Talk:Spivak pronoun

message: Under Spivak (alternative), is the use of mid-phrase upper-casing (Ey shaves Eirself and I am Eirs) deliberate or a tyop? –Hajor
:I believe I've seen it capitalized elsewhere, but I can't find that anything now. -Mairi 03:26, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I reckon it's a tyop, all right. Never saw it thus. Nor, seemingly, has anyone else. eritain 21:48, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Upper case

message: Regarding the most recent revert on the page  I am wondering a few things.  First why is the change wrong?  In the case of they and Eir meaning plural they shouldn't it be faces since a group of people do not share the same face.  Second seeing as I am confused by this it was probably an honest edit and so not vandalism (even if it was wrong which, it may be though I am still curious as to why). Dalf | Talk 05:36, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Spivak pronouns are singular, not plural, so "eir face" refers to one person's face. The singular they similarly refers to a single person. Factitious 19:48, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Face vs. Faces 

message: Spivak pronouns are widely used in Orion's Arm. As such they are probably going to becomeincreasingly common in other science fiction too. Orion's Arm seems to use the shorter e form. I have myself used e form many times in short stories (not publicly available yet). Since I'm Finnish I'm used to gender-neutral pronouns and often forget that English has gender-specific ones - usually resulting in embarrassment on my part. Khokkanen 13:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Chinese is also a language without any pronouns with genders. Thus, I have heard Chinese speakers of English as a Second Language say things like, "I picked up Mary's coat and handed him to it," or "I picked up Mary's coat and handed him to her." Finnish is supposed to be related to some Asian languages, rather than to European ones. I wonder about this "gender-free pronouns" issue in Estonian, which is supposed to be related to Finnish.
72.146.52.193 (talk) 22:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orion's Arm 

message: Why is this phrased as "I am <whoever's>"? Can't it be "This is <whoever's>"?
I don't like the implication of the person making the statement (on the assumption that a being with sentience is producing said sentance) being owned.
:In English, it is common to say something like "I am Dr. Johnson's patient," or "I am Professor Schmidt's student." There is no implication of ownership here. Far from it. Likewise, "Dr. Johnson is my doctor does not imply the ownership of another person."
72.146.52.193 (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possessive pronoun implying ownership of a person 

message: Is the use of this term meant to lead to Asterisk?
:Yes - see the 'Games' section of that page.  Splat as a gender looks like *e,h*,h*,h*s,h*self,*E,H*,H*,H*s,H*self. --Stevage 22:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Splat

message: The remark "very rare compared to other solutions" is contained in all or most articles about alternative pronouns, and as such not very helpful. Could whoever wrote this please specify what ey means by "other solutions"? Common Man 22:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No reply, so I'll just delete it. It was unsourced, anyway. Common Man 22:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: compared to other solutions 

message: Are we sure they were used in "Calculus on Manifolds"? I haven't read the entire book lately, but I can't find any third-person personal pronouns at all, except for a few instances of "he" and "his" to refer to male mathematicians.
:I don't think they are used in Calculus on Manifolds, for the reason you state.  That was also one of Spivak's earliest books, so he may not have adopted the system at that time.  I don't remember them in the Differential Geometry series either.  They are almost definitely in the Joy of TeX (I only say "almost" because I don't have a copy to check, but I remember them pretty clearly).  Phr (talk) 04:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Calculus on Manifolds 

message: "The real problem is the arbitrary acceptance of completely untenable prescriptive grammar" -- how is that NPOV? --Mr. A. 12:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I cleaned it up a little.  Criticisms are by their nature not very NPOV, and this whole article needs cites anyway, but it offers the opinions with a more reasoned voice. 64.121.2.59 22:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: Besides the fact that "singular they" is absurd because there was/is then no plural of "they"—their paradigms liv in two alternate universes—there are already fair solutions to the third-person singular pronouns so that no one needs Spivak pronouns: one and who.  As these are rarere pronouns, one would need to fill out their declensions:
*It imself is im, has itses, and does its.  Ça çoi-même est çoi, a çiens, et fait çen.
*One omeself is ome, has onese, and does one's.  On eun-même est eun, a oiens, et fait œn
*Who whomself is whom, has whoses, and does whose.  Qui quoi-même est quoi, a quiens, et fait quen.
Then again there are reasons why some word-forms died out.  (dumb people!) -lysdexia 03:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And of course there are reasons why perfectly acceptable shifts in English pronoun usage (like the semantically singular they) are continually condemned and ridiculous alternatives proposed. (The answer is, again, dumb people!) Strad 21:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What are the perfectly acceptable shifts? -lysdexia 05:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  another criticism from lysdexia 

message: Question to those "in the Huh? category": I always shied away from using Spivak pronouns, because I want to be understood by as many readers as possible. If we wrote "they", "their", and "them" — or "(th)ey", "(th)eir", and "(th)em", would you understand this? Since people tend to recognize what they know, everybody would see their preferred pronoun. — Sebastian (talk) 19:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I created a template to do just that. , , ... will yield , , ... . Please feel free to use in talk pages. Try also hovering with the mouse over the word! — Sebastian 06:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How about (th)em? 

message: Granted it's mostly used in cryptic crossword clues nowadays, but doesn't
U
count as a one-letter word?
- Mikes42 2006-11-26
:No more than "Nite", and I especially don't see the relevance of the linked article. --Belg4mit 00:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not U as in lazy spelling of "you" but as in "upper-class" - see the link. Relevance is the "Trivia" section of the article, hence the section title. --Mikes42 23:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: U[he] is the interjection one makes when frisky, misspellen as "ooh". -lysdexia 22:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: Is it just me, or are these basically the stereotypical pronounciations of pronouns by the UK's citizenry? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Belg4mit (talk • contribs) 05:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Precedence 

message: To me, the intro to this article gives the impression that these pronouns are in general everyday use by "some people", and that "some" is not a vanishingly small number. Is that really true? Matt 01:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I use them :) and have seen them used in wikipedia - but yes, I think you could be right with the vanishingly small - sbandrews (t) 05:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the intro to make it clear that they are not in widespread use. Matt 13:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro could be misleading? 

message: These pronouns are obscure as hell, used by only an activist clique.  To say they've been "popularized" is preposterous - they've never been popular (regarded with favor, approval, or affection by people in general).   The Dissident Aggressor 20:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popularized? 

message: In the entry for singular they in the table of pronouns shouldn't the reflexive be 'They love themself'? Rykalski (talk) 18:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No; this is a grammar singular, not a count of persons singular. For a single person, it would be "E loves eirself" or "Ey loves emself", here we have multiple people in the "they" -- although it acts like a singular (there's one group called "they") -- hence "They love themselves". Or so I'm told. htom (talk) 18:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the singular they is better described by it's (possessive) other moniker, indefinite they. Since the gender of the person being referenced is unknown or unclear (in binary terms), 'they' concludes (a point for criticism) the identity of the person is not defined, is indefinite, is hazy or shifty or somehow multiple. Hence the pluralization, but I think it would be "themself", as it does actually refer to one person (except when it does not, another point for criticism), and the generality is already covered by the 'they' part. But I have no sources for any of this, just experience, so it could not be currently incorporated in either the Spivak or singular they articles. Arlo Barnes (talk) 21:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is that it is saying it's multiple people; Robin and Charlie love themselves, together, refered to together as one, they love themself; vs. Robin loving himself, Charlie loving herself. So they love themself, like E loves eirself. I'm going to go try to become unconfused myself now. htom (talk) 22:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  They Love themself 

message: [The following comment has been moved from the article to here.]
Professor of Linguistics at UCLA circa 1975 proposed use of "e" rather than he or she as a gender neutral pronoun to replace he or she.   His name was Mc** Can someone remember his full name?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.128.20 (talk) 13:43, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: According to The Epicene Pronouns - A Chronology of the Word that Failed by Dennis Barron, psychologist Donald G. MacKay of UCLA proposed E, E's, Em circa 1977. This seems a likely candidate for Spivak's source, given his capitalization of the pronouns in The Joy of TeX. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 06:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:   ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 06:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of professor 

message: The article differentiates between new and old forms, but never says when the new form arose or who was behind it.  —Pengo 09:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ironically, the "new" form predates the "old" form. I updated the article to address this. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 06:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  No history of the "new" form 

message: I verified that Spivak's "The Joy of TeX" (1986 edition) and Shapiro's "Doom Patrols" do use Spivak pronouns, but when I checked Suber's online edition of "The Paradox of Self-Amendment", the "Preface to the Print Edition" reproduced there says:
So, an online edition of this book does not use Spivak pronouns, and according to this preface, neither does the 1990 print edition. Can someone verify whether an edition of this book exists with Spivak pronouns? ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 17:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suber's "The Paradox of Self-Amendment" seems not to use Spivak pronouns 

message: We've got the article quoting Spivak saying how "the original pronoun set was not created by me", but the only source for this is an edit to Wikipedia in 2006 by User:Michaelspivak, who never made another edit, nor confirmed his identity. This obviously isn't a reliable source, so it'd be good to replace this with something more reputable, if we could. --McGeddon (talk) 10:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Another source would be ideal. Unfortunately, since Michael died earlier this year, he's no longer around to authenticate that post, or tell us if Professor MacKay was his source. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 02:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Michael Spivak quote sourced to a Wikipedia edit 

message: The use of Elverson or Everson is inconsistent. I can't seem to find a reputable source to confirm which is correct. Could someone please research this and make the name consistent at Spivak pronoun? 
--Secarrie (talk) 21:12, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Corrected the one "Everson" typo. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 23:43, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elverson Or Everson?  

message: As a friendly comment, I think you need to add more explanations and some examples that can support your sentence, "This contact with genderless pronouns in virtual communities is sometimes a person's first experience and experimentation with genderqueer or trans presentation." Besides, if you don't mind, please give us brief definitions of "genderqueen" and "trans presentation". Thanks and great job! =)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.46.130 (talk) 07:36, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the feedback! "Genderqueer" has an article on Wikipedia and will be linked to it. "Trans presentation" can also be linked to a relevant article for clarification. (Flyingcat21 (talk) 18:04, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Spivak Pronouns and Gender

message: I came here to Wikipedia looking for the 2nd person, singular and plural forms. I'll bet I'm not the only one. Now I have to look somewhere else. The least that an article on Spivak pronouns can include is a complete table of the pronouns in question. That's probably the main reason why folks navigate to this Wikipedia article, to find out what the pronouns are and what their proper usage is.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.97.43.192 (talk) 12:00, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  A table including 1st person, 2nd person, and 3rd person, singular and plural would be nice 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Spivak pronoun. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aetherlumina.com/gnp/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Spivak pronoun. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130625120121/http://www.aetherlumina.com/gnp/ to http://www.aetherlumina.com/gnp/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:57, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: > The original ey has been argued to be preferable to e, because the latter would be pronounced the same as he in those contexts where he, him, his loses its h sound.
The citation here is to one person’s opinion (https://web.archive.org/web/20140202215940/http://www.aetherlumina.com/gnp/technical.html#declensiongnp). Does that qualify as any kind of authoritative source? I was expecting a more substantial discussion or argument at the link. I could write my opinion on a chalk board, take a photo of it, put it online and then link to it a source in Wikipedia, too. Would that qualify for a citation?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.226.107 (talk) 22:43, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  “has been argued” … 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Neopronoun. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 21#Neopronoun until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 00:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Neopronoun" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: The state of this article seems wildly out of touch with the opening and assumed subject from the title. If the article is just about the usage of terms on a specific internet community, which itself seems a little trivial, then it doesn't need a running list of similar terms used throughout the last two hundred years. I'm not sure of a more appropriate article that the table describing said terms and the history section could be moved to however. XeCyranium (talk) 00:09, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article scope