The Index of the Giant's Comments

[ThePhantasm]

Hey guys, I appreciate all the suggestions. I might not make it to updating the index until at least the end of this week though... things are busy around these parts. Thanks for your patience.

[martianmister]

Why X character don't use X item, etc.

[FujinAkari]

Did Rich just said by mistake that V's a male?

"Miko goes nuts on V, critical hitting him with her katana and knocking him to -1 in one shot. She unleashes the rest of her full attack on Elan, knocking him to -8 too."

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showp...&postcount=489

No, Rich speaks English, which uses him as a gender-neutral term.

[rodneyAnonymous]

No, Rich speaks English, which uses him as a gender-neutral term.

Which is too bad, because it's not.

[Archwizard]

Which is too bad, because it's not.

Since English (unlike other languages) has no gender-neutral singular third-person pronouns, him (for objective, he for subjective, his for possessive) has (have) stepped into that role through accepted use over a very long time.

You can bitch about it being misogynistic or whatever, but it is what it is.

There is no 'their' for singular use.

[rodneyAnonymous]

You can bitch about it being misogynistic or whatever, but it is what it is.

Yep, though that ("bitch about it") implies it's not a valid complaint. Can't get an ought from an is. I don't use the word mankind to refer to all humanity, either.

[Archwizard]

Yep, though that implies it's not a valid complaint. Can't get an "ought" from an "is". I don't use the word "mankind" to refer to all humanity, either.

That's because other gender-neutral terms, e.g. people and humanity, exist.

I don't use mankind either. However, when I have no choice I use the accepted term, because that's what facilitates clear communication. And clear communication is the goal of language. Going against accepted usage without a compelling reason and alternative just muddies the language and causes problems.

You want a gender-neutral set of words to use to replace him/his/he? Invent them, get them to become accepted, and then life will carry on. Until then, it is what it is.

[Raineh Daze]

Singular they has an illustrious history, which apparently means nothing every time this argument starts again. It is, in fact, valid. So, too, is ending a sentence with a preposition. Victorian grammarians and their Latin obsession...

'He' somehow ended up as the default for gender neutrality, in defiance of all sense, though. But still, not the only choice. :/

[Archwizard]

Singular they has an illustrious history, which apparently means nothing every time this argument starts again. It is, in fact, valid. So, too, is ending a sentence with a preposition. Victorian grammarians and their Latin obsession...

'He' somehow ended up as the default for gender neutrality, in defiance of all sense, though. But still, not the only choice. :/

They is in no way singular. "nominative plural of he, she, and it."

I'd love to see a source reference it as singular.

[Raineh Daze]

Do Shakespeare, Jane Austen, Mark Twain, or George Bernard Shaw count? Unless you have something against literary sources over the course of centuries.

[Archwizard]

Do Shakespeare, Jane Austen, Mark Twain, or George Bernard Shaw count? Unless you have something against literary sources over the course of centuries.

Jane Austen doesn't .

Although, I was actually just coming back to say that I see that Merriam-Webster does support using they as singular. (See, that's a source. A current dictionary, you cannot use centuries old writings as modern templates for writing. Especially not Shakespeare since much of what was English in his day no longer is. What you can use those for is justification for modern usages. Similar, but not the same.)

They acknowledge that it's a plural term but can be used for 'indeterminate gender and number' since 'English lacks a common-gender third person singular pronoun'.

They (plural!) then reference some of those same authors to justify modern usage.

I still find people objecting to 'he' as a generic pronoun to be silly at best, but it is interesting to see the they usage discussion at MW.

[Raineh Daze]

I can't understand why it needs justification. He, by default, implies male, and masculinity as the norm. She just doesn't get used in this context. Made up words don't really catch on due to being made up. They does not define the number of people referred to but at least avoids assumptions about their qualities. That, I see as vastly preferable.

Besides which, singular they has more than enough usage to be perfectly acceptable.

[oppyu]

*cough* The sexism embedded in everyday language has nothing to do with anything the Giant said, ever *cough*

[SaintRidley]

Since English (unlike other languages) has no gender-neutral singular third-person pronouns, him (for objective, he for subjective, his for possessive) has (have) stepped into that role through accepted use over a very long time.

You can bitch about it being misogynistic or whatever, but it is what it is.

There is no 'their' for singular use.

Actually, their is a good singular for their. Long history of the singular they, stretching back for as long as we haven't had any singular gender-neutral pronouns that apply to people. It's also very prevalent in actual usage. Number really isn't a problem. It's rather easy to understand when they is being used as a plural vs. when it's being used as a singular.

Dictionaries do not define the English language, either. Usage does. Go to your local university, talk to a linguistics professor about singular they. They'll give you more than enough information.

As for Shakespeare, you really think most of what he wrote isn't English anymore? Some of the words may have narrowed or expanded their definitions, but every word is still perfectly usable English. Regularize the spelling, and even everything Chaucer wrote two hundred years earlier is perfectly usable (if possibly stilted and archaic sounding).

That's all I'm going to say about that here.

[Archwizard]

I can't understand why it needs justification. He, by default, implies male, and masculinity as the norm. She just doesn't get used in this context. Made up words don't really catch on due to being made up. They does not define the number of people referred to but at least avoids assumptions about their qualities. That, I see as vastly preferable.

Besides which, singular they has more than enough usage to be perfectly acceptable.

Bah, Shakespeare made up tons of words. Just become one of the most famous playwrights/poets ever and you're golden!

My main problem with they is you substitute one problem (gender) for another (number) so I see it at serving no purpose. And for every literary use of they in this manner you'll find thousands of 'he'.

[Raineh Daze]

Because the number being referred to may be inferred from context. There is no problem. Implying a certain quality, however, as the norm, even through something as simple as choice of pronoun, is a problem.

[Ron Miel]

Made up words don't really catch on due to being made up.

"Some made up words are perfectly cromulent" chortled Tom.

[137beth]

Made up words absolutely never catch on. Except for, well, every single freaking word that ever caught on.

[Ron Miel]

Can we please set aside petty bickering about rules of grammar and get back to listing The Giant's comments.

Please.

[rodneyAnonymous]

Throughout most of the comment, Rich refers to V as "s/he" or "his/her". I don't think it means anything that there is a "him" or three in there.

[Flame of Anor]

Can we please set aside petty bickering about rules of grammar and get back to listing The Giant's comments.

Please.

Heartily seconded. I'm usually the first to start correcting people's grammar, but this is just ridiculous. Get over it or start a new thread.

[Ted The Bug]

I saw new posts here, and so I clicked it to see if the Giant revealed some new nugget about the story.

Instead, there was this. My poor brain. Moving on would be awesome.

[Lvl45DM!]

Took me like three whole spins of my mouse wheel to find this. Thats outrageous.

[oppyu]

The Giant on Haley's leadership, as well as touching on gender representation and how chaotic/lawful alignments factor into teamwork.

[Silverionmox]

*cough* The sexism embedded in everyday language has nothing to do with anything the Giant said, ever *cough*

What sexism? Germanic languages used to put all words in three categories, named gender categories because they happened to put different genders in different categories. In some languages like English the word genders have mostly evaporated, in others like German they're still present. I don't think people attach more importance to der Schrank than to die Tisch because the first has a male grammatical gender and the latter has a female grammatical gender.

[Kish]

What sexism?

Thirding or whatever-it-is-now the "let's get back to listing Rich's comments, not arguing over linguistics."

[oppyu]

What sexism? Germanic languages used to put all words in three categories, named gender categories because they happened to put different genders in different categories. In some languages like English the word genders have mostly evaporated, in others like German they're still present. I don't think people attach more importance to der Schrank than to die Tisch because the first has a male grammatical gender and the latter has a female grammatical gender.

Point. Missing it.

[ChristianSt]

... der Schrank ... die Tisch ...

really bad example ;) - Tisch is also grammatically male in German ("der Tisch") (better example would be "die Tür" [or quite interesting sun/moon, in German it is "die Sonne"/"der Mond" - in French/Italian it is the other way (sun masculine, moon feminine)].

[I don't know your source, but maybe you misread with the plural ("die Tische"), but for the plural "die" is the normal article in German (so it is also "die Schränke"). The instructions manual from the card game Tichu uses "die Tisch" while discussing the 3-player variant, but it even says it is not right. (The reason that is given, is to avoid confusing it with "Christopher Tisch". But since he is never mentioned in the rules otherwise, I think it is mostly because it's funny, the manual isn't that serious)]

[Flame of Anor]

Point. Missing it.

Gee, it's nice to see such a well-explained and logical rebuttal.

[Sniffnoy]

More on that topic. And more. And a bit more. (OK, that last one's not exactly on the same topic.)