|
4 months ago ::
Jan 28, 2013 - 8:58PM
#211
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 28, 2013 - 9:05PM
#212
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 28, 2013 - 9:08PM
#213
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 28, 2013 - 9:09PM
#214
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
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
From dictionary.com, second definition:
anyone (without reference to sex); that person: He who hesitates is lost.
(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.
<Ioun> they're apparently making a MolIsCool pp
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 28, 2013 - 9:40PM
#215
|
Date Joined:
Jul 27, 2009
|
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.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 28, 2013 - 9:53PM
#216
|
Date Joined:
Aug 28, 2005
|
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".
Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TMSpeaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 28, 2013 - 10:00PM
#217
|
Date Joined:
Jun 24, 2009
|
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.
"What is the sort of thing that I do care about is a failure to seriously evaluate what does and doesn't work in favor of a sort of cargo cult posturing. And yes, it's painful to read design notes columns that are all just "So D&D 3.5 sort of had these problems. We know people have some issues with them. What a puzzler! But we think we have a solution in the form of X", where X is sort of a half-baked version of an idea that 4e executed perfectly well and which worked fine." - Lesp
"They are making it clear that when modern design and common sense come into conflict with tradition, tradition wins." - Thecasualoblivion
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 28, 2013 - 10:10PM
#218
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
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.
<Ioun> they're apparently making a MolIsCool pp
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 28, 2013 - 10:20PM
#219
|
|
|
Heh, remember, “neuter” and “neutral” mean very different things.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 28, 2013 - 10:39PM
#220
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
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. 
<Ioun> they're apparently making a MolIsCool pp
|
|
|
