do
you interpret the new genes if you employ the carrier as a personal
servant. Also, if my impression is that the ba were kept close to the
Haut so if you were non Hauty, more or less any ba had power over you,
just because you had the ear of a Haut and probably a high status one
at that.
--
Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greed. Me.
Brian M. Scott
2014-11-04 05:11:58 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 22:13:05 -0600, David DeLaney
[...]
Post by David DeLaney
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
We do need a genderless, neutral (which is not quite the
same thing) pronoun. "
"It".
...that can be used FOR PEOPLE without causing them great
offense, which that one would for a medium-large majority
of folks. We need a genderless, neutral,
NON-GENDER-DENYING pronoun, another words - one which
just says "I don't know" rather than "There isn't any
there".
I can think of only one context in which human ‘it’ was once
widely accepted, at least in England: referring to an infant
or young child. But even 35 years ago I knew folks over
there who were my parents’ age and who objected to it, and I
expect that by now the usage is well on its way out.

Brian, quietly ignoring the It girl.
--
It was the neap tide, when the baga venture out of their
holes to root for sandtatties. The waves whispered
rhythmically over the packed sand: haggisss, haggisss,
haggisss.
Kay Shapero
2014-11-02 01:30:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian M. Scott
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 14:09:59 +0000 (UTC), Don Kuenz
[...]
Post by Don Kuenz
Singular "they" works great for me. It's a "no brainer."
Indeed: it signals a lack of brains.
Yes, I?m aware of its long and illustrious history and other
arguments for using, and no, I don?t actually condemn its
use -- by others. The fact remains, however, that that *is*
my gut reaction to it and at this point probably always will
be.
Just out of curiosity, what do you use for third person I don't know
what sex they are, or impersonal so there isn't a sex attached to begin
with, now that just saying "he" (like we did when I was growing up) can
sound like an unwarranted assumption?
--
Kay Shapero
Address munged, try my first name at kayshapero dot net.
Greg Goss
2014-11-02 03:42:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kay Shapero
Just out of curiosity, what do you use for third person I don't know
what sex they are, or impersonal so there isn't a sex attached to begin
with, now that just saying "he" (like we did when I was growing up) can
sound like an unwarranted assumption?
Singular "they" and "them" is not in my use vocabulary, and bugs me if
I hear it from someone else. Singular "their" is a normal part of my
use vocabulary. Consistency? English don't need no stinkin' ...
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
2014-11-02 05:08:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Greg Goss
Post by Kay Shapero
Just out of curiosity, what do you use for third person I don't know
what sex they are, or impersonal so there isn't a sex attached to begin
with, now that just saying "he" (like we did when I was growing up) can
sound like an unwarranted assumption?
Singular "they" and "them" is not in my use vocabulary, and bugs me if
I hear it from someone else. Singular "their" is a normal part of my
use vocabulary. Consistency? English don't need no stinkin' ...
Really? You would never say something like, "So suppose someone
uninvited gave you the fee, would they be admitted? Would you refuse
them?"

I don't have any problem with that usage. If you do, that's
interesting; our idiolects differ.
--
I'm no longer serializing an Ethshar novel!
Brian M. Scott
2014-11-02 05:49:11 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 2 Nov 2014 01:08:25 -0400, Lawrence Watt-Evans
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
Post by Greg Goss
Post by Kay Shapero
Just out of curiosity, what do you use for third person
I don't know what sex they are, or impersonal so there
isn't a sex attached to begin with, now that just
saying "he" (like we did when I was growing up) can
sound like an unwarranted assumption?
Singular "they" and "them" is not in my use vocabulary,
and bugs me if I hear it from someone else. Singular
"their" is a normal part of my use vocabulary.
Consistency? English don't need no stinkin' ...
Really? You would never say something like, "So suppose
someone uninvited gave you the fee, would they be
admitted? Would you refuse them?"
Dunno about Greg, but that’s definitely not possible in my
idiolect. I might say ‘would that person be admitted’. Or,
perhaps more likely, I might ask ‘So would you admit an
uninvited person who gave you the fee?’

[...]

Brian
--
It was the neap tide, when the baga venture out of their
holes to root for sandtatties. The waves whispered
rhythmically over the packed sand: haggisss, haggisss,
haggisss.
Greg Goss
2014-11-02 13:39:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian M. Scott
On Sun, 2 Nov 2014 01:08:25 -0400, Lawrence Watt-Evans
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
Post by Greg Goss
Singular "they" and "them" is not in my use vocabulary,
and bugs me if I hear it from someone else. Singular
"their" is a normal part of my use vocabulary.
Consistency? English don't need no stinkin' ...
Really? You would never say something like, "So suppose
someone uninvited gave you the fee, would they be
admitted? Would you refuse them?"
Dunno about Greg, but that’s definitely not possible in my
idiolect.
Greg accepts.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
Greg Goss
2014-11-02 13:38:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
Post by Greg Goss
Singular "they" and "them" is not in my use vocabulary, and bugs me if
I hear it from someone else. Singular "their" is a normal part of my
use vocabulary. Consistency? English don't need no stinkin' ...
Really? You would never say something like, "So suppose someone
uninvited gave you the fee, would they be admitted? Would you refuse
them?"
I don't have any problem with that usage. If you do, that's
interesting; our idiolects differ.
Hmm. That's OK. It's something about not allowing singular "they" as
the subject of a sentence. There may be cases of "them" I'd accept.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
David E. Siegel
2014-11-02 16:52:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
Post by Greg Goss
Post by Kay Shapero
Just out of curiosity, what do you use for third person I don't know
what sex they are, or impersonal so there isn't a sex attached to begin
with, now that just saying "he" (like we did when I was growing up) can
sound like an unwarranted assumption?
Singular "they" and "them" is not in my use vocabulary, and bugs me if
I hear it from someone else. Singular "their" is a normal part of my
use vocabulary. Consistency? English don't need no stinkin' ...
Really? You would never say something like, "So suppose someone
uninvited gave you the fee, would they be admitted? Would you refuse
them?"
I don't have any problem with that usage. If you do, that's
interesting; our idiolects differ.
I have less problems with that than most uses of singular they. But I would probably write it as:

"So suppose someone uninvited gave you the fee, would that person be
admitted? Would you refuse such a person?"

or if writing in an informal online venue I might use "s/he".

-DES
Kurt Busiek
2014-11-02 17:04:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by David E. Siegel
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
Post by Greg Goss
Post by Kay Shapero
Just out of curiosity, what do you use for third person I don't know
what sex they are, or impersonal so there isn't a sex attached to begin
with, now that just saying "he" (like we did when I was growing up) can
sound like an unwarranted assumption?
Singular "they" and "them" is not in my use vocabulary, and bugs me if
I hear it from someone else. Singular "their" is a normal part of my
use vocabulary. Consistency? English don't need no stinkin' ...
Really? You would never say something like, "So suppose someone
uninvited gave you the fee, would they be admitted? Would you refuse
them?"
I don't have any problem with that usage. If you do, that's
interesting; our idiolects differ.
I have less problems with that than most uses of singular they.
Resisting the singular "they" while being fine with "less problems with
that" strikes me as odd.

kdb
--
Visit http://www.busiek.com -- for all your Busiek needs!
Brian M. Scott
2014-11-02 04:15:50 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 1 Nov 2014 18:30:31 -0700, Kay Shapero
Post by Kay Shapero
Post by Brian M. Scott
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 14:09:59 +0000 (UTC), Don Kuenz
[...]
Post by Don Kuenz
Singular "they" works great for me. It's a "no brainer."
Indeed: it signals a lack of brains.
Yes, I?m aware of its long and illustrious history and
other arguments for using, and no, I don't actually
condemn its use -- by others. The fact remains,
however, that that *is* my gut reaction to it and at
this point probably always will be.
Just out of curiosity, what do you use for third person I
don't know what sex they are, or impersonal so there
isn't a sex attached to begin with, now that just saying
"he" (like we did when I was growing up) can sound like
an unwarranted assumption?
I try to cast the sentence in a form that avoids the
problem. Usually I can do that on the fly; if I can’t, I
tend to fall back on the disjunctive ‘he or she’ or ‘she or
he’. Once in a while I slip up and lapse into my native
‘he’.

Brian
--
It was the neap tide, when the baga venture out of their
holes to root for sandtatties. The waves whispered
rhythmically over the packed sand: haggisss, haggisss,
haggisss.
David Johnston
2014-10-31 20:03:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-10-30/they-say-you-should-break-this-grammar-rule
( http://tinyurl.com/p56lpau )
Though I am still unalterably opposed to singular "they".
It is in deference to the sensibilities of people like you that I refer
to people as "it" instead of "they".
Kurt Busiek
2014-10-31 20:20:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-10-30/they-say-you-should-break-this-grammar-rule
(
Post by David Johnston
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
http://tinyurl.com/p56lpau )
Though I am still unalterably opposed to singular "they".
It is in deference to the sensibilities of people like you that I refer
to people as "it" instead of "they".
I am informed that "it" is considered offensive to the genderfluid, and
I can readily understand why.

I'd rather offend Brian. Language grows and changes, and those who
don't want it to because they want it to stay what they've learned
aren't standing on any principle greater than "I want it to stay what I
was taught," while the changes that are happening, in this case, are
happening for good and useful reasons.

And I say that as someone who is emotionally in tune with Brian's
position, but who nonetheless understands that it's the wrong one, both
in terms of who's going to win and who should win.

It can be taken as some measure of solace that 40 years from now the
people pushing for change willl be the people saying things shouldn't
change any further.

kdb
--
Visit http://www.busiek.com -- for all your Busiek needs!
Brian M. Scott
2014-10-31 20:27:23 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 13:20:58 -0700, Kurt Busiek
[...]
Post by Kurt Busiek
Post by David Johnston
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Though I am still unalterably opposed to singular "they".
It is in deference to the sensibilities of people like you that I refer
to people as "it" instead of "they".
I am informed that "it" is considered offensive to the genderfluid, and
I can readily understand why.
I'd rather offend Brian.
But as I indicated, you actually won’t.

[...]
Post by Kurt Busiek
And I say that as someone who is emotionally in tune with
Brian's position, but who nonetheless understands that
it's the wrong one, both in terms of who's going to win
and who should win.
I really think that you mean Ted’s position, not mine.

[...]

Brian
--
It was the neap tide, when the baga venture out of their
holes to root for sandtatties. The waves whispered
rhythmically over the packed sand: haggisss, haggisss,
haggisss.
Kurt Busiek
2014-10-31 20:41:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian M. Scott
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 13:20:58 -0700, Kurt Busiek
[...]
Post by Kurt Busiek
Post by David Johnston
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Though I am still unalterably opposed to singular "they".
It is in deference to the sensibilities of people like you that I refer
to people as "it" instead of "they".
I am informed that "it" is considered offensive to the genderfluid, and
I can readily understand why.
I'd rather offend Brian.
But as I indicated, you actually won’t.
Yeah, you don't seem all that offended, and I wouldn't expect you to be.
Post by Brian M. Scott
Post by Kurt Busiek
And I say that as someone who is emotionally in tune with
Brian's position, but who nonetheless understands that
it's the wrong one, both in terms of who's going to win
and who should win.
I really think that you mean Ted’s position, not mine.
No, I'm not in tune with Ted's position at all. I can instantly
understand why calling various people who've had to deal with prejudice
and oppression "it" is not a good choice.

I'm much more in tune with your resistance to the singular "they." I
just resist that resistance, for the reasons given.

If I have to pick whose sensibilities to offend, I'll pick people like
you, who are not harmed by me making different choices, over people who
can and have been harmed by the assumptions inherent in traditional
usages.

kdb
--
Visit http://www.busiek.com -- for all your Busiek needs!
Brian M. Scott
2014-10-31 20:46:55 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 13:41:14 -0700, Kurt Busiek
On 2014-10-31 20:27:23 +0000, "Brian M. Scott"
Post by Brian M. Scott
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 13:20:58 -0700, Kurt Busiek
On 2014-10-31 20:03:24 +0000, David Johnston
[...]
Post by David Johnston
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Though I am still unalterably opposed to singular "they".
It is in deference to the sensibilities of people like you that I refer
to people as "it" instead of "they".
I am informed that "it" is considered offensive to the genderfluid, and
I can readily understand why.
I'd rather offend Brian.
But as I indicated, you actually won’t.
Yeah, you don't seem all that offended, and I wouldn't
expect you to be.
Post by Brian M. Scott
And I say that as someone who is emotionally in tune with
Brian's position, but who nonetheless understands that
it's the wrong one, both in terms of who's going to win
and who should win.
I really think that you mean Ted’s position, not mine.
No, I'm not in tune with Ted's position at all. I can
instantly understand why calling various people who've
had to deal with prejudice and oppression "it" is not a
good choice.
That was David Johnston, not Ted Nolan. Ted’s position is
still visible at the top of this post. And I agree entirely
with you about ‘it’. (I’m not entirely sure that David
wasn’t taking the mickey, though.)
I'm much more in tune with your resistance to the singular
"they."
That was Ted. My resistance is strictly personal and is, I
think, overall closer to your attitude; see my response to
you in the other subthread.

[...]

Brian
--
It was the neap tide, when the baga venture out of their
holes to root for sandtatties. The waves whispered
rhythmically over the packed sand: haggisss, haggisss,
haggisss.
Kurt Busiek
2014-10-31 20:52:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian M. Scott
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 13:41:14 -0700, Kurt Busiek
On 2014-10-31 20:27:23 +0000, "Brian M. Scott"
Post by Brian M. Scott
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 13:20:58 -0700, Kurt Busiek
On 2014-10-31 20:03:24 +0000, David Johnston
[...]
Post by David Johnston
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Though I am still unalterably opposed to singular "they".
It is in deference to the sensibilities of people like you that I refer
to people as "it" instead of "they".
I am informed that "it" is considered offensive to the genderfluid, and
I can readily understand why.
I'd rather offend Brian.
But as I indicated, you actually won’t.
Yeah, you don't seem all that offended, and I wouldn't
expect you to be.
Post by Brian M. Scott
And I say that as someone who is emotionally in tune with
Brian's position, but who nonetheless understands that
it's the wrong one, both in terms of who's going to win
and who should win.
I really think that you mean Ted’s position, not mine.
No, I'm not in tune with Ted's position at all. I can
instantly understand why calling various people who've
had to deal with prejudice and oppression "it" is not a
good choice.
That was David Johnston, not Ted Nolan. Ted’s position is
still visible at the top of this post. And I agree entirely
with you about ‘it’. (I’m not entirely sure that David
wasn’t taking the mickey, though.)
I'm much more in tune with your resistance to the singular
"they."
That was Ted. My resistance is strictly personal and is, I
think, overall closer to your attitude; see my response to
you in the other subthread.
I am also perfectly willing to offend by referring to Ted as Brian.

So there!

kdb
--
Visit http://www.busiek.com -- for all your Busiek needs!
Brian M. Scott
2014-10-31 21:00:26 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 13:52:44 -0700, Kurt Busiek
<***@busiek.com> wrote in <news:m30sqk$dum$***@dont-email.me>
in rec.arts.sf.written:

[...]
Post by Kurt Busiek
I am also perfectly willing to offend by referring to Ted as Brian.
So there!
Two for the price of one! Whee!

Brian
--
It was the neap tide, when the baga venture out of their
holes to root for sandtatties. The waves whispered
rhythmically over the packed sand: haggisss, haggisss,
haggisss.
Kurt Busiek
2014-10-31 21:06:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian M. Scott
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 13:52:44 -0700, Kurt Busiek
[...]
Post by Kurt Busiek
I am also perfectly willing to offend by referring to Ted as Brian.
So there!
Two for the price of one! Whee!
Efficiency in action, man.

With any luck, I may have offended David, too.

kdb
--
Visit http://www.busiek.com -- for all your Busiek needs!
David DeLaney
2014-11-01 12:13:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kurt Busiek
Post by Brian M. Scott
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 13:52:44 -0700, Kurt Busiek
Post by Kurt Busiek
I am also perfectly willing to offend by referring to Ted as Brian.
So there!
Two for the price of one! Whee!
Efficiency in action, man.
With any luck, I may have offended David, too.
I would happily compound the offense by swooping in and claiming to be the
offended David, but I find I'm not offended, so that master plan contains a
fatal flaw!

Dave, back to the typing board
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Gene Wirchenko
2014-11-12 06:03:21 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 01 Nov 2014 07:13:06 -0500, David DeLaney
Post by David DeLaney
Post by Kurt Busiek
Post by Brian M. Scott
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 13:52:44 -0700, Kurt Busiek
Post by Kurt Busiek
I am also perfectly willing to offend by referring to Ted as Brian.
So there!
Two for the price of one! Whee!
Efficiency in action, man.
With any luck, I may have offended David, too.
I would happily compound the offense by swooping in and claiming to be the
offended David, but I find I'm not offended, so that master plan contains a
fatal flaw!
Now, the question is whether you have offended Kurt.
Post by David DeLaney
Dave, back to the typing board
Try, try again?

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
2014-10-31 20:53:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kurt Busiek
Post by Brian M. Scott
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 13:20:58 -0700, Kurt Busiek
[...]
Post by Kurt Busiek
Post by David Johnston
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Though I am still unalterably opposed to singular "they".
It is in deference to the sensibilities of people like you that I refer
to people as "it" instead of "they".
I am informed that "it" is considered offensive to the genderfluid, and
I can readily understand why.
I'd rather offend Brian.
But as I indicated, you actually won’t.
Yeah, you don't seem all that offended, and I wouldn't expect you to be.
Post by Brian M. Scott
Post by Kurt Busiek
And I say that as someone who is emotionally in tune with
Brian's position, but who nonetheless understands that
it's the wrong one, both in terms of who's going to win
and who should win.
I really think that you mean Ted’s position, not mine.
No, I'm not in tune with Ted's position at all. I can instantly
understand why calling various people who've had to deal with prejudice
and oppression "it" is not a good choice.
What? That wasn't me! I never use 'it' for a person. I usually end
up casting the sentence into plural: "Every passenger should fasten
their seat belt" ==> "All passengers should fasten their seat belts".
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
Jim G.
2014-11-01 18:23:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
I never use 'it' for a person. I usually end
up casting the sentence into plural: "Every passenger should fasten
their seat belt" ==> "All passengers should fasten their seat belts".
That's how I do it, as well.
--
Jim G. | A fan of good reading, good writing, and fellow bookworms
http://www.goodreads.com/jimgysin/
http://www.librarything.com/home/jimgysin
David Johnston
2014-10-31 21:23:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kurt Busiek
Post by David Johnston
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-10-30/they-say-you-should-break-this-grammar-rule
(
Post by David Johnston
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
http://tinyurl.com/p56lpau )
Though I am still unalterably opposed to singular "they".
It is in deference to the sensibilities of people like you that I
refer to people as "it" instead of "they".
I am informed that "it" is considered offensive to the genderfluid, and
I can readily understand why.
Well I've never had occasion to discuss anyone who was genderfluid. I
just tend to refer to unidentified people as "it" for that reason and
totally not because I'm an incipient serial killer.
Kurt Busiek
2014-10-31 22:18:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
Post by Kurt Busiek
Post by David Johnston
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-10-30/they-say-you-should-break-this-grammar-rule
(

http://tinyurl.com/p56lpau
Post by David Johnston
Post by Kurt Busiek
Post by David Johnston
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
)
Though I am still unalterably opposed to singular "they".
It is in deference to the sensibilities of people like you that I
refer to people as "it" instead of "they".
I am informed that "it" is considered offensive to the genderfluid, and
I can readily understand why.
Well I've never had occasion to discuss anyone who was genderfluid. I
just tend to refer to unidentified people as "it" for that reason and
totally not because I'm an incipient serial killer.
Surely you can do it for both reasons.

kdb
--
Visit http://www.busiek.com -- for all your Busiek needs!
D.F. Manno
2014-11-05 00:41:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
Well I've never had occasion to discuss anyone who was genderfluid.
Never? You lead a sheltered life.
--
D.F. Manno | ***@mail.com
GOP delenda est!
Greg Goss
2014-11-05 01:47:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by D.F. Manno
Post by David Johnston
Well I've never had occasion to discuss anyone who was genderfluid.
Never? You lead a sheltered life.
It may be that a lot of the genderfluid keep their identity
non-obvious. Someone who dated the woman I was interested in during
the late eighties is now a woman. The original woman says I'd
probably like the new woman -- that she fits the physical type I like.
But I've never met the new woman.

I don't think I've ever talked to anyone trans. I've known a lot of
lesbian and male gays, but none of them were what I would call
"fluid".
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
David DeLaney
2014-11-06 02:03:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Greg Goss
I don't think I've ever talked to anyone trans. I've known a lot of
lesbian and male gays, but none of them were what I would call
"fluid".
It's quite possible that you have talked to trans people ... but didn't know
it, and they weren't about to bring it up because bringing it up with every
single person they meet is just about the exact opposite of how they want it
to be treated. If you did meet a trans women, and accepted her mentally as a
her, it's a compliment even if you didn't know. (Similarly, you may not know,
and may not EVER know, who among the people you know are bisexual, unless it
actually becomes directly relevant.)

There are rather fewer 'fluid' than there are, er, 'fixed'. And some of them,
if you go in expecting to see them as one gender, you won't notice that you
COULD very easily see them as the other one... 'cuz we're trained by our
cultures to mentally slot people into specific genders, and leave them there.

Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Greg Goss
2014-11-06 06:52:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by David DeLaney
Post by Greg Goss
I don't think I've ever talked to anyone trans. I've known a lot of
lesbian and male gays, but none of them were what I would call
"fluid".
It's quite possible that you have talked to trans people ... but didn't know
it, and they weren't about to bring it up because bringing it up with every
single person they meet is just about the exact opposite of how they want it
to be treated.
That's what I meant to say. In context the earlier paragraph (snipped
here) implied that's what I meant. But I got sloppy in the
conclusion.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
Quadibloc
2014-11-15 05:35:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kurt Busiek
I am informed that "it" is considered offensive to the genderfluid, and
I can readily understand why.
I would have thought that a transsexual is usually referred to by the pronoun of the gender he or she aspires to join when one wishes to avoid giving offense, and thus *that* is not one of the cases where there is no good alternative to using "they" if one wishes to avoid "he" including both genders.
Post by Kurt Busiek
because they want it to stay what they've learned
aren't standing on any principle greater than "I want it to stay what I
was taught,"
I can see why you might feel that way, but there are other motives, even if you
might not find them creditable either. There is a wish to maintain the illusion
that the rules of English grammar are immutable facts of nature, no more
subject to alteration than the value of the fine-structure constant, so that
students in school might be more attentive and respectful to their grammar
teachers... and various other related reasons that can be easily derived from
that.

Just looking at books on how to raise children written for born-again
Christians will make it clear what I am thinking of.

Despite that, I think our age _could_ do with a bit more respect for authority,
even if we do have to be careful not to let it go out of hand.

John Savard
Walter Bushell
2014-11-16 13:51:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Despite that, I think our age _could_ do with a bit more respect for authority,
even if we do have to be careful not to let it go out of hand.
It could happen if authority started acting respectably. They could
start by getting enough self respect they don't do so many money
grubbing things.
--
Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greed. Me.
Loading...