I really do prefer "they" (no offence!) for ideological reasons ^^;
See, that, I don't mind. My reasons are ideological. What's important is that active choice.
though at a pinch I use "ze/hir".
I actually discussed this in an earlier draft. While I'm not a super supporter of natural language arguments, it's not worth ignoring. The fact is that language didn't leap to creating a new pronoun, but re-adopted another existing word for the purpose. One of the other issues with the zi/zim/zir family is that, in my peer group, that's used as a transgendered non-preferential pronoun.
"Until Chinese met the Europeans, the singular third-person pronoun was singular. :("
I presume you mean "genderless" rather than "singular."
I was unclear. I don't mean to say that language can't change, but that English didn't change, or, more accurately, it changed in a different way. Unless I misunderstood your point.
Thanks! Glad to hear you agree with the content. I get the "you talk like the 19th century" a fair bit as well.
...construction, spelling and grammar (irony, that)... - I'm pretty sure there's a rule of the internet that reads "any declaration of proper grammar, especially if in correction of someone else's grammar, will include at least one glaring grammatical error. This equally applies for spelling."
Re: Your Editor Here!mister_troperJanuary 6 2010, 17:35:46 UTC
Thank you! This is awesome.
This is possibly the toughest edit I've ever given. Hope that's ok. ::: sheepish grin :::
It's okay. Not only is it going up "for posterity," as opposed to my journal writing, I specifically called you out in it, which, as far as I'm concerned, gives you the duty to get tough.
Even Shakespeare used the singular they. - I'll spare you the lengthy discussion on this, but it blends into the next point.
From here on, you do a LOT of backpedaling, tiptoeing, and rambling. - The only point I'd object to is "backpedaling," but you're entirely right that the back half deserves a cut. It's basically another article entirely. It bothers me hanging out a what and a how without a why.
Suddenly, Patricia becomes a MALE. "He" can be just as awkward and confusing as "they". - Which is why I think the term "universal he" is bad and misleading. It's not to always use it, it's to use it in place of "he or she." Since we know Pat is a girl, it stays "she
( ... )
Re: Your Editor Here!lacombeJanuary 8 2010, 16:09:28 UTC
It's okay. Not only is it going up "for posterity," as opposed to my journal writing, I specifically called you out in it, which, as far as I'm concerned, gives you the duty to get tough.
Cool. :-)
Which is why I think the term "universal he" is bad and misleading. It's not to always use it, it's to use it in place of "he or she." Since we know Pat is a girl, it stays "she."
But what if the speaker does NOT know that Pat's a girl?
But yes, thank you very much for the edits. It was really helpful, and vastly helps me narrow down what's useful and good.
You're very welcome! <3 Good luck with the second draft!
Comments 6
(The comment has been removed)
See, that, I don't mind. My reasons are ideological. What's important is that active choice.
though at a pinch I use "ze/hir".
I actually discussed this in an earlier draft. While I'm not a super supporter of natural language arguments, it's not worth ignoring. The fact is that language didn't leap to creating a new pronoun, but re-adopted another existing word for the purpose. One of the other issues with the zi/zim/zir family is that, in my peer group, that's used as a transgendered non-preferential pronoun.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
I presume you mean "genderless" rather than "singular."
I was unclear. I don't mean to say that language can't change, but that English didn't change, or, more accurately, it changed in a different way. Unless I misunderstood your point.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
...construction, spelling and grammar (irony, that)... - I'm pretty sure there's a rule of the internet that reads "any declaration of proper grammar, especially if in correction of someone else's grammar, will include at least one glaring grammatical error. This equally applies for spelling."
Reply
This is possibly the toughest edit I've ever given. Hope that's ok. ::: sheepish grin :::
I host my edits on the web site, as it gives me a lot more editing freedom. I use a color code with my edits:
Red: Identifies errors.
Blue: Identifies Strong Suggestions
Green: Identifies Expressed Opinions
And for this edit:
Purple: Identifies casual conversation.
Hope this helps!
http://www.brigits-flame.com/edits/msiter-troper-december-06-2009.php
Reply
This is possibly the toughest edit I've ever given. Hope that's ok. ::: sheepish grin :::
It's okay. Not only is it going up "for posterity," as opposed to my journal writing, I specifically called you out in it, which, as far as I'm concerned, gives you the duty to get tough.
Even Shakespeare used the singular they. - I'll spare you the lengthy discussion on this, but it blends into the next point.
From here on, you do a LOT of backpedaling, tiptoeing, and rambling. - The only point I'd object to is "backpedaling," but you're entirely right that the back half deserves a cut. It's basically another article entirely. It bothers me hanging out a what and a how without a why.
Suddenly, Patricia becomes a MALE. "He" can be just as awkward and confusing as "they". - Which is why I think the term "universal he" is bad and misleading. It's not to always use it, it's to use it in place of "he or she." Since we know Pat is a girl, it stays "she ( ... )
Reply
Cool. :-)
Which is why I think the term "universal he" is bad and misleading. It's not to always use it, it's to use it in place of "he or she." Since we know Pat is a girl, it stays "she."
But what if the speaker does NOT know that Pat's a girl?
But yes, thank you very much for the edits. It was really helpful, and vastly helps me narrow down what's useful and good.
You're very welcome! <3 Good luck with the second draft!
Reply
Leave a comment