I can parse them fine. They just don't read as naturally as I'd like. I suppose I prefer a more informal tone.
Banishment: Target one celestial, elemental, or fiend within 10 yards of you. The target must make a Charisma save. If failing, the target instantly returns to the target's plane of origin. If succeeding, the target instead suffers disadvantage to any attacks against you, until the target's next turn ends.
Is how I would repharse it.
The editor in me compels me to improve this... it's too wordy.
Banishment: Target one celestial, elemental, or fiend within 10 yards of you. The target must make a Charisma save or be instantly returned to the target's plane of origin. On a successful save, the target suffers disadvantage when attacking you, until the end of the target's next turn.
Of course, I don't have a problem replacing "the target" with "it" in this situation, since a target gound be a genderless creatures. "It" is appropriate when refering to something that may or may not have a gender.
The editor in me compels me to improve this... it's too wordy.Banishment: Target one celestial, elemental, or fiend within 10 yards of you. The target must make a Charisma save or be instantly returned to the target's plane of origin. On a successful
Nope. Let's get real, it's not like university professors really mark off for that sort of thing, especially not when they know (and if they're professors then they should know) that the answer isn't as simple as you're making it out to be.
I am a university professor, in the writing program. I mark off for this sort of thing. If yours didn't, they were setting you up for trouble later in life, and you should demand your tuition money back.
That's why publishers aren't so concerned about perceived minor spelling or grammar mistakes; it's the copy-editor's job to get those. They're far more concerned with the actual concept and content of the writing.
Spoken like someone who has never tried to get something published. I've worked as an editor (academic) and submitted plenty of professional material for publication, to both academic and popular publishers. The first journal article I ever submitted got published, and I was cocky enough that I didn't proofread the second as tightly. That one was immediately returned with a cold little note that the author of the manuscript seemed "unaware of the standards of professional discourse." I once heard a colleague discuss sorting through job applications for an engineering position. Do you know what she did first? She checked the grammar in their cover letters. If they had errors, they were immediately junked. The search committee didn't even bother looking over their resumes., because that degree of unprofessionalism indicated applicants who were likely to do shoddy work. You think copy editors take care of that sort of thing (and btw, you meant line editors)? Go read Lester del Rey's essay on the vanishing art of the editor - it'll make your nose hairs curl. Most publishers are desperately shucking editors left and right, and relying on authors to do more and more of the job...which means they're more and more picky about which authors they'll publish. The first piece of advice you'll get from any agent or author is that your manuscript must be absolutely as flawless as you can make it, or most publishers won't read past the first paragraph before chucking it in a wastebin.
TlDr: grammar matters.
I am a university professor, in the writing program. I mark off for this sort of thing. If yours didn't, they were setting you up for trouble later in life, and you should demand your tuition money back.Spoken like someone who has never tried to ge
Nope. Let's get real, it's not like university professors really mark off for that sort of thing, especially not when they know (and if they're professors then they should know) that the answer isn't as simple as you're making it out to be.
I am a university professor, in the writing program. I mark off for this sort of thing. If yours didn't, they were setting you up for trouble later in life, and you should demand your tuition money back.
I'm going to agree with professordaddy on this one. If your school has a style guide that you believe is sexist or otherwise inappropriate, the remedy is to lobby the school to change the style guide to soemthing more appropriate. If you refuse to follow the style guide as some sort of nonviolent protest, then you have to expect to take your lumps in the form of marked off points. If you write contrary to the style guide because you didn't bother to read it and assume it is egalitarian, then you deserve the lower marks.
However, if your school has no style guide (and I find that hard to believe) and your professor is marking you off for for using singular they instead of "he or she", then you have the right to protest that as that professor is imposing the Chicago Style Manual over other completely valid style guide choices, such as Random House or the APA. At a minimum, the professor should have informed you that they1 use the Chicago Style Manual.
1 See what I did there?
I am a university professor, in the writing program. I mark off for this sort of thing. If yours didn't, they were setting you up for trouble later in life, and you should demand your tuition money back.[/quote]I'm going to agree with professordadd
Banishment: Target one celestial, elemental, or fiend within 10 yards of you. The target must make a Charisma save. If failing, the target instantly returns to the target's plane of origin. If succeeding, the target instead suffers disadvantage to any attacks against you, until the target's next turn ends.
Sounds fine to me.
So forumers seem to be leaning toward the elimination of all pronouns as the solution? I can see the advantage of that. But then the style becomes unrelaxed and unwieldly. Think about an entire book with sentences like these. Does it seem like computer code? For a rules section, people might get used to it. 4e players might especially be used to technical writing for power mechanics, including format and keywords.
I suppose this no-pronoun situation only exists for the rules mechanics. The flavor text can easily resort to you along with plural they.
Sounds fine to me.[/quote]So forumers seem to be leaning toward the elimination of all pronouns as the solution? I can see the advantage of that. But then the style becomes unrelaxed and unwieldly. Think about an entire book with sentences like these
So forumers seem to be leaning toward the elimination of all pronouns as the solution? I can see the advantage of that. But then the style becomes unrelaxed and unwieldly.
I think there are very few places within a rulebook where a singular pronoun is needed that cannot be accommodated by pluralizing the sentence, using a specifically mentioned gendered-individual, or using the second-person. As you said, it probably only occurs in specific mechanics, where slightly more formal language is accepted (and perhaps even welcomed).
I think there are very few places within a rulebook where a singular pronoun is needed that cannot be accommodated by pluralizing the sentence, using a specifically mentioned gendered-individual, or using the second-person. As you said, it probably
Lets see how the wording for this spell feels. The description eliminates all pronouns referring to persons. However the pronoun “it” occurs to refer to the color itself. Here, the technical term “spray” means the same thing as a “cone”. You can have a spray of fire, a spray of bullets, a spray of psychic energy, or so on. Spray seems to be a more vivid word and works better as a verb.
Color Spray: Spray disorienting lights, reaching 3 yards from you. Choose one color for the lights: blue, red, or yellow. The color targets each within it. Each target that can see must make a Wisdom save, or suffer the color's effect. Blue: The target slows to half speed and suffers a disadvantage to all attacks and checks. Red: The target must use its next action to make an attack, choosing melee or ranged, against a random target. Yellow: The target is frightened, until the target's next turn ends. While frightened, the target must move as far away from you possible before taking an action, but need not move to a place that provokes an opportunity attack.
It is important for rules to distinguish the effector. Is it you who is causing the effect directly, or did you conjure something, and now that thing is causing the effect? In previous editions of D&D, so many spells had confusing mechanics that were impossible to systematize because the descriptions would alternate sloppily between the caster as the referent and the effect as the referent.
Here in the case of Color Spray, it seems the conjuration is causing the effect, not you directly. Specifically, the color itself seems to be the effector.
It may be, any spell that is out of your control because it targets allies along with hostiles, by definition, cannot be you who is causing the effect, but is your conjuration that causes the effect.
This means the spell format needs to routinely distinguish between the statistics that apply to you as the spellcaster versus the statistics that apply to the semi-independent conjuration that you bring into existence.
Lets see how the wording for this spell feels. The description eliminates all pronouns referring to persons. However the pronoun “it” occurs to refer to the color itself. Here, the technical term “spray” means the same thing a
I'm a university professor and I know for a fact that my colleagues will deduct marks for this sort of thing. I also know for a fact that editors will change that sort of thing.
I am a university professor, in the writing program. I mark off for this sort of thing. I've worked as an editor (academic) and submitted plenty of professional material for publication, to both academic and popular publishers. The first journal article I ever submitted got published, and I was cocky enough that I didn't proofread the second as tightly. That one was immediately returned with a cold little note that the author of the manuscript seemed "unaware of the standards of professional discourse." I once heard a colleague discuss sorting through job applications for an engineering position. Do you know what she did first? She checked the grammar in their cover letters. If they had errors, they were immediately junked. The search committee didn't even bother looking over their resumes., because that degree of unprofessionalism indicated applicants who were likely to do shoddy work.
All these little anecdotes prove is that there are a lot of people out there who don't know what they're talking about and think that they're a lot smarter than they actually are, a fact that I wouldn't dream of disputing, especially not when it comes to people working in academia.
Why precisely would you insist on using a style that is different from the one your professor/publisher has requested?
At this point, would you really believe me if I said anything other than "Because **** the establishment. I'm going to stick it to the man!"? Because, the way that you've been speaking, I feel like that's how you've already made up your mind about me and there's little I can do to alter that.
All these little anecdotes prove is that there are a lot of people out there who don't know what they're talking about and think that they're a lot smarter than they actually are, a fact that I wouldn't dream of disputing, especially not when it come
This means the spell format needs to routinely distinguish between the statistics that apply to you as the spellcaster versus the statistics that apply to the semi-independent conjuration that you bring into existence.
What? Why? I dont' get that from the way you rewrite the spell at all. I'm not sure where such a distinction would be relevant.
What? Why? I dont' get that from the way you rewrite the spell at all. I'm not sure where such a distinction would be relevant.
This means the spell format needs to routinely distinguish between the statistics that apply to you as the spellcaster versus the statistics that apply to the semi-independent conjuration that you bring into existence.
What? Why? I dont' get that from the way you rewrite the spell at all. I'm not sure where such a distinction would be relevant.
With regard to the Color Spray description. If you are the effector, it would say, “Target any within a spray reaching 3 yards.” But because the conjuration is the effector, it says, “The color targets each within it”. The color is the one that is targeting. Not you directly. That is also why the spell can hit allies - it isnt you in control. Something else is targeting your allies.
It occurs to me, this distinction between you versus the conjuration as the effector, might be identical to the method of resolution. If you are the effector then you roll an attack. If a conjuration is the effector then the targets make a save.
What? Why? I dont' get that from the way you rewrite the spell at all. I'm not sure where such a distinction would be relevant.[/quote]With regard to the Color Spray description. If you are the effector, it would say, “Target any within a sp
This means the spell format needs to routinely distinguish between the statistics that apply to you as the spellcaster versus the statistics that apply to the semi-independent conjuration that you bring into existence.
What? Why? I dont' get that from the way you rewrite the spell at all. I'm not sure where such a distinction would be relevant.
With regard to the Color Spray description. If you are the effector, it would say, “Target any within a spray reaching 3 yards.” But because the conjuration is the effector, it says, “The color targets each within it”. The color is the one that is targeting. Not you directly. That is also why the spell can hit allies - it isnt you in control. Something else is targeting your allies.
It occurs to me, this distinction between you versus the conjuration as the effector, might be identical to the method of resolution. If you are the effector then you roll an attack. If a conjuration is the effector then the targets make a save.
Okay. I'm not following you at all at this point.. Are we still discussing pronouns?
What? Why? I dont' get that from the way you rewrite the spell at all. I'm not sure where such a distinction would be relevant.[/quote]With regard to the Color Spray description. If you are the effector, it would say, “Target any within a sp
This means the spell format needs to routinely distinguish between the statistics that apply to you as the spellcaster versus the statistics that apply to the semi-independent conjuration that you bring into existence.
What? Why? I dont' get that from the way you rewrite the spell at all. I'm not sure where such a distinction would be relevant.
With regard to the Color Spray description. If you are the effector, it would say, “Target any within a spray reaching 3 yards.” But because the conjuration is the effector, it says, “The color targets each within it”. The color is the one that is targeting. Not you directly. That is also why the spell can hit allies - it isnt you in control. Something else is targeting your allies.
It occurs to me, this distinction between you versus the conjuration as the effector, might be identical to the method of resolution. If you are the effector then you roll an attack. If a conjuration is the effector then the targets make a save.
Okay. I'm not following you at all at this point.. Are we still discussing pronouns?
Ah, no, not about pronouns that refer to the caster or target directly, I am calling attention to a related issue.
For the problem of gender-neutral pronouns, in technical contexts, it seems eliminating all pronouns that might refer to persons is a workable solution.
Here, I am referring to a related issue that arises in the technical language of the spell description. Often the spell description doesnt really refer to the spellcaster, or to the target, so it wouldnt matter if one is a “he” or a “she”. Instead the spell description actually refers to the semi-autonomous effect - the conjuration - as a separate entity. This entity then becomes the effector. The spell descriptions can carefully refer to it, rather than to the caster. Usually this conjuration is an object or impersonal phenomenon (such as luminous color), so it is fine to refer to it by the pronoun “it”.
Occasionally, you might cast a spell that specifically conjures a male or female entity, and only then would it be necessary to refer to the conjuration with more conscientiousness about pronoun use.
What? Why? I dont' get that from the way you rewrite the spell at all. I'm not sure where such a distinction would be relevant.[/quote]With regard to the Color Spray description. If you are the effector, it would say, “Target any within a sp
The absence of pronouns in technical language seems to be the solution.
But, there will still be situations in flavor text, that require specifying an indefinite pronoun as singular.
How would you fill in the blank?
No matter who we elect as the leader, _____ must uphold the will of us the people that _____ serves.
• they ... they • the leader ... the leader • he or she ... he or she • one ... one • the one ... the one • this one ... this one
Or some other option.
The absence of pronouns in technical language seems to be the solution.But, there will still be situations in flavor text, that require specifying an indefinite pronoun as singular.How would you fill in the blank? No matter who we elect as the leader
No matter who we the people elect, the leader must uphold our will. The leader serves us.
I'd emphasize it by making it a separate sentence instead of making the sentence a run-on.
No matter who we the people elect, the leader must uphold our will. The leader serves us.I'd emphasize it by making it a separate sentence instead of making the sentence a run-on.
No matter who we elect as the leader, _____ must serve our will.
• they ... they (serve) • the leader ... the leader • he or she ... he or she • one ... one • the one ... the one • this one ... this one • that leader ... that leader
Or some other option.
No matter who we elect as the leader, he must serve our will. I don't believe in political correctness.
No matter who we elect as the leader, he must serve our will. I don't believe in political correctness.
No matter who we elect as the leader, _____ must serve our will, not _____.
• they ... theirs • the leader ... the leader's own • he or she ... his or hers • he ... his • one ... one's own • the one ... the one's • this one ... this one's own • that leader ... that leader's own
Or some other option.
No matter who we elect as the leader, _____ must serve our will, not _____.• they ... theirs • the leader ... the leader's own• he or she ... his or hers• he ... his • one ... one's own• the one ... the one's• this
No matter who we elect, our leaders must serve our will, not theirs.
Seriously, it's very hard to come up with a sentence that requires a genered pronoun to describe a noun of indeterminate gender.
No matter who we elect, our leaders must serve our will, not theirs.Seriously, it's very hard to come up with a sentence that requires a genered pronoun to describe a noun of indeterminate gender.
No, there is only one leader in this context. Such as a global president.
It doesn't matter, unless the one leader we choose is going to be immortal and president for life.
You're talkign about a position. Positions will be held by multiple people in succession. The way I phrased it is accurate and clean.
It doesn't matter, unless the one leader we choose is going to be immortal and president for life.You're talkign about a position. Positions will be held by multiple people in succession. The way I phrased it is accurate and clean.
No, there is only one leader in this context. Such as a global president.
It doesn't matter, unless the one leader we choose is going to be immortal and president for life.
You're talkign about a position. Positions will be held by multiple people in succession. The way I phrased it is accurate and clean.
Heh this is D&D. An immortal leader is possible.
The point is, there will be contexts that force a singular. So pretend this context does that. What can the text do when singular is necessary?
It doesn't matter, unless the one leader we choose is going to be immortal and president for life.You're talkign about a position. Positions will be held by multiple people in succession. The way I phrased it is accurate and clean. [/quote]Heh this
Of course it is because you can always choose to not use a pronoun. Looking at my first sentence I wonder how depronounifiying it would actually proceed.
What would go in the "it" place?
Anyone object if WotC was forward thinking and adopted the Swedish usage of the word "hen"?
Of course it is because you can always choose to not use a pronoun. Looking at my first sentence I wonder how depronounifiying it would actually proceed.What would go in the "it" place?Anyone object if WotC was forward thinking and adopted the Swedis
No matter who we elect as the leader, _____ must serve our will, not _____.
• they ... theirs • the leader ... the leader's own • he or she ... his or hers • he ... his • one ... one's own • the one ... the one's • this one ... this one's own • that leader ... that leader's own • it ... its
Or some other option.
No matter who we elect as the leader, _____ must serve our will, not _____.• they ... theirs • the leader ... the leader's own• he or she ... his or hers• he ... his • one ... one's own• the one ... the one's• this
Anyone object if WotC was forward thinking and adopted the Swedish usage of the word "hen"?
“Hen”? Thats interesting. It turns out, the English word “they”, actually derives from Norse too, not from English.
Hen does it. Hen did it to hen. Hen did it henself. - I wonder how long it would take for an English speaker to accustom to this?
“Hen”? Thats interesting. It turns out, the English word “they”, actually derives from Norse too, not from English.Hen does it. Hen did it to hen. Hen did it henself. - I wonder how long it would take for an English speaker to
The members of the Homecoming Committee should ensure that the last soldier to return from this war knows that ___ fallen comrades did not perish in vain.
Aha! That's tricky! Use of the singular they would imply incorrectly that we're discussing the Homecoming Committee members' comrades, when we mean to reference the soldier's comrades. Let's assume the last soldier could be male or female, but since the war has not yet ended, we cannot know which. I would not want to pluralize "last soldier" because there's an emotional impact when you think about the last soldier from a war as opposed to the "last soldiers".
Let me try to come up with one...The members of the Homecoming Committee should ensure that the last soldier to return from this war knows that ___ fallen comrades did not perish in vain.Aha! That's tricky! Use of the singular they would imply inco
Please remember to keep your posts polite, on topic and refrain from personal attacks. You are free to disagree with one another as long as it is done in a respectful manner.
I've removed content from this thread. Trolling/baiting is a violation of the Code of ConductYou can review the Code of Conduct here: company.wizards.com/conductPlease remember to keep your posts polite, on topic and refrain from personal attacks. Yo
No matter who we elect, our leaders must serve our will, not theirs.
Seriouosly, it's very hard to come up with a sentence that requires a genered pronoun to describe a noun of indeterminate gender.
Should be "whom", no?
This is pretty difficult to write around to get the same punch: "The Dragon will find the thief responsible and imprison him in his very own personal hell."
But yeah, these are not so easy to find. And then use "they" and its (their?) variants...
Should be "whom", no? This is pretty difficult to write around to get the same punch:"The Dragon will find the thief responsible and imprison him in his very own personal hell."But yeah, these are not so easy to find. And then use "they" and its (the
No matter who we elect, our leaders must serve our will, not theirs.
Seriouosly, it's very hard to come up with a sentence that requires a genered pronoun to describe a noun of indeterminate gender.
Should be "whom", no?
This is pretty difficult to write around to get the same punch: "The Dragon will find the thief responsible and imprison him in his very own personal hell."
But yeah, these are not so easy to find. And then use "they" and its (their?) variants...
I have no idea at this point. But you will get the lash now because everyone knows the thief is a girl.
Should be "whom", no? This is pretty difficult to write around to get the same punch:"The Dragon will find the thief responsible and imprison him in his very own personal hell."But yeah, these are not so easy to find. And then use "they" and its (the
The members of the Homecoming Committee should ensure that the last soldier to return from this war knows that ___ fallen comrades did not perish in vain.
Aha! That's tricky! Use of the singular they would imply incorrectly that we're discussing the Homecoming Committee members' comrades, when we mean to reference the soldier's comrades. Let's assume the last soldier could be male or female, but since the war has not yet ended, we cannot know which. I would not want to pluralize "last soldier" because there's an emotional impact when you think about the last soldier from a war as opposed to the "last soldiers".
Does it even need a word in the blank? Couldn't it just read "knows that fallen comrades"?
But if it has to have a possessive does it have to be a pronoun couldn't you just repeat "the last soldier"?
I know you are going for a particular rhetorical tone as well but that looks like it's going to have to be sacrificed to some degree.
You know what I would write! And who summoned the orc?
Does it even need a word in the blank? Couldn't it just read "knows that fallen comrades"?But if it has to have a possessive does it have to be a pronoun couldn't you just repeat "the last soldier"?I know you are going for a particular rhetorical to
No matter who we elect, our leaders must serve our will, not theirs.
Seriouosly, it's very hard to come up with a sentence that requires a genered pronoun to describe a noun of indeterminate gender.
Should be "whom", no?
This is pretty difficult to write around to get the same punch: "The Dragon will find the thief responsible and imprison him in his very own personal hell."
But yeah, these are not so easy to find. And then use "they" and its (their?) variants...
“To who” is now acceptable in formal style.
Should be "whom", no? This is pretty difficult to write around to get the same punch:"The Dragon will find the thief responsible and imprison him in his very own personal hell."But yeah, these are not so easy to find. And then use "they" and its (the
No matter who we elect, our leaders must serve our will, not theirs.
Seriouosly, it's very hard to come up with a sentence that requires a genered pronoun to describe a noun of indeterminate gender.
Should be "whom", no?
Aaagh! I'm mortified! Hoisted on my own petard! Dangled by my own participle! Cliched by my own aphorism!
This is pretty difficult to write around to get the same punch: "The Dragon will find the thief responsible and imprison him in his very own personal hell."
First of all, the "his" could refer to the dragon or the thief. A dragon could have a personal hell to imprison thieves in. Second, the singular they seems fine to me in this context.
The Dragon will find and imprison the thief responsible in their very own personal hell.
But pluralize the dragon and it becomes trickier. I'd repeat "thief" just to make clear that it's the thief's hell not the dragons'.
The dragon twins will find and imprison the thief responsible in the thief's very own personal hell.
Should be "whom", no?[/quote]Aaagh! I'm mortified! Hoisted on my own petard! Dangled by my own participle! Cliched by my own aphorism!First of all, the "his" could refer to the dragon or the thief. A dragon could have a personal hell to imprison
The members of the Homecoming Committee should ensure that the last soldier to return from this war knows that ___ fallen comrades did not perish in vain.
Aha! That's tricky! Use of the singular they would imply incorrectly that we're discussing the Homecoming Committee members' comrades, when we mean to reference the soldier's comrades. Let's assume the last soldier could be male or female, but since the war has not yet ended, we cannot know which. I would not want to pluralize "last soldier" because there's an emotional impact when you think about the last soldier from a war as opposed to the "last soldiers".
Does it even need a word in the blank? Couldn't it just read "knows that fallen comrades"?
But if it has to have a possessive does it have to be a pronoun couldn't you just repeat "the last soldier"?
I know you are going for a particular rhetorical tone as well but that looks like it's going to have to be sacrificed to some degree.
You know what I would write! And who summoned the orc?
This is even stronger rhetorically without the posessive: "...the last soldier to return from this war knows that fallen comrades did not perish in vain."
Does it even need a word in the blank? Couldn't it just read "knows that fallen comrades"?But if it has to have a possessive does it have to be a pronoun couldn't you just repeat "the last soldier"?I know you are going for a particular rhetorical to
I like this one, and appropriate subject matter too. Hows this?
The Dragon promises to find the thief responsible and to imprison _____ in _____ own personal hell.
• the thief ... the theif's • him or her ... his or her • him ... his • them ... their • the one ... the one's • that one ... that one's • it ... its • hen ... hens
Or an other option.
I like this one, and appropriate subject matter too. Hows this?The Dragon promises to find the thief responsible and to imprison _____ in _____ own personal hell.• the thief ... the theif's• him or her ... his or her• him ... his &bull
I like this one, and appropriate subject matter too. Hows this?
The Dragon promises to find the thief responsible and to imprison _____ in _____ own personal hell.
I like the promising addition. Pluralize the dragon and you've got a real conundrum.
The dragons promise to find and imprison the thief in ____ very own personal hell.
a) "his" b) "her" c) "their" d) "his or her" e) "its" f) "the thief's" g) other (explain below)
I like the promising addition. Pluralize the dragon and you've got a real conundrum.The dragons promise to find and imprison the thief in ____ very own personal hell.a) "his"b) "her"c) "their"d) "his or her"e) "its"f) "the thief's"g) other (explain
I like this one, and appropriate subject matter too. Hows this?
The Dragon promises to find the thief responsible and to imprison _____ in _____ own personal hell.
• the thief ... the theif's • him or her ... his or her • him ... his • them ... their • the one ... the one's • that one ... that one's • it ... its • hen ... hens
Or an other option.
"it ... its" works here, since we're talking about how the Dragon feels about the situation. Thus "the greedy maggot ... its", "the poor sod ... their".
But generally I'd prefer "them ... their", but some might consider that a bit... progressive.
"it ... its" works here, since we're talking about how the Dragon feels about the situation. Thus "the greedy maggot ... its", "the poor sod ... their". But generally I'd prefer "them ... their", but some might consider that a bit... progressive.
@Wrecan. The sentence is tighter, but the test is stronger if the pronoun occurs several times.
Repeating “the thief” once in a sentence is no problem. So it isnt much of a test. However, a sentence that repeats the phrase “the thief” three or four times needs the use of pronouns. So which pronoun works best becomes more urgent.
@Wrecan. The sentence is tighter, but the test is stronger if the pronoun occurs several times.Repeating “the thief” once in a sentence is no problem. So it isnt much of a test. However, a sentence that repeats the phrase “the thief” thr
The wizard promises to find the thief responsible and imprison _____ in _____ own personal hell.
• the thief ... the theif's • him or her ... his or her • him ... his • them ... their • the one ... the one's • that one ... that one's • it ... its • hen ... hens
Or an other option.
The wizard promises to find the thief responsible and imprison _____ in _____ own personal hell. • the thief ... the theif's • him or her ... his or her • him ... his • them ... their • the one ... the one's • that
So it isnt much of a test. However, a sentence that repeats the phrase “the thief” three or four times needs the use of pronouns. So which pronoun works best becomes more urgent.
A sentence that needs to repeat the pronoun is almost always awkwardly phrased. Find me a sentence in which I can't eliminate one or more uses of the pronoun and we can work with that.
How about this...
The unidentified perpetrator left ___ precious lockpick in the vault when the guards surprised __. The perpetrator escaped, but this lockpick may be just the clue we need!
i) "his" and "him" ii) "her" and "her" iii) "their" and "them" iv) "his or her" and "him or her" v) "its" and "it" vi) "hen" and "hen" vii) other (explain below)
A sentence that needs to repeat the pronoun is almost always awkwardly phrased. Find me a sentence in which I can't eliminate one or more uses of the pronoun and we can work with that.How about this...The unidentified perpetrator left ___ precious l
So it isnt much of a test. However, a sentence that repeats the phrase “the thief” three or four times needs the use of pronouns. So which pronoun works best becomes more urgent.
A sentence that needs to repeat the pronoun is almost always awkwardly phrased. Find me a sentence in which I can't eliminate one or more uses of the pronoun and we can work with that.
Right, but those are the same sentences that dont need pronouns at all. The question is, which pronoun to use when the speaker or writer needs to use a pronoun.
In natural speech, people use pronouns. In friendly writing, people use pronouns. Technical rules are by their nature awkward, tho smooth as possible is a goal. So the absence of pronouns from mechanical descriptions seems appropriate. But what about when writing naturally? We expect to see many pronouns.
A sentence that needs to repeat the pronoun is almost always awkwardly phrased. Find me a sentence in which I can't eliminate one or more uses of the pronoun and we can work with that.[/quote]Right, but those are the same sentences that dont need pr
The question is, which pronoun to use when the speaker or writer needs to use a pronoun.
That question is off-topic.
The on-topic question is limited solely to writers of D&D books. What ruling should Wizards of the Coast make in its style guide with respect to gendered pronouns?
Any other topic should be moved to the Off-Topic Tavern.
That question is off-topic.The on-topic question is limited solely to writers of D&D books. What ruling should Wizards of the Coast make in its style guide with respect to gendered pronouns?Any other topic should be moved to the Off-Topic Tavern.
So it isnt much of a test. However, a sentence that repeats the phrase “the thief” three or four times needs the use of pronouns. So which pronoun works best becomes more urgent.
A sentence that needs to repeat the pronoun is almost always awkwardly phrased. Find me a sentence in which I can't eliminate one or more uses of the pronoun and we can work with that.
How about this...
The unidentified perpetrator left ___ precious lockpick in the vault when the guards surprised __. The perpetrator escaped, but this lockpick may be just the clue we need!
i) "his" and "him" ii) "her" and "her" iii) "their" and "them" iv) "his or her" and "him or her" v) "its" and "it" vi) "hen" and "hen" vii) other (explain below)
The unidentified perpetrator left a precious lockpick in the vault when the guards surprised that one . The perpetrator escaped, but this lockpick may be just the clue we need!
viii) “that one's” and “that one” ix) “the one's” and “the one”
To be fair, “the one” sounds more natural than “hen”, even if “hen” seems to have a strong appeal.
A sentence that needs to repeat the pronoun is almost always awkwardly phrased. Find me a sentence in which I can't eliminate one or more uses of the pronoun and we can work with that.How about this...The unidentified perpetrator left ___ precious l
So it isnt much of a test. However, a sentence that repeats the phrase “the thief” three or four times needs the use of pronouns. So which pronoun works best becomes more urgent.
A sentence that needs to repeat the pronoun is almost always awkwardly phrased. Find me a sentence in which I can't eliminate one or more uses of the pronoun and we can work with that.
Ok, going for a David Foster Wallacian sentence: "The illusionist will track down the thief responsible, imprison him in an extradimensional hell-hole populated by the very real inhabitants of his worst nightmares, find all who have ever given him shelter and make them sorry, and generally, blot him out of all existence."
But so the point is, one has to get pretty contrived to get into trouble with pronouns. Writing around the problem nearly always results in better writing, I've found.
A sentence that needs to repeat the pronoun is almost always awkwardly phrased. Find me a sentence in which I can't eliminate one or more uses of the pronoun and we can work with that.[/quote]Ok, going for a David Foster Wallacian sentence:"The illu
The unidentified perpetrator left hens precious lockpick in the vault when the guards surprised hen . The perpetrator escaped, but this lockpick may be just the clue we need!
I could get used to “hen” quickly.
The unidentified perpetrator left hens precious lockpick in the vault when the guards surprised hen . The perpetrator escaped, but this lockpick may be just the clue we need!I could get used to “hen” quickly.
All these little anecdotes prove is that there are a lot of people out there who don't know what they're talking about and think that they're a lot smarter than they actually are,a fact that I wouldn't dream of disputing, especially not when it comes to people working in academia.
It's not a matter of "smarter." It's a matter of "more likely to be professionally published."
It's not a matter of "smarter." It's a matter of "more likely to be professionally published."
So it isnt much of a test. However, a sentence that repeats the phrase “the thief” three or four times needs the use of pronouns. So which pronoun works best becomes more urgent.
A sentence that needs to repeat the pronoun is almost always awkwardly phrased. Find me a sentence in which I can't eliminate one or more uses of the pronoun and we can work with that.
How about this...
The unidentified perpetrator left ___ precious lockpick in the vault when the guards surprised __. The perpetrator escaped, but this lockpick may be just the clue we need!
i) "his" and "him" ii) "her" and "her" iii) "their" and "them" iv) "his or her" and "him or her" v) "its" and "it" vi) "hen" and "hen" vii) other (explain below)
vii) other: "a ... him or her", or iv: "his or her" and "him or her". The perpetrator is unidentified: that it could be a he or a she is a useful fact, unless the "we" are sexist. Which might also be a useful fact, so "his...him".
A sentence that needs to repeat the pronoun is almost always awkwardly phrased. Find me a sentence in which I can't eliminate one or more uses of the pronoun and we can work with that.How about this...The unidentified perpetrator left ___ precious l
It isnt my favorite solution, but it seems “that one” is the least distracting pronoun when referring to a previously mentioned indefinite person.
In other words, when a singular is necessary:
singular “they” → “that one”
How do you guys feel?
It isnt my favorite solution, but it seems “that one” is the least distracting pronoun when referring to a previously mentioned indefinite person.In other words, when a singular is necessary:singular “they” → “that
It isnt my favorite solution, but it seems “that one” is the least distracting pronoun when referring to a previously mentioned indefinite person.
In other words, when a singular is necessary:
singular “they” → “that one”
How do you guys feel?
Not sure, feels contrived.
I'd stick with the grammarians' (Garner, Grammar Girl, but not, apparently, the Honorable Justice Scalia) recommendation and just write around the problem. We've been trying to contrive an example where one'd actually need a gender neutral pronoun, and it's been proving bloody difficult (c.f. most of the attempts above) to find something that sounds more natural gendered. Plus we probably don't need Lit-professor level language in D&D anyway, so "he or she" and "them" is probably acceptable to the vast majority of readers.
Not sure, feels contrived.I'd stick with the grammarians' (Garner, Grammar Girl, but not, apparently, the Honorable Justice Scalia) recommendation and just write around the problem. We've been trying to contrive an example where one'd actually need a
The thing is, natural language uses pronouns frequently. So when the D&D texts write in an accessible way, the authorship needs to now which pronoun works best, and on deciding that will tend to use it frequently.
The thing is, natural language uses pronouns frequently. So when the D&D texts write in an accessible way, the authorship needs to now which pronoun works best, and on deciding that will tend to use it frequently.
The dragons promise to find and imprison the thief in ____ very own personal hell.
Other (rephrase):
The dragons promise to find the thief and imprison him in his own personal hell.
The original phrasing makes it sound like the dragons might find the thief in his own personal hell.
I would pick them/their except that in this case it leads to pronoun confusion (is it the dragon's hell or the thief's hell?) He/his is I guess technically sexist if you want to nitpick it, but it also sounds more natural (in my opinion) than any of the other options. "Find him or her and imprison him or her in his or her own personal hell" sounds like a line from a Monty Python skit or a Discworld novel.
The unidentified perpetrator left ___ precious lockpick in the vault when the guards surprised __. The perpetrator escaped, but this lockpick may be just the clue we need!
their/them sounds fine to me here.
The unidentified perpetrator left a precious lockpick in the vault when the guards surprised that one . The perpetrator escaped, but this lockpick may be just the clue we need!
"That one" doesn't sound natural at all here. I had to reread the sentence to understand what it was refering to.
Other (rephrase):The dragons promise to find the thief and imprison him in his own personal hell.The original phrasing makes it sound like the dragons might find the thief in his own personal hell.I would pick them/their except that in this case it l
I would pick them/their except that in this case it leads to pronoun confusion (is it the dragon's hell or the thief's hell?) He/his is I guess technically sexist if you want to nitpick it.
Actually, in this context, “he” and “his” might be grammatically incorrect. In this case, there is no group of thieves where a male “he” stands for one of its members, even if females are also members. Here there is no group. There is only one thief. If that thief is female, then to say “he” is wrong.
Actually, in this context, “he” and “his” might be grammatically incorrect. In this case, there is no group of thieves where a male “he” stands for one of its members, even if females are also members. Here there i
I would pick them/their except that in this case it leads to pronoun confusion (is it the dragon's hell or the thief's hell?) He/his is I guess technically sexist if you want to nitpick it.
Actually, in this context, “he” and “his” might be grammatically incorrect. In this case, there is no group of thieves where a male “he” stands for one of its members, even if females are also members. Here there is no group. There is only one thief. If that thief is female, then to say “he” is wrong.
Once you use he, you have determined that the thief is in fact male. If it was female, you would have used she. The idea that you would write that sentence without knowing is absurd.
Actually, in this context, “he” and “his” might be grammatically incorrect. In this case, there is no group of thieves where a male “he” stands for one of its members, even if females are also members. Here there i
Actually, in this context, “he” and “his” might be grammatically incorrect. In this case, there is no group of thieves where a male “he” stands for one of its members, even if females are also members. Here there is no group. There is only one thief. If that thief is female, then to say “he” is wrong.
If you don't know the gender of the thief and you use the word "he", it's not grammatically incorrect. It might be factually incorrect, if the thief is female. It might also be stylistically incorrect, if you're following a style guide that recommends against using he as a neuter pronoun. But grammatically it's fine.
If you don't know the gender of the thief and you use the word "he", it's not grammatically incorrect. It might be factually incorrect, if the thief is female. It might also be stylistically incorrect, if you're following a style guide that recomme
Actually, in this context, “he” and “his” might be grammatically incorrect. In this case, there is no group of thieves where a male “he” stands for one of its members, even if females are also members. Here there is no group. There is only one thief. If that thief is female, then to say “he” is wrong.
If you don't know the gender of the thief and you use the word "he", it's not grammatically incorrect. It might be factually incorrect, if the thief is female. It might also be stylistically incorrect, if you're following a style guide that recommends against using he as a neuter pronoun. But grammatically it's fine.
Reread the dictionary usage note. The linguists are saying “he” is never actually gender neutral. The MALE might be a representative for a group, but “he” is always a MALE, linguistically.
Thus it becomes grammatically incorrect when not referring to a group of individuals.
Similarly, even when referring to a group, when the referent member is known to be female, it is wrong to refer to her as “he”, even indirectly as part of the group.
The point is, the pronoun “he” is always masculine, even when used generally.
If you don't know the gender of the thief and you use the word "he", it's not grammatically incorrect. It might be factually incorrect, if the thief is female. It might also be stylistically incorrect, if you're following a style guide that recomme
How is it wrong? That's what people have said for quite awhile. How people speak is how they speak. Now you may be part of a movement, which will go unnamed to avoid orc attention, that is trying to change the way people talk and think. But the codification of what is is irrelevant of your desire of what you wish it to be.
How is it wrong? That's what people have said for quite awhile. How people speak is how they speak. Now you may be part of a movement, which will go unnamed to avoid orc attention, that is trying to change the way people talk and think. But the cod
How is it wrong? That's what people have said for quite awhile. How people speak is how they speak. Now you may be part of a movement, which will go unnamed to avoid orc attention, that is trying to change the way people talk and think. But the codification of what is is irrelevant of your desire of what you wish it to be.
In the dictionary, 37% said using “he” is correct, but everyone else, 63%, said using “he” is incorrect, and recommended alternatives.
In the dictionary, 37% said using “he” is correct, but everyone else, 63%, said using “he” is incorrect, and recommended alternatives.
Using “he” to refer to females has never really been universally accepted. Linguists and lawyers pushed the use of “he” to refer to females only in the late 1800, when the prevailing usage was actually the singular they.
But already by the 1900s, the linguists are starting to dispute the correctness of the generic he.
Today in the 2000s, the majority of linguists reject the generic he.
The generic he is basically a linguistic experiment that failed.
Using “he” to refer to females has never really been universally accepted. Linguists and lawyers pushed the use of “he” to refer to females only in the late 1800, when the prevailing usage was actually the singular they.But al
Personally, I suspect, the only reason generic he has any currency at all is because people read archaic laws and biblical commandments, and need to go out of their way to insist that females have a right to benefit from these texts too.
But the fact is, when women did not have a right to vote - even in America! - it is difficult to argue that “all men are created equal” applies to women too.
The generic he is important for applying archaic codes to modern contexts. Linguists made efforts to extend this to “formal” writing. But it failed to catch on in ordinary speech.
When people say “he”, they really do mean a “he”. When someone says “his book”, they immediately - and correctly - understand a man's book.
Personally, I suspect, the only reason generic he has any currency at all is because people read archaic laws and biblical commandments, and need to go out of their way to insist that females have a right to benefit from these texts too.But the fact
Reread the dictionary usage note. The linguists are saying “he” is never actually gender neutral. The MALE might be a representative for a group, but “he” is always a MALE, linguistically.
"The linguists" don't actually get to decide what's right and what's wrong (and I doubt someone that is making a grammatical prescription like that is actually a modern linguist). "He" has been used as a pronoun for a person of unknown or unspecified gender in the dialect of English I speak (which is a reasonably common one, and in modern times is usually considered a "high-prestige" dialect if that's what you're into) for as long as I've been speaking.
At any rate though, definitions of "he" in modern dictionaries:
From Merriam-Webster online, second definition:
used in a generic sense or when the sex of the person is unspecified
(Interestingly, the OED doesn't list a neuter usage of the pronoun; is that construction not seen in British dialects?)
Edit: actually, I suppose it would be more accurate to say that in my dialect of English, constructing someone of unknown/unspecified gender in general can acceptably be done with masculine nouns and pronouns; it's not something specific to "he" or even something specific to pronouns.
"The linguists" don't actually get to decide what's right and what's wrong (and I doubt someone that is making a grammatical prescription like that is actually a modern linguist). "He" has been used as a pronoun for a person of unknown or unspecifie
This should go without saying, but I guess it doesn't. So I'll say it.
Some people mistake these usage quibles for political correctness. But that'd be a mistake. Getting the pronouns right should aid clarity above all. And the fact is that using "he" and its conjugates for the gender-neutral singular does not do that anymore.
Speaking of the OED, my American version from 2001 was quite clear on this, that "he" should not be used anymore:
Until recently, he was used uncontroversially to refer to a person of unspecified sex, as in every child needs to know that he is loved. This use has become problematic and is a hallmark of old-fashionedness and sexism in language. Use of they as an alternative to he in this sense (everyone needs to feel that they matter) has been in use since the 16th century in contexts where it occurs after an indefinite pronoun such as everyone or someone. It is becoming more that more accepted both in speech and in writing and is used as the norm in this dictionary. Another acceptable alternative is he or she, although this can become tiresomely long-winded when used frequently. See also usage at SHE and THEY.
This should go without saying, but I guess it doesn't. So I'll say it. Some people mistake these usage quibles for political correctness. But that'd be a mistake. Getting the pronouns right should aid clarity above all. And the fact is that using "he
Some people mistake these usage quibles for political correctness. But that'd be a mistake.
These are people that look for "political correctness" as an excuse to dismiss anything, ironically much like how they mistakenly think other people are "looking to be offended".
These are people that look for "political correctness" as an excuse to dismiss anything, ironically much like how they mistakenly think other people are "looking to be offended".
I'm a university professor and I know for a fact that my colleagues will deduct marks for this sort of thing. I also know for a fact that editors will change that sort of thing.
I am a university professor, in the writing program. I mark off for this sort of thing. I've worked as an editor (academic) and submitted plenty of professional material for publication, to both academic and popular publishers. The first journal article I ever submitted got published, and I was cocky enough that I didn't proofread the second as tightly. That one was immediately returned with a cold little note that the author of the manuscript seemed "unaware of the standards of professional discourse." I once heard a colleague discuss sorting through job applications for an engineering position. Do you know what she did first? She checked the grammar in their cover letters. If they had errors, they were immediately junked. The search committee didn't even bother looking over their resumes., because that degree of unprofessionalism indicated applicants who were likely to do shoddy work.
All these little anecdotes prove is that there are a lot of people out there who don't know what they're talking about and think that they're a lot smarter than they actually are, a fact that I wouldn't dream of disputing, especially not when it comes to people working in academia.
What our 'anecdotes' (I would call it over a decade of first hand experience, but if you want to call that an 'anecdote', then fine) prove is that this is the way things are. You are perfectly free to deny reality and offer no evidence in support of your position, but I do object when you advise others to stick to usages that are considered incorrect. When you try to give them the impression that they will never run into difficulties if they use it, then you really are misleading them, and so I felt the obligation to point that out.
I'm not trying to judge you, but you really do need to acknowledge reality.
All these little anecdotes prove is that there are a lot of people out there who don't know what they're talking about and think that they're a lot smarter than they actually are, a fact that I wouldn't dream of disputing, especially not when it come
Some people mistake these usage quibles for political correctness. But that'd be a mistake. Getting the pronouns right should aid clarity above all. And the fact is that using "he" and its conjugates for the gender-neutral singular does not do that anymore.
I disagree; in most contexts where it's used, neuter he is as clear as singular they. Note that I have no problem with singular they either (and indeed I believe I tend to use singular they more often than neuter he in my own idiolect). In the very specific sentence that I quoted above though, I believe that neuter he is a clearer pronoun to use than singular they:
The dragons promise to find the thief and imprison him in his own personal hell.
If you used singular they (or rather its declensions), "them" would be fine, but "their" might refer to either the dragons' personal hell or the thief's personal hell. Neuter he avoids this because it clearly cannot be refering to a plural entity.
Until recently, he was used uncontroversially to refer to a person of unspecified sex, as in every child needs to know that he is loved. This use has become problematic and is a hallmark of old-fashionedness and sexism in language. Use of they as an alternative to he in this sense (everyone needs to feel that they matter) has been in use since the 16th century in contexts where it occurs after an indefinite pronoun such as everyone or someone. It is becoming more that more accepted both in speech and in writing and is used as the norm in this dictionary.
If you want to use the OED's grammar prescription, note that nothing in this analysis indicates that neuter he actually causes any clarity issues over singular they. They (the OED, that is) are using this convention entirely due to egalitarian concerns.
I disagree; in most contexts where it's used, neuter he is as clear as singular they. Note that I have no problem with singular they either (and indeed I believe I tend to use singular they more often than neuter he in my own idiolect). In the very s
In the context of grammatical gender when describing languages which subdivide words into masculine and feminine forms, "neuter" means a word which has no specific gender. Have no fear; it's an adjective, not a verb.
In the context of grammatical gender when describing languages which subdivide words into masculine and feminine forms, "neuter" means a word which has no specific gender. Have no fear; it's an adjective, not a verb. :)
If you want to use the OED's grammar prescription, note that nothing in this analysis indicates that neuter he actually causes any clarity issues over singular they. They (the OED, that is) are using this convention entirely due to egalitarian concerns.
I would think that if the OED considered a use problematic, they'd consider its use confusing as well. The issue is that when you see something like this in writing:
The investigator tried to determine the identity of Ms. Lucy's murderer by speculating about his motives. Why did he kill her? What did she do to make him so angry?
A modern reader would spend at least a half a second wondering why the investigator assumed that Ms. Lucy's murderer was male, before thinking about the murderer's motives. If this effect was unintended by the author, then he (!) was not writing clearly. (I'd rewrite the sentences, and I wouldn't use "they" in this case.)
If you want an even better, far more hilarious, example of the sort of thing where a long-accepted use is now confusing, c.f. Garner's Dictionary of American Usage's entry for "gay". (The section is available on Google Books for free.)
I would think that if the OED considered a use problematic, they'd consider its use confusing as well. The issue is that when you see something like this in writing:A modern reader would spend at least a half a second wondering why the investigator a
What our 'anecdotes' (I would call it over a decade of first hand experience, but if you want to call that an 'anecdote', then fine) prove is that this is the way things are. You are perfectly free to deny reality and offer no evidence in support of your position...
Honey, this is the internet. I don't see you citing any studies either. I can offer personal experiences too, but they'll be exactly as meaningless as the ones that you've offered, because this is the internet and there is no way for us to varify anything about one another's lives. I'm sorry, but that is the reality. Here, your arguments have to stand on their own merit.
When you try to give them the impression that they will never run into difficulties if they use it...
Whoa, I don't think that I've given any such impression. I do not at ally deny that using it won't cause you to run into some difficulties and disagreements. Unfortunately, the belief that the singular they is outright wrong is widespread even among those who should know better. What I do not do, however, is advocate that something shouldn't be done just because it annoys people who are wrong. What I'm saying is that it's worth it.
The investigator tried to determine the identity of Ms. Lucy's murderer by speculating about his motives. Why did he kill her? What did she do to make him so angry?
A modern reader would spend at least a half a second wondering why the investigator assumed that Ms. Lucy's murderer was male, before thinking about the murderer's motives. If this effect was unintended by the author, then he (!) was not writing clearly. (I'd rewrite the sentences, and I wouldn't use "they" in this case.)
Actually, "they" seems perfect to use in this case. I'm not sure why you wouldn't use it here. The investigator tried to determine the identity of Ms. Lucy's murderer by speculating about their motives. Why did they kill her? What did she do to make them so angry? It's even especially appropriate here because this is a case where the number of subjects is unknown. How do we know there was only one murderer?
Honey, this is the internet. I don't see you citing any studies either. I can offer personal experiences too, but they'll be exactly as meaningless as the ones that you've offered, because this is the internet and there is no way for us to varify any
I would think that if the OED considered a use problematic, they'd consider its use confusing as well.
I don't see how this is necessarily the case. Confusing implies problematic, sure, but the converse isn't true, I wouldn't think.
I wagerthat the OED is saying this in the case of he. In fact they were being pretty obvious and funny about it. Surely the "hallmarks of old-fashionedness" are distracting? Maybe not confusing, but defnitely distracting from the point the author wishes to communicate.
I don't see how this is necessarily the case. Confusing implies problematic, sure, but the converse isn't true, I wouldn't think.[/quote]I wager that the OED is saying this in the case of he. In fact they were being pretty obvious and funny about it.
The investigator tried to determine the identity of Ms. Lucy's murderer by speculating about his motives. Why did he kill her? What did she do to make him so angry?
A modern reader would spend at least a half a second wondering why the investigator assumed that Ms. Lucy's murderer was male, before thinking about the murderer's motives. If this effect was unintended by the author, then he (!) was not writing clearly. (I'd rewrite the sentences, and I wouldn't use "they" in this case.)
Actually, "they" seems perfect to use in this case. I'm not sure why you wouldn't use it here. The investigator tried to determine the identity of Ms. Lucy's murderer by speculating about their motives. Why did they kill her? What did she do to make them so angry? It's even especially appropriate here because this is a case where the number of subjects is unknown. How do we know there was only one murderer?
Personal choice, nothing more. "Why did they kill her?" seems to come down pretty definitively on the side of multiple attackers whether I like it or not. Say it's been established earlier that there was only one killer, then seeing "What did she do to make them so angry?" is just distracting. I'd probably write:
The investigator tried to determine the identity of Ms. Lucy's murderer by speculating about motive. Why would someone kill her? What could she do to make somebody so angry?
A modern reader would spend at least a half a second wondering why the investigator assumed that Ms. Lucy's murderer was male, before thinking about the murderer's motives. If this effect was unintended by the author, then he (!) was not writing clea
In the context of grammatical gender when describing languages which subdivide words into masculine and feminine forms, "neuter" means a word which has no specific gender. Have no fear; it's an adjective, not a verb.
Neuter is a specific gender. Being neither masculine nor feminine. Neuter is only and always an “it”.
The gender that can refer to either masculine or feminine is often called the “common” gender. The English pronoun “they” would be equivalent to the common gender of other languages.
In this context, the pronoun “they” is gender-neutRAL (not gender-neuter).
Neuter is a specific gender. Being neither masculine nor feminine. Neuter is only and always an “it”.The gender that can refer to either masculine or feminine is often called the “common” gender. The English pronoun “the
There's a whole page on this thread that comes up blank if I try to view it.
If anyone responded to my last post...sorry. I have no idea.
Am I the only one that has that happen? Where you can't load new pages in a thread?
huh. There's a whole page on this thread that comes up blank if I try to view it. If anyone responded to my last post...sorry. I have no idea. Am I the only one that has that happen? Where you can't load new pages in a thread?
I occasionally get blank pages after posting. But if I link back to the forum, D&D Next General Discussions, from there, I can go back into the thread and it works fine. Basically reboot.
I occasionally get blank pages after posting. But if I link back to the forum, D&D Next General Discussions, from there, I can go back into the thread and it works fine. Basically reboot.
I occasionally get blank pages after posting. But if I link back to the forum, D&D Next General Discussions, from there, I can go back into the thread and it works fine. Basically reboot.
Honey, this is the internet. I don't see you citing any studies either. I can offer personal experiences too, but they'll be exactly as meaningless as the ones that you've offered, because this is the internet and there is no way for us to varify anything about one another's lives.
PM me and I'll happily send you to my CV. It's not entirely relevant here. You want studies? You've been directed to the American Heritage dictionary, the MLA, the APA, The OWL at Purdue, the Chicago Manual of Style, and Strunk & White. You've cited...wikipedia.
You yourself have noted that, regardless of sommon informal usage, the use of "they" as a pronoun with a singular referent is considered unprofessional, and likely to get one into trouble with precisely the sorts of authorities who dominate the publishing industry. Several dozen posts in this thread have demonstrated how easy it is to avoid the use of "they" as a singular pronoun.
How much more weight of evidence do you require? What exactly are you fighting for? WotC's to intentionally annoy people who follow the current rules of grammar?
PM me and I'll happily send you to my CV. It's not entirely relevant here. You want studies? You've been directed to the American Heritage dictionary, the MLA, the APA, The OWL at Purdue, the Chicago Manual of Style, and Strunk & White.You've cite
This should go without saying, but I guess it doesn't. So I'll say it.
Some people mistake these usage quibles for political correctness. But that'd be a mistake. Getting the pronouns right should aid clarity above all. And the fact is that using "he" and its conjugates for the gender-neutral singular does not do that anymore.
Speaking of the OED, my American version from 2001 was quite clear on this, that "he" should not be used anymore:
Until recently, he was used uncontroversially to refer to a person of unspecified sex, as in every child needs to know that he is loved. This use has become problematic and is a hallmark of old-fashionedness and sexism in language. Use of they as an alternative to he in this sense (everyone needs to feel that they matter) has been in use since the 16th century in contexts where it occurs after an indefinite pronoun such as everyone or someone. It is becoming more that more accepted both in speech and in writing and is used as the norm in this dictionary. Another acceptable alternative is he or she, although this can become tiresomely long-winded when used frequently. See also usage at SHE and THEY.
Your quote disproves your assertion that this is not just being politically correct.. "Until recently, he was used uncontroversially to refer to a person of unspecified sex, as in every child needs to know that he is loved. This use has become problematic and is a hallmark of old-fashionedness and sexism in language"
So.. you read this part of the quote and DON'T see how it contradicts what you just said? It was "uncontroversersially" now it's "sexism".. Thus it isn't about "clarity".
[/quote]Your quote disproves your assertion that this is not just being politically correct.. "Until recently, he was used uncontroversially to refer to a person of unspecified sex, as in every child needs to know that he is loved. This use has bec
Personally, I suspect, the only reason generic he has any currency at all is because people read archaic laws and biblical commandments, and need to go out of their way to insist that females have a right to benefit from these texts too.
But the fact is, when women did not have a right to vote - even in America! - it is difficult to argue that “all men are created equal” applies to women too.
The generic he is important for applying archaic codes to modern contexts. Linguists made efforts to extend this to “formal” writing. But it failed to catch on in ordinary speech.
When people say “he”, they really do mean a “he”. When someone says “his book”, they immediately - and correctly - understand a man's book.
But that's all irrelevant to whether or not to use "he" in 5e or not. If the books says "A cleric is a divine caster. He...", it's simply referring to a male version of that class. There is no attempt to use "he" to represent a female.
Even during 3e's silly "she" movement where everything they printed used "she", it never once applied to a male version of the class or race.
But that's all irrelevant to whether or not to use "he" in 5e or not. If the books says "A cleric is a divine caster. He...", it's simply referring to a male version of that class. There is no attempt to use "he" to represent a female.Even during
Some people mistake these usage quibles for political correctness. But that'd be a mistake.
These are people that look for "political correctness" as an excuse to dismiss anything, ironically much like how they mistakenly think other people are "looking to be offended".
If someone is being offended by benign things, he is either looking to be offended by something, or overly sensitive and being offended by something that he shouldn't be offended by. The benign use of "he" in a rulebook is one of those things.
These are people that look for "political correctness" as an excuse to dismiss anything, ironically much like how they mistakenly think other people are "looking to be offended".[/quote]If someone is being offended by benign things, he is either look
When talking about pronouns, does anybody really have a problem with the way 4e handled it? Using "you" is probably the least complained about method I've seen. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
I thought it was the best, seemed like it was talking specifically to me.
I thought it was the best, seemed like it was talking specifically to me.
This should go without saying, but I guess it doesn't. So I'll say it.
Some people mistake these usage quibles for political correctness. But that'd be a mistake. Getting the pronouns right should aid clarity above all. And the fact is that using "he" and its conjugates for the gender-neutral singular does not do that anymore.
Speaking of the OED, my American version from 2001 was quite clear on this, that "he" should not be used anymore:
Until recently, he was used uncontroversially to refer to a person of unspecified sex, as in every child needs to know that he is loved. This use has become problematic and is a hallmark of old-fashionedness and sexism in language. Use of they as an alternative to he in this sense (everyone needs to feel that they matter) has been in use since the 16th century in contexts where it occurs after an indefinite pronoun such as everyone or someone. It is becoming more that more accepted both in speech and in writing and is used as the norm in this dictionary. Another acceptable alternative is he or she, although this can become tiresomely long-winded when used frequently. See also usage at SHE and THEY.
Your quote disproves your assertion that this is not just being politically correct.. "Until recently, he was used uncontroversially to refer to a person of unspecified sex, as in every child needs to know that he is loved. This use has become problematic and is a hallmark of old-fashionedness and sexism in language"
So.. you read this part of the quote and DON'T see how it contradicts what you just said? It was "uncontroversersially" now it's "sexism".. Thus it isn't about "clarity".
It reinforces what I said. The OED is pointing out the fact that the usage is now, for better or worse (it doesn't say), controversial and distracting. The reasons why this might be is unimportant (and the OED doesn't say). It makes no political statements in the entry, and neither do I.
The OED and I are merely pointing out the apolitical fact that using "he" in this way is nowdays distracting. Nothing to do with political correctness.
[/quote]Your quote disproves your assertion that this is not just being politically correct.. "Until recently, he was used uncontroversially to refer to a person of unspecified sex, as in every child needs to know that he is loved. This use has bec
When talking about pronouns, does anybody really have a problem with the way 4e handled it? Using "you" is probably the least complained about method I've seen. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
?
What are you talking about. All through Essentials the book set up examples where they referred to genders, be it female rogues, 6' tall male fighters, and female halfling wizards constantly. This is called making the text personable. I assume, they think it helps sell books.
And when they weren't using this, they made the terrible mistake of referring to everything as a "creature." "If the creature remains hidden", "If the creature tries to climb", "If the creature picks the lock". That is worse than using no gender at all. That, hopefully, will be avoided.
What I mean is if you look in the descriptions of character abilities, be they feats, powers, or what have you, the word "you" is always used. I guess I never pay much attention to examples, because they are specific rather than general.
Characters attributes use "his or her" in their description. Feats are described using "his or her". Powers are described using "creature" and "his or her". I'm talking about the rules, not the power templates like "King's Castle" (a classic! )
You are right, that the cards or boxes or whatever people call them on their character sheet use "you" and "your". I'm fine with that. I'm talking about the ruleset though. That's where the problem often arises. Like when you are discussing how to build a paladin or wizard.
No that is not a problem, you select your class, you select your race, you roll your stats etc, etc, etc, considering it is probably the most used pronoun of all and is gender neutral.
?What are you talking about. All through Essentials the book set up examples where they referred to genders, be it female rogues, 6' tall male fighters, and female halfling wizards constantly. This is called making the text personable. I assume, t
And that's fine. When you're hanging our with your friends, use whatever you want. But when you are writing for a history professor or hope to get your history book/paper published, would you not follow the prevailing style?
Nope. Let's get real, it's not like university professors really mark off for that sort of thing, especially not when they know (and if they're professors then they should know) that the answer isn't as simple as you're making it out to be. I'm certain that you're exaggerating the number of history professors that care. As for getting your book or paper published, come on, it's not like anything gets published today without an editor going over it anyway. That's why publishers aren't so concerned about perceived minor spelling or grammar mistakes; it's the copy-editor's job to get those. They're far more concerned with the actual concept and content of the writing.
Yes, lets try to get real. I'm a university professor and I know for a fact that my colleagues will deduct marks for this sort of thing. I also know for a fact that editors will change that sort of thing. What evidence are you offering against this?
Why precisely would you insist on using a style that is different from the one your professor/publisher has requested?
Yep when a professor tells you what to use when writing a paper you use it, I will point out though that most I have had didn't care the style as long as you were consistent. Although APA is far more common in my experience (as a matter of fact I have never seen Chicago style suggested but I'm not a history major).
Nope. Let's get real, it's not like university professors really mark off for that sort of thing, especially not when they know (and if they're professors then they should know) that the answer isn't as simple as you're making it out to be. I'm certa
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the Report Post button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
Ive removed content from this thread because political discussion is a violation of the Code of Conduct.You can review the Code here: www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_...Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making person
This should go without saying, but I guess it doesn't. So I'll say it.
Some people mistake these usage quibles for political correctness. But that'd be a mistake. Getting the pronouns right should aid clarity above all. And the fact is that using "he" and its conjugates for the gender-neutral singular does not do that anymore.
Speaking of the OED, my American version from 2001 was quite clear on this, that "he" should not be used anymore:
Until recently, he was used uncontroversially to refer to a person of unspecified sex, as in every child needs to know that he is loved. This use has become problematic and is a hallmark of old-fashionedness and sexism in language. Use of they as an alternative to he in this sense (everyone needs to feel that they matter) has been in use since the 16th century in contexts where it occurs after an indefinite pronoun such as everyone or someone. It is becoming more that more accepted both in speech and in writing and is used as the norm in this dictionary. Another acceptable alternative is he or she, although this can become tiresomely long-winded when used frequently. See also usage at SHE and THEY.
Your quote disproves your assertion that this is not just being politically correct.. "Until recently, he was used uncontroversially to refer to a person of unspecified sex, as in every child needs to know that he is loved. This use has become problematic and is a hallmark of old-fashionedness and sexism in language"
So.. you read this part of the quote and DON'T see how it contradicts what you just said? It was "uncontroversersially" now it's "sexism".. Thus it isn't about "clarity".
Now, now, don't go pointing out the cognitive dissonance or you'll have to go back for reeducation.
[/quote]Your quote disproves your assertion that this is not just being politically correct.. "Until recently, he was used uncontroversially to refer to a person of unspecified sex, as in every child needs to know that he is loved. This use has bec
You know, I asked around all my friends in Acedemia, and only one could remember being told to use the Chicago Style rather than the APA.
Interestingly enough, a few of them ran into the problem of asking the prof. what manual to use, being told APA, then being marked down for things that are correct if using the APA.
You know, I asked around all my friends in Acedemia, and only one could remember being told to use the Chicago Style rather than the APA. Interestingly enough, a few of them ran into the problem of asking the prof. what manual to use, being told APA,
Honestly, after this many posts bringing up various methods of expressing this, it always seems to become convoluted without the use of "he" or "she". So I think if there is going to be a narrative in the book, it should just pick one to use for the story and make sure that: 1) Both are used equally throughout the book. 2) Stereotypes don't dominate. Note that I'm not saying they should be avoided at all costs, just that there should also be non-stereotypical examples.
4E did a good job with the second point. Check out the examples of adventurers for each race. The Dragonborn entry, to list just one, tells the story of Bharash (a male warlord), Harann (a female fighter), and Donaar (a male paladin). However, the majority of the races (6 out of 8 from the PHB) have 2 examples of male characters and only 1 for female (with the other two having the reverse).
I think that when the books have a specific narrative like this, it strengthens it to be specific. I would much prefer to read about "he" and "she" than "they".
Honestly, after this many posts bringing up various methods of expressing this, it always seems to become convoluted without the use of "he" or "she". So I think if there is going to be a narrative in the book, it should just pick one to use for the
The point here is for all people to feel properly welcome and included, regardless of their gender. As hard as you may insist otherwise, the singular "he" does not do that, because it is understood to reference males only, excluding females (as well as people who do not conform to the gender binary at all). The supposedly gender-neutral "he" is a reflection of our cultures gender disparity made manifest in our language convention, constantly reinforcing the idea of the male as the default consideration, and because language has such an influence on the way that we as human beings think, it reinforces that disparity, however minutely; you could try to say that it's just one drop in a massive ocean, but that's what the ocean is, a bunch of drops.
A couple of years ago, I met up with a group consisting of three of my female friends and one of my male friends. Upon approaching the group, I greeted them all with "Hello, ladies.". My male friend protested, saying "Hey, I'm no lady." to which I replied "I was using 'ladies' as gender neutral. You know, like when you say 'you guys' all the time and expect everybody to feel included.". "You guys" is another one that needs to be weeded out like the plague for identical reasons. Include a woman in "you guys" and she's supposed to feel honored to be considered one of the guys. Include a man in "ladies" and he's supposed to feel offended, because being a lady is demeaning. "You all" or "y'all" is vastly superior in all ways, ironically meaning that a lot of stereotypically prejudiced American southerners are the ones that got this one right. Concerned using it will make you sound unprofessional? What the heck were you doing saying "you guys" in a professional setting to begin with? Go with the longer form "you all" if you want. Nobody will notice.
This is why there's a push for gender neutral language. Cut out all of this drama and reinforcement of prejudices that we need to let go of. Once we've resolved to do that, the choices are limited on what can actually be done: - "He or she" sounds great at first but becomes literally cumbersome and still excludes people outside of the gender binary. - Alternating between "he" and "she" for examples sounds great too, but it requires too much conscious effort and can easily slip back into stereotypes like using "he" for all of the Fighter and "she" for all of the Healers and so on. - Avoiding sentences that use pronouns to begin with sounds awesome, and indeed it is the superior solution most of the time, but there are situations where using pronouns is unavoidable, especially when a piece of writing needs to sound authentically conversational. - Somebody always suggests a new gender-neutral pronoun be invented. The problem with that is we already have a bunch (Ze, Xe, Ve, E, and more), and nobody knows about any of them because inventing a new pronoun and getting people to use it isn't something than can be simply done. - All of this leaves the singular "they". It is not cumbersome, it does not exclude anybody, it does not require deliberate effort to use effectively, it's already a part of everybody's vocabulary, and indeed it's already seeing increasingly widespread use in this way. Is it perfect? No, but I've yet to hear a better solution that's anywhere near as practical.
Yep when a professor tells you what to use when writing a paper you use it...
No, I don't. I use what I prefer and what will achieve the same (or better) ends, and if the professor doesn't like it, then we can have a short shat about it. A minor amount of charisma and confidence is all that it takes to make the disagreement one that they are only delighted to let go of.
The point here is for all people to feel properly welcome and included, regardless of their gender. As hard as you may insist otherwise, the singular "he" does not do that, because it is understood to reference males only, excluding females (as well
Please remember to keep your posts polite, on topic and refrain from personal attacks. You are free to disagree with one another as long as it is done in a respectful manner.
I've removed content from this thread. Trolling/baiting is a violation of the Code of ConductYou can review the Code of Conduct here: company.wizards.com/conductPlease remember to keep your posts polite, on topic and refrain from personal attacks. Yo
The point here is for all people to feel properly welcome and included, regardless of their gender. As hard as you may insist otherwise, the singular "he" does not do that...
Your aim is off, cowboy. I'm one of the one's who has been agreeing that the use of "he" is inherently gender limiting.
- "He or she" sounds great at first but becomes literally cumbersome and still excludes people outside of the gender binary. - Alternating between "he" and "she" for examples sounds great too, but it requires too much conscious effort and can easily slip back into stereotypes like using "he" for all of the Fighter and "she" for all of the Healers and so on. - Avoiding sentences that use pronouns to begin with sounds awesome, and indeed it is the superior solution most of the time, but there are situations where using pronouns is unavoidable, especially when a piece of writing needs to sound authentically conversational. - Somebody always suggests a new gender-neutral pronoun be invented. The problem with that is we already have a bunch (Ze, Xe, Ve, E, and more), and nobody knows about any of them because inventing a new pronoun and getting people to use it isn't something than can be simply done.
All true, all things I point out to my students in comp.
- All of this leaves the singular "they".
And...wrong. It is always possible to avoid singular/plural disagreement. Always. It's not even difficult. Every counter-example that various posters think they've raised has been solved, easily. So no, there is no reason for WotC to deliberately go out of its way to use poor grammar.
Yep when a professor tells you what to use when writing a paper you use it...
No, I don't. I use what I prefer and what will achieve the same (or better) ends, and if the professor doesn't like it, then we can have a short shat about it. A minor amount of charisma and confidence is all that it takes to make the disagreement one that they are only delighted to let go of.
Again, it really sounds like you are being short-changed in your education. Someday, you'll likely try this bluff-and-smile technique after ignoring some requirement in your job. You might get away with it once or twice. Not the third.
Ask for your tuition money back. You are being taught poorly.
Your aim is off, cowboy. I'm one of the one's who has been agreeing that the use of "he" is inherently gender limiting. All true, all things I point out to my students in comp.And...wrong. It is always possible to avoid singular/plural disagreement
The point here is for all people to feel properly welcome and included, regardless of their gender.
If a woman isn't feeling welcome playing D&D for something as minor and benign as the use of "he", she is seriously overreacting.
As hard as you may insist otherwise, the singular "he" does not do that, because it is understood to reference males only, excluding females (as well as people who do not conform to the gender binary at all).
I know many women who are independant, womens' rights types, and NONE of them have psyches so fragile that they would feel unwelcome with D&D because of the use of "he", let alone be offended by it.
The point here is for all people to feel properly welcome and included, regardless of their gender.[/quote]If a woman isn't feeling welcome playing D&D for something as minor and benign as the use of "he", she is seriously overreacting.I know many wo
It is always possible to avoid singular/plural disagreement. Always. It's not even difficult. Every counter-example that various posters think they've raised has been solved, easily.
And those are mostly fine in writing, but in every day conversation (and in writing that is meant to be more casual and conversational in tone), that's just not practical. If it were, there would never be any need for any pronouns at all. Some situations require a singular, gender-neutral, personal pronoun, and "they" is still the best answer for that, however incorrect some people may mistakenly insist it to be.
Again, it really sounds like you are being short-changed in your education. Someday, you'll likely try this bluff-and-smile technique after ignoring some requirement in your job. You might get away with it once or twice. Not the third. Ask for your tuition money back. You are being taught poorly.
I don't understand how you don't see you're being hypocritical. When you try to bring up your experiences in academia, I'm a fool for disagreeing that your experiences are all there is to it. When I bring up my experiences in academia, you insult the quality of my education. See, this why these personal anecdotes don't work. It's too easy for anybody to justify to themselves that their own experiences must clearly be more representitive than the experiences of others. That's why this doesn't take the conversation anywhere meaningful.
If someone isn't feeling welcome playing D&D for something as minor and benign as the use of "he", that person really needs to seek help I know many women who are independant, womens' rights types, and NONE of them have psyches so fragile that they would feel unwelcome with D&D because of the use of "he", let alone be offended by it.
I would love to respond to your posts, and I have attempted to many times. However, some people seem to think that pointing out the obvious flaws in your arguments somehow constitutes personally attacking you, which I think is ironic considering that, if anything, calling people "overly sensitive", saying that they're "looking to be offended", and suggesting that they "need help" are themselves personal attacks. In the end, we cannot have a meaningful conversation here unless you stop trying to dismiss others experiences and feelings by personally attacking them.
And those are mostly fine in writing, but in every day conversation (and in writing that is meant to be more casual and conversational in tone), that's just not practical. If it were, there would never be any need for any pronouns at all. Some situat
The point here is for all people to feel properly welcome and included, regardless of their gender.
If a woman isn't feeling welcome playing D&D for something as minor and benign as the use of "he", she is seriously overreacting.
As hard as you may insist otherwise, the singular "he" does not do that, because it is understood to reference males only, excluding females (as well as people who do not conform to the gender binary at all).
I know many women who are independant, womens' rights types, and NONE of them have psyches so fragile that they would feel unwelcome with D&D because of the use of "he", let alone be offended by it.
Your posts make me smile. The world outside of academia is so much different!
Singular they does have a longer historical usage and is probably the best option. I still vote for hen. And people outside the sex/gender binary? Come on now.. There is only so much subdivision of language to uniquely describe sets of people that is practical. The bottome line, imho, is that people are going to speak and write the way they wish. It's up to linguists and such to document that. Good luck in trying to change, at least within a generation, what people would do without the effort for the change.
Anyone here listen to hip-hop? You mean to tell me that grammar mattered for Eminem, Riff-Raff, Eazy-E, Ice Cube etc? I would argue that proper grammar would have been a hinderance. Codifiying what is is your job profs! As a matter of fact it appears that the singular "he" is actually one of those attempts. The attempt to get rid of the singular they. How ironic.
Now, my field of study is engineering and phyiscs. In that field, we don't look at a property and redefine it to fit our worldview. Which is why you can use engineering and phyiscs to get to the moon. Or could in the 60s....
The point here is for all people to feel properly welcome and included, regardless of their gender.[/quote]If a woman isn't feeling welcome playing D&D for something as minor and benign as the use of "he", she is seriously overreacting.I know many wo
Some situations require a singular, gender-neutral, personal pronoun...
Feel free to offer an example which might show up in a DDN rulebook. Nobody in this thread who has tried has managed to. Not once. Until you do, the rules of professional publication apply.
I don't understand how you don't see you're being hypocritical. When you try to bring up your experiences in academia, I'm a fool for disagreeing that your experiences are all there is to it. When I bring up my experiences in academia, you insult the quality of my education.
Because my experiences have led to professional publication, and yours haven't. Because I'm a professional academic and you aren't. Because the rules I'm following are those WotC will have to follow in the professional marketplace, and anyone who submitted material to a publishing house folowing your 'bluster-through-it' technique would find the door closed.
This is an open playtest, and by its nature WotC is inviting a variety of un-vetted know-nothings to compete with professional opinions in many fields in order to help them generate this new edition. I think part of their job will be to distinguish between opinions that are going to help them eventually sell this game and those that might end up closing off some section of the potential market. I, for instance, know jack-all about statistics, and this is probably pretty evident in discussions of those topics. They are right to discount my opinion severely in that shere.
I'm pretty sure that, as far as their rhetoric goes, they're going to want to avoid unneccessarily irking those who adhere to the regular rules of language construction.
Feel free to offer an example which might show up in a DDN rulebook. Nobody in this thread who has tried has managed to. Not once. Until you do, the rules of professional publication apply. Because my experiences have led to professional publicat
If a woman isn't feeling welcome playing D&D for something as minor and benign as the use of "he", she is seriously overreacting.
And if a man is put off by the use of a different pronoun being used, he is equally overreacting.
I know many women who are independant, womens' rights types, and NONE of them have psyches so fragile that they would feel unwelcome with D&D because of the use of "he", let alone be offended by it.
I know of many men who are whiny jerks, and none of them would be put off by not using "he" as the generic pronoun.
So I really have no idea what you imagine this line of argument of yours is going to suggest except that whatever Wizards decides for their style guide will be absolutely acceptable to everybody.
And if a man is put off by the use of a different pronoun being used, he is equally overreacting.I know of many men who are whiny jerks, and none of them would be put off by not using "he" as the generic pronoun. So I really have no idea what you im
I would love to respond to your posts, and I have attempted to many times. However, some people seem to think that pointing out the obvious flaws in your arguments somehow constitutes personally attacking you, which I think is ironic considering that, if anything, calling people "overly sensitive", saying that they're "looking to be offended", and suggesting that they "need help" are themselves personal attacks. In the end, we cannot have a meaningful conversation here unless you stop trying to dismiss others experiences and feelings by personally attacking them.
Feel free to PM me
As for the "needs help", I pulled that out of the original post before you responded. Feel free to remove it from yours.
Feel free to PM me :)As for the "needs help", I pulled that out of the original post before you responded. Feel free to remove it from yours.
If a woman isn't feeling welcome playing D&D for something as minor and benign as the use of "he", she is seriously overreacting.
And if a man is put off by the use of a different pronoun being used, he is equally overreacting.
Exactly. You didn't find me feeling unwelcome with 3e. I jumped right in and played it with gusto!
And if a man is put off by the use of a different pronoun being used, he is equally overreacting.[/quote]Exactly. You didn't find me feeling unwelcome with 3e. I jumped right in and played it with gusto! ;)
And people outside the sex/gender binary? Come on now. There is only so much subdivision of language to uniquely describe sets of people that is practical.
I don't necessarily disagree. That's why "they" is so perfect. It includes everybody and thus makes the further subdivision that you refer to unnecessary and/or obsolete.
Because my experiences have led to professional publication, and yours haven't. Because I'm a professional academic and you aren't.
Excuse you? You have no idea whether either of those things is true. You only assume so because I'm saying something contrary to your experiences and because I am not flaunting my professional experiences as a source of authority in the same way that you are.
That is not satisfactory to me. If it's a conversation worth having, then it's a conversation worth having publically. After all, I'm not just debating this to convince you or any of the other people that I'm directly disagreeing with in this thread. I'm also here so that people who think like me know that they're not alone. Unfortunately, without lurkers and other third parties, the importance of the conversation is drastically diminished.
I don't necessarily disagree. That's why "they" is so perfect. It includes everybody and thus makes the further subdivision that you refer to unnecessary and/or obsolete.Excuse you? You have no idea whether either of those things is true. You only as
I'm going to be closing this thread as its devolving into personal attacks and sexism. Before I do that, a quick note.
Just because you don't take offense at something, or even everyone you know don't take offense at something, that doesn't mean others won't. Further, namecalling people who do take offense at something is, simply put, unacceptable on these forums.
Everyone's experiences vary and what is and is not acceptable from one game table to the next also varies. D&D Next will strive to be as inclusive as possible.
Regarding gender pronouns, the rules of grammar can and do change and what is acceptable use of grammar and pronouns in a gaming book is not the same as what is acceptable in academia.
Howdy folks,I'm going to be closing this thread as its devolving into personal attacks and sexism. Before I do that, a quick note.Just because you don't take offense at something, or even everyone you know don't take offense at something, that doesn
Second, the singular they seems fine to me in this context.
