Talk:Singular they/Archive 2007-08

message: Could you please give me her words, I don't own this book. Let me explain what I object to. I hope you'll understand.
*language purist is used in a pejoritive way, that doesn't really help make a positive case for using singular they anyway
*also, what I need to see to believe this claim is a quote from someone who claims to be a purist and proscribes they
*if it is true what people claim about this, well then, the evidence shouldn't be hard to find
But leaving that aside, there is truth in what is being said here, the debate is between an ideologically motivated attempt to change usage, and a logic and clarity based case to retain it. For Wiki to be neutral, we need to put a clear, positive case for the gender equity case; but we also need to put a clear, positive case for logic and clarity.
Let me give an example of a similar case where we'd probably agree. There are women who are biologically XY and have testes instead of ovaries. Medical scientists used to call them "male psuedohermaphrodites". Technically speaking it is a clear and precise way of describing the biology of what is going on. However, the plain fact of the matter is these women (and their husbands) have no doubt that they are women and usually find out what is going on when they want to know why they can't have children. Telling them it's because they are "male" is just crazy. Nowadays there are a number of ways of describing this situation, none of them are ideal, but AIS (androgen insensitivity syndrome) is pretty usual.
Now, suppose I said, "Hang on! I'm an expert medical terminologist and male psuedo etc etc is just more logical, let's keep our language pure." If I took that line, I'd be an insensitive purist.
My point here is that because I'm not pursuaded that generic he actually suggests anything sexist at all, I'm completely unmoved by the rationale for change in language. Instead, what I am not alone in seeing, is a lot of language use that is more concerned with signaling gender neutrality than in being clear and specific. As a teacher at an all boys school, I heard other staff using gender neutral forms to refer to the young men quite regularly. A lot of people didn't feel comfortable using generic forms that can indicate masculinity, even when all the possible referents in context were in fact male.
I've made my request above. I'm keen to hear Pam's actual words. However, my main point is not fussing over details and it is certainly not a matter of making a case for people to "get with the program" and use generic he. My point is simply that in this article we need to be clear about what the debate is, and how to report it neutrally.
To suggest that one side of the debate is modern, enlightened, majority opinion and the other is old-fashioned, narrow-minded minority purists does not describe the arguments, it describes the people. Actually its debateable whether these things are true, but even if they are the right stereotypes, it's actually irrelevant to the actual argument which is quite straight forward.
It's rude to use demeaning language for minorities, however accurate, traditional or logical the terms. Legislate against them by all means. The question is, "Does generic he exclude women?" The answer is "no" and "yes". The other question is, "Does "singular" they cause ambiguity and loss of clear expression?" The answer there is "yes" and "no". Both sides have good arguments. Casting one side as "self opinionated pig-headed purists" and the other as "feminazi lesbians" does not help elucidate the totally rational and community sensitive opinions of the intelligent views of both sides.
Can you see my point about "purist"? That'd be a great start. ;)
Thanks, Alastair – "Does generic he exclude women?" The answer is "no" and "yes". Agreed, and even more so to your following points!
:Quoting a little more, PPpage243-4 (fair use/study), for the entry on he and/or she, — Some would argue that the use of he/his is also generic in: The applicant must demonstrate his ability to work independently, and how he would develop the unit if appointed. However for many people, this use of he/his suggests that women are ineligible for the job. Thus in ordinairy usage he/his/him seems to be losing its capacity to be generic. — So, the feminist case is stated here strongly, that such usage excludes, or seems to exclude, women (without necessarily implying that Peters, herself, is a feminist !/?) As to purists, would you agree that the AHD and Baskervill/Sewell could represent them, in the first instance, since they're already referenced in the article?  Fowler's Grammar? The issues here are universal/generic (for their) and exclusive/generic (for he), its tricky! Untangling this stuff is gonna improve the article, I hope.Newbyguesses - Talk 11:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, I could not agree more! Casting this grammatical issue as a these versus them is entirely the wrong approach for any encyclopedia, let alone WP. We are working to move away from that approach, I think. Even if the moral issues seem compelling, (on whichever side of the debate), is it not best for WP to sum up the issues, dispassionately, and allow the reader to make their own mind up? My personal POV is that each speaker has the native right to speak their native language as they see fit. Politics complicates everything, but toning it down seems the right approach, yes? Not easy, but that is the way we are going.Newbyguesses - Talk 12:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A New Direction

message: Here is the code/text for an amazing table of greek pronouns or something. Cant really go in this article, but surely somewhere?
Ούτως	και	ο  	πατήρ 	μου	ο  	ουράνιος	ποιησει	υμιν,  	εαν	μη 	αφητε          	εκαστος 	τω 	αδελφω 	αυτου	απο 	των	καρδιων	υμων	τα 	παραπτωματα	αυτων.
Thus 	too	the	father	my 	the	heavenly	will do	to you,	if 	not	you all forgive	each one	the	brother	his  	from	the	hearts 	your	the	trespasses 	their.
Newbyguesses - Talk 14:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed from History

message: Please do not remove references from the article, and leave the author's name in citations in the text. These things are important because they are the verification trail of the article. It allows people to find books in libraries or search for online references. I know it may seem cumbersome to have details like authors names, when there are so many other things to say, but actually the authors, as well as titles are very much part of the information articles provide. Readers are not actually interested in your opinion, or mine, they are interested in facts, and where they can check those facts. Additionally, a golden rule of Wiki is that material that is not supported by a source can be removed at any time. However, material that accurately reflects a reliable source needs to be retained. Alastair Haines 01:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: {ibid.}(op.cit.)page538CGEU — Newbyguesses - Talk 08:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations and references

message: Good points - there are currently 28 footnote/refs, and several References, and Further reading. Each footnote supports a useful entry, and they consist in reliable, relevant sources. Baskervill&Sewell- An English Grammar is well used, AHD, Cambridge English Usage and Epicene ProNouns(Newman) also. User:Alastair Haines, who has contributed extensively, but did not originate the article, has a broad knowledge of the topic and extensively of these and considerable other relevant reference material. User:Newbyguesses, also a contributor, has also investigated these references, and those as can be got to online, such as Warenda. Naturally, the topic is suitable for a treatment utilizing the best of the plentiful available sources and references. This possibility is advantageous to seeking to raise the article at some point, when stability, quality and the efforts of editors concord, to good article status. The current useful, though by no means polished article is a credit to the originator, the further contributors, and particularly User:Alastair Haines for considerable contributions and maintenence to "Singular they" — Newbyguesses - Talk 02:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are far too kind to me. Let it be known that it is Newbyguesses, and the willingness to interact on behalf of this editor, that has drawn anything that might be considered helpful from me. Respect at you! ;) Alastair Haines 04:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: current status of article

message: A little more searching and I found:
*... das Haus oder Auto, das er gerade begutachtet.
It would appear that jede and oder prefer singular relatives in distributive constructions, unless gender marking makes this sound silly to a native German speaker.
*every <feminine noun>, who [feminine singular form] BUT
*<neuter noun> or <feminine noun>, which [epicene plural form]
In the second case, plural inflections seem to be used. I'm not sure how much lee-way German has in this. I suspect calling such relatives singular die would seem rather odd. Rather, the plural appears to be used to escape discordant gender distinctions, and seems natural enough because distribution can be conceived almost equally well as singular or plural. I'd appreciate a German native speaker helping us to understand what you do, bitte? Alastair Haines 14:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More German

message: David Kellogg Lewis, my favourite genius, considering 'Adverbs of Quantification' in Formal Semantics of Natural Language (1975) suggested some elements of natural language demonstrate a "quantification variability effect". This is pretty standard stuff now, cited as "the well-known QVE (Lewis:1975)".
For others with a mind to the academic stuff. Some liguists split quantifiers into two categories — D and A — standing for determiner-quantifiers and adverbial-quantifiers.
Others have done work on distributive constructions. Some languages have distributive particles or clitics. There are different types of distribution — distributive-key and distributive-share, as against non-distributive and unmarked varieties.
It would appear that distributive and epicene they are not new, not unique to English, and considered accademically quite independently of political or prescriptive issues. However, the one word that is not used in the serious literature to classify these uses of they (or analogs in other languages) is singular. Alastair Haines 16:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A knight in shining armour