|
5 months ago ::
Jan 26, 2013 - 6:17AM
#11
|
Date Joined:
Jun 24, 2005
|
I prefer the 3e style with names. Be nice if they introduced them first. Could use the party from the cartoon.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 26, 2013 - 6:19AM
#12
|
Date Joined:
Apr 12, 2010
|
This is not because im a male chauvinist only based on purely empirical evidence among anyone I know:
I would prefer they used "she" across the board. I have never met a man who cared, but met a lot of women having a small rage at the grave injustice of using "he". So why not just give in? (Is it too obvious that Im married?)
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 26, 2013 - 6:44AM
#13
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
Ne
It's halfway between he and she and is only 2 letters. Imagine all the saved ink.
Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds.
Constitution Based Class for Next!
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 26, 2013 - 9:06AM
#14
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2008
|
Funny stuff. Hope it doesn't get reported.
My vote is for "it." I wouldn't mind heshe for subjective and herhis for possesive and himher 1/2 the time and herhim for objective 1/2 the time but I can hear the complaints already.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 26, 2013 - 9:17AM
#15
|
|
|
S/He reads clumsily. He/She is even worse.
The best way to tackle the situation is to set up gender usage from the begining, that way it doesn't sound awkward or forced. When you initially talk about the ranger class, make it a she. When you initially talk about the sorcerer class make it a he. Distribute equally. This way it seems as both genders are enjoying the game, and both can be whatever they wish to be.
Once the combat examples or skill examples begin, simply refer back to those same characters. "The paladin from our class is example is about to choose her background. She often wanted to play a character that grew up from an impoverished family, and slowly, through the church's help, made her way toward nobility."
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 26, 2013 - 9:18AM
#16
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2008
|
S/He reads clumsily. He/She is even worse.
The best way to tackle the situation is to set up gender usage from the begining, that way it doesn't sound awkward or forced. When you initially talk about the ranger class, make it a she. When you initially talk about the sorcerer class make it a he. Distribute equally. This way it seems as both genders are enjoying the game, and both can be whatever they wish to be.
Once the combat examples or skill examples begin, simply refer back to those same characters. "The paladin from our class is example is about to choose her background. She often wanted to play a character that grew up from an impoverished family, and slowly, through the church's help, made her way toward nobility."
Hmm, what happens when she is the wizard and he is the fighter. We all know wizards are worth more... How's that fair?!?
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 26, 2013 - 9:22AM
#17
|
|
|
S/He reads clumsily. He/She is even worse.
The best way to tackle the situation is to set up gender usage from the begining, that way it doesn't sound awkward or forced. When you initially talk about the ranger class, make it a she. When you initially talk about the sorcerer class make it a he. Distribute equally. This way it seems as both genders are enjoying the game, and both can be whatever they wish to be.
Once the combat examples or skill examples begin, simply refer back to those same characters. "The paladin from our class is example is about to choose her background. She often wanted to play a character that grew up from an impoverished family, and slowly, through the church's help, made her way toward nobility."
Hmm, what happens when she is the wizard and he is the fighter. We all know wizards are worth more... How's that fair?!?
It is fair. You distribute evenly. Do you really think someone reading a 300 page rulebook doesn't have the intelligence to distinguish between a character generated example and a rule?
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 26, 2013 - 10:26AM
#18
|
Date Joined:
Feb 17, 2010
|
Singular "they" vs. generic "he" is one of those common usage vs. snooty academic usage debates, one that has been raging for centuries.
From Wikipedia: "In the 19th century, grammarians in England petitioned the British Parliament to declare gender-indeterminate pronouns as 'he' rather than 'they', which was common usage at the time."
If I happen to meet a 19th century grammarian, and they object to my usage, I'll gladly thumb my nose at them.
I want "punch magic in the face" to be a maneuver
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 26, 2013 - 10:49AM
#19
|
Date Joined:
Jun 24, 2009
|
Please note that while Wikipedia is a useful source, if you are actually writing, whether for a term paper or a book to be published, your audience will probably think the 'singular they' is ungrammatical. Even the Wiki source some posters here are citing notes that style manuals such as the Chicago Manual of Style consider the singular they to be incorrect:
"A singular antecedent requires a singular referent pronoun. Because he is no longer accepted as a generic pronoun referring to a person of either sex, it has become common in speech and in informal writing to substitute the third-person plural pronouns they, them, their, and themselves, and the nonstandard singular themself. While this usage is accepted in casual contexts, it is still considered ungrammatical in formal writing. . . "
The singular they is generally inferior to a singular pronoun. As one website noted, consider the sentence, 'Many professors make every student buy their own books.' To what does the 'they' here refer? To the professor or to the students? This is one of the reasons why many people still reject the singular they.
Speaking as a university professor, I can say that most professors still consider the 'singular they' to be an error. Do not use it on your resume, and do not write it in your term papers or manuscripts that you hope to get published. Avoid using it in your speech if you are presenting at a board meeting or in front of your class. It still sounds incorrect to many of us, regardless of whether or not you may think the historical argument has any merit. You may be right that there is nothing wrong with a 'singular they'... but you also need to realize that what counts is what your audience thinks, especially if you are interviewing for a job or trying to get a manuscript published. If you want to sound educated, avoid the singular they.
"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
"When I DM Next I feel that I might as well be running a game based off of notes scribbled on a paper napkin." -Reinhart
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 26, 2013 - 11:08AM
#20
|
|
|
Please note that while Wikipedia is a useful source, if you are actually writing, whether for a term paper or a book to be published, your audience will probably think the 'singular they' is ungrammatical. Even the Wiki source some posters here are citing notes that style manuals such as the Chicago Manual of Style consider the singular they to be incorrect:
"A singular antecedent requires a singular referent pronoun. Because he is no longer accepted as a generic pronoun referring to a person of either sex, it has become common in speech and in informal writing to substitute the third-person plural pronouns they, them, their, and themselves, and the nonstandard singular themself. While this usage is accepted in casual contexts, it is still considered ungrammatical in formal writing. . . "
The singular they is generally inferior to a singular pronoun. As one website noted, consider the sentence, 'Many professors make every student buy their own books.' To what does the 'they' here refer? To the professor or to the students? This is one of the reasons why many people still reject the singular they.
Speaking as a university professor, I can say that most professors still consider the 'singular they' to be an error. Do not use it on your resume, and do not write it in your term papers or manuscripts that you hope to get published. Avoid using it in your speech if you are presenting at a board meeting or in front of your class. It still sounds incorrect to many of us, regardless of whether or not you may think the historical argument has any merit. You may be right that there is nothing wrong with a 'singular they'... but you also need to realize that what counts is what your audience thinks, especially if you are interviewing for a job or trying to get a manuscript published. If you want to sound educated, avoid the singular they.
Heh, the word “themself” even exists in the 1400s. It is fine grammatically - and always has been.
A *style* is just that: a style. Not a rule.
Trying to force the English language to fit prescriptive artificial grammatical constructs - such as using masculine he as if gender indefinite, forcing subject verb agreement, or never end a sentence with a preposition - these unnatural conceits, are themselves the problematic.
|
|
|
