Pronouns

[DonTadow]

I've read style books where it is acceptable to use one chapter with the male pronoun and one chapter with the female pronoun. I must admit though, I hate the whole politically collect way of producing.

 

[Aesthetic Monk]

That's one of the more annoying options, IMO, because I see "their" being used as a singular case pronoun. Using "her" as a generic pronoun can be distracting, but at least it's the correct case (i.e. singluar). Using "their" for a singular case pronoun (e.g. "a fighter's best friend is their sword") is not only distracting because it's non-standard, but also because it's grammatically incorrect and outright poor English.

I think you mean "number," which is singular/plural, not "case," which is nominative/objective/possessive). I agree with your basic sentiment as a general matter of style. However, as someone pointed out upthread, the use of the plural pronoun "they" for an antecedent of an unknown gender is increasingly common, and references such as Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage (1994) remind us that such usage has long historical roots (and has long been attacked, too). The "problem" is in the English language's lack of a singular, gender-neutral pronoun comparable to his/her, etc.

Back to the point: I like WotC's way of alternating gender references.

 

[hbarsquared]

I reccommend that we the following should be included in the english language:

Ve (subject), ver (object), vis (possessive)

 

[Wolf72]

I kind of like it ... I had to get used to it at first, but it doesn't bother me now.

 

[sniffles]

I think the way it is now is fine, except for a few instances where someone failed to notice in proofreading that they changed gender pronoun in mid-entry.

 

[Aesthetic Monk]

I reccommend that we the following should be included in the english language:

Ve (subject), ver (object), vis (possessive)

Finally--a practical suggestion!

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

I think you mean "number," which is singular/plural, not "case," which is nominative/objective/possessive).

Yes, you're correct; I should have said "number." Thank you for the correction.

However, as someone pointed out upthread, the use of the plural pronoun "they" for an antecedent of an unknown gender is increasingly common, and references such as Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage (1994) remind us that such usage has long historical roots (and has long been attacked, too).

And its use should continue to be attacked, IMO. It's wrong. There are many common mistakes in English, but that doesn't make them correct; it just makes them common.

Yeah, yeah, "evolution of language..." If enough people start calling pig feces "gravy" our mashed potatoes will still taste the same, I suppose. The pronoun thing has always grated on me, though, because it's such blatant kneeling before the altar of political correctness.

The "problem" is in the English language's lack of a singular, gender-neutral pronoun comparable to his/her, etc.

That would be "his." There're many words in English that require context to nail down their exact meaning -- "his" is one of them. The "exclusive language" objectors are looking for any excuse to be offended, IMO.

Back to the point: I like WotC's way of alternating gender references.

I think it's the least annoying of the options that bow to political correctness. I'd still prefer traditional English.

 

[Nyaricus]

I've always half-noticed that the classes, in reference, used the iconics gender - but until this thread never really 'got' it.

As for the they/them/their, I'd find it fine to it use personally if I were writing up the classes for WotC - but then I am not oppposed to the way that they used the iconics either. English is a lovely language in that it's so f'd up

Anyways, just my 2c

 

[mhacdebhandia]

And its use should continue to be attacked, IMO. It's wrong.

Except that you are wrong, in that the proscription against its use and the establishment of "he/him/his" as the gender-neutral pronoun is younger than the singular "they".

"He" as gender-neutral is nasty anyway, and as wrongheaded as prescribing Latinate grammar for English - split infinitives forever.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Except that you are wrong, in that the proscription against its use and the establishment of "he/him/his" as the gender-neutral pronoun is younger than the singular "they".

Yes, I understand the point about correct language being a relative thing. We could just as well bitch about Noah Webster and how he imposed HIS spelling on all of us. Perhaps we should...it offends me that my spelling creativity is chained to the earth by those rules when I could be flying free...

In any case, under the current rules, "their" is plural, not singluar. And I see no good reason to change that. I think the efforts to do so are silly. You're free to disagree, of course.

"He" as gender-neutral is nasty anyway, and as wrongheaded as prescribing Latinate grammar for English - split infinitives forever.

What? But Latin is older!

I guess gender-neutral "He" is as nasty as you want it to be.