Alternative: Girls (females) in D&D/ Roleplaying

[Umbran]

Umbran: How the heck do you get from describing how technical writing -- and by YOUR OWN extension, game writing -- should look: ... to this weaksauce "no right answer" cruft?

Oh, I admit it wasn't a very well constructed step. I'll try to get to the same point in just a moment or two...

Even if we were talking about all things, though, singular "they" would still have no utility.

I don't think that is correct. I will accept that it provides no new utility - you can always reconstruct a sentence so that some word(s) other than "they" is (or are) used. Singular "they" is certainly redundant with several other ways of saying the same thing.

That's not a strong argument against it, though. Redundancy is the root of flexibility, and is what allows language to flex to meet the needs of different styles. Redundancy is what enables us to write poetry. In heavy excess, it might be a problem, but I don't see that the language is having difficulty due to the excessive number of ways we can construct a reference to a singular gender neutral object.

There's no such thing as "linguistic Darwinism" within a single language.

So long as there's more than one way to say a thing, there is competition. If one form of saying something is truly dreadful, it gets dropped in favor of some other way of saying the same thing.

You're confusing "provides a benefit" with "hasn't killed the species yet".

No, I am not. In even a simple evolutionary model, a thing may be beneficial, neutral, or harmful. Outright bad and harmful things get weeded out. beneficial things tend to get amplified, and neutral things tend to just sort of hang around until they become either harmful or beneficial.

I'm saying that this particular construction has been at least neutral, and possibly beneficial. If it were really awful, a few centuries is enough time for it to have fallen by the wayside with so many other archaic forms. I'm saying the verdict of centuries and millions of people using the language so far trumps you.

Seriously, your argument implies the human appendix is useful. Your argument is flawed.

If you aren't speaking mathematics, then every argument, every analogy, has flaws.

Unless you have some evidence that singular "they" is on the way out (like the human appendix), then I don't see your point as very strong.

Singular "they": it never helps.

Your argument is flawed.

You present a couple of example constructions, and then assert that since use of the word is painfully ambiguous in those examples, that the use is bad in any and all contexts. But, since you are choosing the examples, they are cherry-picked to support your point. Furthermore, you present no evidence other than your personal assertion that the generalization from your examples is valid for the rest of the language.

Your position so far ultimately relies on your personal authority to assert that generalization.

 

[Nifft]

You present a couple of example constructions, and then assert that since use of the word is painfully ambiguous in those examples, that the use is bad in any and all contexts. But, since you are choosing the examples, they are cherry-picked to support your point. Furthermore, you present no evidence other than your personal assertion that the generalization from your examples is valid for the rest of the language.

Your position so far ultimately relies on your personal authority to assert that generalization.

Well, what I'm really relying on is the inability of my opposition to provide any example sentence where singular "they" helps.

I've addressed examples made by other people (so your complaint about me cherry-picking is false), and I'm more than willing to address any examples you can come up with. IMHO that may be a fruitful avenue of discussion.

Amusingly, the arguments arrayed against me are where you'll see the appeals to authority:
- Appeal to popularity ("lots of people do it, it must be right")
- Appeal to antiquity ("500 years!")

All I got are examples, and the bold assertion that you can't find one which contradicts me. The interpretation of these examples does not rely on my "personal authority". Rather, I trust each reader to see the truth for themself.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Umbran]

Amusingly, the arguments arrayed against me are where you'll see the appeals to authority:
- Appeal to popularity ("lots of people do it, it must be right")
- Appeal to antiquity ("500 years!")

The appeal to antiquity is not just an appeal to antiquity - it is coupled to a specific mechanism (selection) through which antiquity matters.

The appeal to popularity is an appeal to popularity, but given that language is defined by use, how many people use the structure does matter.

How does your authority matter?

All I got are examples, and the bold assertion that you can't find one which contradicts me.

Ah, but you see, you've already declared your absolute position. We have no reason to expect you'd ever accept a contradiction. Until you are willing to accept a judge other than yourself, it would be a fool's errand to try to contradict you.

De gustibus non est disputandum. We have yet to establish that the matter is anything other than an issue of taste, upon which no individual can be disputed.

 

[Krensky]

Rather, I trust each reader to see the truth for themself.

So distributive cases are fine when you use them. Got it.

And it's not an appeal to antiquity or popularity.

It's an appeal to common use.

You're not arguing in favor of a grammatical rule, you're arguing in favor of a stylistic one. Which is a prefrence.

Unless I missed the memo on the formation of a French style Academy of the English language and your appointment to it.

English is a living language, stop trying to kill it with strict prescriptional grammar. No one forces you to use it, but it's use is perfectly cromulant.

 

[pawsplay]

Because 3 is more than 2.

Your sentence (using "she") had an ambiguity between two parties. My sentence (using optionally singular "they") had an ambiguity between three parties.

3 > 2.

We are not performing a numerical comparison. The question is, does sufficient ambiguity exist that the sentence may be uninformative or misinformative? If so, we are concerned about the likelihood and scope of the mistake, not the breadth of possibilities. Replacing "people in the room" with "people in northern China" doesn't make a sentence any more ambiguous.

AMBIGUOUS=True

Wait. Are you asserting that being referred to as 'she' can be insulting to females?

Being referred to as females rather than women can be, although obviously different women feel differently about that. But no, obviously. What I am saying is that women may feel insulted when an unidentified person is referred to as she or her.

Consider:

I know someone with a crazy ex-spouse who is always trying to use the children in disagreements.
- Oh? Who is she?

I'd like to introduce you to the unit's new administrative assistant.
- I'd like to meet her.

I've hired a new housekeeper.
- Does she do windows?

My child is into ballet.
- How long has she been doing it?

 

[pawsplay]

Amusingly, the arguments arrayed against me are where you'll see the appeals to authority:
- Appeal to popularity ("lots of people do it, it must be right")
- Appeal to antiquity ("500 years!")

Actually, those are appeals to evidence. The evidence is that singular they is acceptable to large numbers of people, and understood by essentially all English speakers.

You left out appeals to not perpetuating sexist stereotypes, appeals to ambiguity being okay or even preferable in some situations, appeals to not wanting to type he/she eight hundred times, and appeals to wanting a pronoun when you wish to purposefully not disclose someone's gender.

 

[nedjer]

So what we saying here, pronouns are the liquorice allsorts of the grammatical world - there's one or two you like now and again, but there's no way you want the full packet?

 

[Nifft]

How does your authority matter?

Show me where I invoke my authority -- rather than appealing to the reader's reason -- and I'll answer this one for you.

(I don't think any of my arguments rest on "my authority".)

Ah, but you see, you've already declared your absolute position. We have no reason to expect you'd ever accept a contradiction. Until you are willing to accept a judge other than yourself, it would be a fool's errand to try to contradict you.

Same goes for you, buddy. And yet here I am, still trying reason, against your flurry of dismissal.

Give me an example where singular "they" helps. Just one. C'mon.

So distributive cases are fine when you use them. Got it.

See how I underlined it? That was intended to convey sarcasm. "Themself" is blatantly incorrect. (... same as singular "they".)

You're not arguing in favor of a grammatical rule, you're arguing in favor of a stylistic one. Which is a prefrence.

Actually I'm arguing a purely functional case. I'm saying that the singular "they" is the equivalent of an appendix: we'd be better off without it, since it never does any good, but sometimes it tries to kill us by exploding. JUST. LIKE. "THEY".

We are not performing a numerical comparison. The question is, does sufficient ambiguity exist that the sentence may be uninformative or misinformative?

Maybe you're not, but I am. I am asserting that ambiguity among THREE objects is MORE AMBIGUITY than ambiguity among TWO objects.

You can try to argue that:
True == 2; True == 3;
... but it's a disingenuous tactic at best.

What I am saying is that women may feel insulted when an unidentified person is referred to as she or her.

Consider:

I know someone with a crazy ex-spouse who is always trying to use the children in disagreements.
- Oh? Who is she?

One member of a spousal disagreement is often female. I guess you are trying to imply that "crazy ex-spouse" == "she", but your question doesn't demand that at all.

I'd like to introduce you to the unit's new administrative assistant.
- I'd like to meet her.

I've hired a new housekeeper.
- Does she do windows?

My child is into ballet.
- How long has she been doing it?

... I can't get upset about any of these assumptions. They're trivial to correct, and correcting them quickly would better serve your anti-stereotype agenda.

My friend is in prison.
- What did he do?

Actually, those are appeals to evidence. The evidence is that singular they is acceptable to large numbers of people, and understood by essentially all English speakers.

So, people haven't exterminated rats. You would argue that this means people like rats?

No, it means the effort to exterminate rats isn't worth the problem they pose to use.

Same deal with the appendix, by the way. It has NO BENEFIT, but neither does it kill enough of us to get itself ejected from the gene pool.

You left out appeals to not perpetuating sexist stereotypes, appeals to ambiguity being okay or even preferable in some situations, appeals to not wanting to type he/she eight hundred times, and appeals to wanting a pronoun when you wish to purposefully not disclose someone's gender.

Yeah, you're going to have to show me very clearly how leaving the subject's sex ambiguous for the maximum duration downplays any stereotypes.

If anything, leaving the sex ambiguous allows the stereotype to fester.

Video game example: compare the shock among the fans of finding out that Samus was female to the "shock" of finding out Chell's sex. The longer they left it ambiguous, the deeper the assumptions ran.

So what we saying here, pronouns are the liquorice allsorts of the grammatical world - there's one or two you like now and again, but there's no way you want the full packet?

There should be an award for best use of humor to re-civilize a thread.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Krensky]

|See how I underlined it? That was intended to convey sarcasm. "Themself" is blatantly incorrect. (... same as singular "they".)

It's a distributive construct. Technically, they isn't even a pronoun in that sentence. It's a bound variable. Different logical relationship entirely.

Oh, and you STILL haven't given a good reason why it's wrong beyond proscriptive grammatical style.

o, people haven't exterminated rats. You would argue that this means people like rats?

No, it means the effort to exterminate rats isn't worth the problem they pose to use.

Same deal with the appendix, by the way. It has NO BENEFIT, but neither does it kill enough of us to get itself ejected from the gene pool.

Um, talk about an improper, loaded analogy. This is a discussion of linguistics. Common use is the yard stick for determining vocabulary and grammar. If you are going to keep arguing against that, the frankly you don't know what you're talking about.

Oh, and modern medicine does show that the appendix does provide a benefit, so you're zero for two.

Yeah, you're going to have to show me very clearly how leaving the subject's sex ambiguous for the maximum duration downplays any stereotypes.

The primary one that comes to mind is those cases where either the gender or the sex of the antecedent or quantifier is indeterminate or irrelevant but still present.

 

[Nifft]

It's a distributive construct. Technically, they isn't even a pronoun in that sentence. It's a bound variable. Different logical relationship entirely.

Oh, and you STILL haven't given a good reason why it's wrong beyond proscriptive grammatical style.

Joking aside: my case has never been that it is wrong.

My case has always been that it is bad.

- Why is it bad? Because it never helps, and it sometimes hurts.

- How does it hurt? By increasing ambiguity.

The primary one that comes to mind is those cases where either the gender or the sex of the antecedent or quantifier is indeterminate or irrelevant but still present.

Don't be coy. Whip it out. Let's take a gander at whatever you're talking about.

Also: please address the observation that letting an assumption fester will increase surprise upon unveiling. Show how letting an assumption fester decreases stereotypes.

Cheers, -- N