|
4 months ago ::
Jan 27, 2013 - 9:24AM
#101
|
Date Joined:
Aug 15, 2011
|
As far as I know, the reason why "he" was criticized was it was exclusionary - it was bad enough that the hobby tended to be a majority male, but then when the rule book assumed you were a male too, it seemed like the game was trying to exclude women.
This is called 'reading WAY too much into it'.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 27, 2013 - 9:56AM
#102
|
|
|
I think it is a very good thing that Crimson and Hal are not writing the rulebook. If you can't take the time to place in an apostrophe or comma, well, I don't even know how to respond to that. Grammar changes. Words change. But until they do in my dictionary, rules are rules.
And this is exactly what I mean. This mindset is incorrect.
Incorrect. 
So, since I want points to be conveyed with proper conventions so they are clearly understood, I am incorrect. Hmm...
Look, I am all for the evolution of language. It's used constantly from text messaging to new science terms used to label inventive ideas. But, when you're talking about a rulebook, you want things to be clear. When you're talking about a rulebook for a hobby, now you want it to be clear and personal. That is why proper conventions, the use of "you", and the use of properly well thought of examples using gender are needed.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 27, 2013 - 10:31AM
#103
|
Date Joined:
Jun 24, 2009
|
For your edification, I recommend everybody read what Grammar Girl has to say on the subject. She researched the issue quite thoroughly. I respect her opinions on grammar. She recommends that editors draft their own style guides for publications that recommend the singular "they". But in the absence of such a style guide, she recommends that writers use "he or she" when playing it safe, or the singular "they" if they are prepared to defend themselves.
Indeed.
I would also like to point out a couple of apparent errors people were making against what they perceived to be my position.
Firstly, I never made any claims as to which usage ('he or she' vs singular 'they') was existentially correct. My point was more a practical one: it is well known that the singular they 'sets teeth on edge' for some people. These people may be the ones marking your paper or deciding whether you get a job. The same is not quite true of 'he or she' or other usages: some people dislike it, but it is not considered grammatically incorrect by anyone. Yes, it is considered poor style by some, but not outright incorrect. So which should you use: a style that is considered somewhat clumsy by some people; or a style that is considered outright grammatically incorrect? To me, the answer is clear. And those who are claiming that this will never be a problem because no one would ever want to shop/do business with/get a job from people who are turned off by the 'singular they' really are misleading people: they have no idea about people's individual circumstances or what they might want or need.
Moreover, in my field (history), the answer is even clearer: the standard style guide (Chicago) defines proper and improper usage. I seem to have taken some heat for saying that the Chicago Style 'literally' defines proper and improper usage. But in fact it really does: the litterae in that style guide explain what is proper and improper, and academic books and articles, as well as student papers, normally have to conform to that style guide. So yes, I was using 'literally' correctly. I find it a little ironic-- another word I am using correctly here-- that some posters can be so incensed by the perceived 'smugness' or 'arrogance' of those who resist the 'singular they', but can then turn around and display the exact same smugness towards those who prefer 'he or she'. These proponents of the 'singular they' decry the elitism of those with whom they disagree... then happily proclaim that anyone who dislikes the 'singular they' is not the sort of person with which anyone would ever want to associate!
FYI (and so I don't get accused again of incorrectly using a frequently misused word): The irony here is that I could be accused of using literally incorrectly when I was literally using it correctly.
"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
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 27, 2013 - 10:34AM
#104
|
Date Joined:
Jun 24, 2009
|
Most importantly, as a linguist, all this grammatical pedantry is linguistically incorrect. The prevailing common use is correct. Period. Even if that varies from region to region, and between groups within a given region.
Well I think you've just proven my point. I said that if you want to write a paper or get a book or article published in the field of history, you usually have to conform to the Chicago Style. That is without a doubt the 'prevailing common use' in that field.
"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
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 27, 2013 - 10:44AM
#105
|
|
|
I liked what 3e and Pathfinder did where they had iconic characters for each of the classes divided between make and female and used the appropriate pronoun for each character. a
Before posting, ask yourself WWWS: What Would Wrecan Say? Spoiler:
Show
My Webcomic
Updated Tuesday and Thursday
Read my blog on the WotC Community Site (updated irregularly to avoid spamming the "Featured Blogger" list).
You can follow me on Twitter: "@DnDJester"
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 27, 2013 - 10:45AM
#106
|
Date Joined:
May 24, 2010
|
Certainly here in New Zealand the singular they/thier is not an issue I have ever come accross and it is interesting that even a highly respected american source Language Log (from the descriptivist camp of linguists) considers it an example of pedantism often credited to Strunk and White. A fairly typical Language Log entry on the topic: "Linguists sometimes have run-ins with copy editors over points of usage: the linguists use variants that they know to be standard, but the editors edit them out in obedience to some fancied "rule of grammar". Frustration ensues. On to John McWhorter (in Our Magnificent Bastard Tongue: The Untold History of English (2008)) on "singular they", a topic we've returned to many times on Language Log. The short version is that in certain (not all) contexts, singular they is entirely standard and has been so for a very long time. Yet many people believe, passionately, that it is always wrong, because it offends "logic"." BTW the situation where it is not appropriate? That is when you have a named unique individual of known gender (Sarah, Robert, Emanual, Natasha etc) earlier in the sentence/paragraph that is still unambiguously the topic of the sentence. However this would not apply to a PHB as they are almost always discussing the character/class in the singular abstract.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 27, 2013 - 11:28AM
#107
|
Date Joined:
Dec 10, 2008
|
Bring back the girdle of masculinity/feminimity and then just alternate every other instance. he, then she... 
Perhaps a Girdle of Politically Correct Gender Neutrality needs to be a thing?
QFT
By the way, congratulations to all the participants in this thread for actually discussing this topic instead of hurling accusations of hate crimes at each other and competing over who can feel the most oppressed. That's how we lost Astrid's.
I rest easy in the knowledge that D&D Next will be the best game it can be when we work together and focus important issues like this.
OD&D, 1E and 2E challenged the player.
3E challenged the character, not the player.
Now 4E takes it a step further by challenging a GROUP OF PLAYERS to work together as a TEAM.
That's why I love 4E.
"Your ability to summon a horde of celestial superbeings at will is making my ... BMX skills look a bit redundant."
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 27, 2013 - 11:35AM
#108
|
Date Joined:
Dec 10, 2008
|
I liked what 3e and Pathfinder did where they had iconic characters for each of the classes divided between make and female and used the appropriate pronoun for each character. a
Don't forget to be sure that the art includes all different racial types as well, in the correct proportions to assure that the product appeals to everyone and no one accuses anyone of racism. Sure, the text probably won't refer to it , other than the obligatory statement that humans can be any color they want, but at least it will ... actually, I don't know what that would accomplish, but they need to be sure to do it because otherwise it's bad.
OD&D, 1E and 2E challenged the player.
3E challenged the character, not the player.
Now 4E takes it a step further by challenging a GROUP OF PLAYERS to work together as a TEAM.
That's why I love 4E.
"Your ability to summon a horde of celestial superbeings at will is making my ... BMX skills look a bit redundant."
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 27, 2013 - 12:12PM
#109
|
Date Joined:
May 25, 2012
|
Anyone who scoffs at the PC movement should be cast back in time to the early 70's, in the body of a black woman.
To topic: I despise the use of the 2nd person pov. It's grammatically acceptable, but rhetorically intrusive...like having a character point at the audience from on-screen. Preachy.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 27, 2013 - 1:07PM
#110
|
Date Joined:
Dec 10, 2008
|
Anyone who scoffs at the PC movement should be cast back in time to the early 70's, in the body of a black woman. To topic: I despise the use of the 2nd person pov. It's grammatically acceptable, but rhetorically intrusive...like having a character point at the audience from on-screen. Preachy.
Yeah, preachiness is bad. We have to make sure the language is used correctly or ... racism.
OD&D, 1E and 2E challenged the player.
3E challenged the character, not the player.
Now 4E takes it a step further by challenging a GROUP OF PLAYERS to work together as a TEAM.
That's why I love 4E.
"Your ability to summon a horde of celestial superbeings at will is making my ... BMX skills look a bit redundant."
|
|
|
