xer?

I notice LSJ keeps referring to somethign/someone called xer? Is xer a VTES celebrity I have not heard of or am I completely missing something here and this question exposes me for the imbecile I am? simcof

[ quoted text not captured ] I *think* it's some silly abbreviation for "his or her". Not sure. It miight be a Baali, though. We already have "unnamed", "xer" could be Childe...

[ quoted text not captured ] xer = him or her xe = he or she

simcof <sim...@gmail.com> wrote: >I notice LSJ keeps referring to somethign/someone called xer? http://www.braddolman.com/misc/xe.html -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

[ quoted text not captured ] ahh thanks. so politically correct netspeak gotchya

On Tue, 18 May 2010 00:00:31 -0700 (PDT), Petri Wessman <or...@orava.org> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Well, there is xerxes, sultan of lepers, must have to do something with him or her... :) -- Regards, Daneel

On May 18, 4:17 am, Vincent <v.rip...@gmail.com> wrote: > Can I use xis? "Can"? Sure. Xey/Xe is just an attempt to restore number agreement to They when used with a singular antecedent. By this method, the "Th" is replaced with "X": They -> Xey (or Xe) Them -> Xem Their -> Xeir (or Xer) Of course, these only have meaning inasfar as the speaker and listeners imbue upon them. If you want to use Xis or Ha or Hsit or Dysquxtlplct, that's permitted, too. It's just a matter of adoption.

[ quoted text not captured ] Tsk, tsk, tsk. "Look, dood, those "D3mons33d3lit3" hackers aren't kewl. They just can't spell..."

[ quoted text not captured ] Xe/Xer is the bastard child of political correctness...

[ quoted text not captured ] I actually like "Dysquxtlplct". Although it is quite hard to type...

> Xe/Xer is the bastard child of political correctness... Agree 100%. Ridiculous PC bollocks. jase

Juggernaut1981 <brassc...@gmail.com> writes: [ quoted text not captured ] I disagree. My native language has no gendered pronouns. As a result, talking about persons whose genders are unknown or indeterminate (such as player A and player B) is very straightforward. We have no need for awkward constructs like "s/he" and "he or she", and neither for neologisms like "xe" or "xer" that confuse newcomers. So from my point of view, the problem lies in the English language: it's simply not well suited for talking about abstract and indeterminate "placeholder" persons. Political correctednes doesn't enter into it at all. HG

>Political correctednes doesn't enter into it at all. Sorry, but this is simply naïve. jase

On May 20, 8:18 pm, Jason <jasonsv...@iinet.net.au> wrote: > >[From my POV], Political correctednes doesn't enter into it at all. > > Sorry, but this is simply naïve. Sorry, but that is just myopic.

> Sorry, but that is just myopic. Male descriptors serve perfectly well as default setting when referring to singulars of indeterminate sex in the English language. They have done for centuries. Are you seriously suggesting that the invention of nonsensical words like "xeir" and "xe" is borne out of a desire for accuracy rather than appeasement to a vocal minority who see male descriptors as somehow pejorative? Bullshit. jase

[ quoted text not captured ] No. I'm suggesting that your assertion regarding the utility of xe from Janne's point of view being naïve is myopic -- it misses his (well-stated) point of view entirely. You want to talk about the birth of the words, fine. The rest of us are talking about their use. In the non-dead language English.

> No. I'm suggesting that your assertion regarding the utility of xe > from Janne's point of view being naïve is myopic -- it misses his > (well-stated) point of view entirely. You obviously don't understand my assertion then. It had nothing to do with xe's utility. Janne made two points. The first, that the 'problem" lies in English's lack of placeholder descriptors. Undisputed. The second, that the use of nonesensical "xers" has nothing to do with political correctness. This is entirely disputable. > The rest of us are talking about their use. In the non-dead language > English. Incorrect. Some of us are in fact talking about the birth of words. The conversation started with Simcof's "so politically correct netspeak gotchya" post. But I'm pretty sure Simcof and Juggernaut don't need you to tell them what they're talking about. You are correct in that English isn't dead. That means you can indeed pull words out of any number of orifices and hope they stick. Excelsior! jase

On May 21, 11:13 am, Jason <jasonsv...@iinet.net.au> wrote: > > No. I'm suggesting that your assertion regarding the utility of xe > > from Janne's point of view being naïve is myopic -- it misses his > > (well-stated) point of view entirely. > > You obviously don't understand my assertion then. It had nothing to do > with xe's utility. Actually my assertion would be purely based upon usage in the world. The two languages spoken by the greatest number of people have gender- differentiated pronouns. Those languages would be Mandarin Chinese and English. Chinese has one male, one female and a non-specific "them" as well as a single word replaceing "I, Me". English has one male, one female and the non-specific "them". Based on those two languages, which are spoken by the vast majority of people in the world, the gender non-specific words are statistically irrelevant (potentially being limited to languages spoken by a relatively small population). The origins of the "xer" terminology would appear, from the quoted website, to be a construct entirely derived to remove a percieved bias/ social injustice that stems from the idea that males and females should be identified separately in our language. To remove the "s/he, his/her" terminology does little to promote 'equality' between the genders but would apparently about 'homogonising' genders. Or in other words... it's seems to be politically corrext bollocks designed to achieve 'equality' by removing all distinctiveness.

On May 18, 1:01 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > On May 18, 4:17 am, Vincent <v.rip...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Can I use xis? > > "Can"? > > Sure. > > Xey/Xe is just an attempt to restore number agreement to They when > used with a singular antecedent. By this method, the "Th" is replaced > with "X": [...] The English language already has a pronoun to indicate generic sense, and that pronoun is "he" (see 2nd meaning). http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/he Main Entry: 1he Pronunciation: \ˈhē, ē\ Function: pronoun Etymology: Middle English, from Old English hē; akin to Old English hēo she, hit it, Old High German hē he, Latin cis, citra on this side, Greek ekeinos that person Date: before 12th century 1 : that male one who is neither speaker nor hearer <he is my father> — compare him, his, it, she, they 2 —used in a generic sense or when the sex of the person is unspecified <he that hath ears to hear, let him hear — Matthew 11:15(Authorized Version)> <one should do the best he can> -- Damnans http://www.almadrava.net/damnans http://www.vtes.net http://es.groups.yahoo.com/group/vteshispania/

Damnans <damna...@ono.com> wrote: >The English language already has a pronoun to indicate generic sense, >and that pronoun is "he" (see 2nd meaning). Welcome to the wonderful world of language, where meanings move on and dictionaries play catch-up. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > Damnans wrote: >> The English language already has a pronoun to indicate generic >> sense, and that pronoun is "he" (see 2nd meaning). > > Welcome to the wonderful world of language, where meanings > move on and dictionaries play catch-up. Are you implying that this 'Xer' lingua is standard? If not, I'm unsure as to what you're implying with your statement. The issue as I see it is that VTES already has a standardized method of "working around" the English language's gender and numerical/group issues, and that is to use the feminine to refer to Methuselahs and the masculine to refer to minions. This is listed on page 4 of every rulebook, so why not use it? This is a issue of some note when the set designer and rules arbiter isn't following the clearly standardized method laid out and explained in the rulebook. If the feminine-for-Methuselahs and masculine-for-minions style is no longer to be followed in official VTES postings and correspondence by the set designer and rules arbiter, then may I suggest that the rulebook be changed to correspond to the new Xe/Xer language so that confusion, especially across national and international language barriers, can be avoided? If not, may I then suggest removing the information as to relieve those of us who do follow this suggested-style? Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/ Please bid on my auctions! http://shop.ebay.com/kjmergen/m.html

On May 21, 5:31 am, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > This is a issue of some note when the set designer and rules arbiter > isn't following the clearly standardized method laid out and explained > in the rulebook. This is a non-issue. The rulebook follows its own non-standard usage for reasons explained in the rulebook. The cards themselves do not follow that non-standardard usage. (as people who read card texts know). And, of course, on-line chatter need not be so rigid as either of those two sources.

James Coupe escribi�: > Damnans <damna...@ono.com> wrote: >> The English language already has a pronoun to indicate generic sense, >> and that pronoun is "he" (see 2nd meaning). > > Welcome to the wonderful world of language, where meanings move on and > dictionaries play catch-up. > And where people tend to forget that the masculine genre is generic first, and then it is masculine. -- Damnans http://www.almadrava.net/damnans http://www.vtes.net http://es.groups.yahoo.com/group/vteshispania/ http://iuturna.sorcery.net (IRC channel: #vtes)

[ quoted text not captured ] I personally find the use of xe/xer confusing. Down here in Louisiana we use "babe" generically, so can we just start calling everyone "babe". Sure someone might get offended, but since we are changing the basic tenets of the English language then we might as well make it provocative.

On May 21, 10:29 am, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > I personally find the use of xe/xer confusing. > > Down here in Louisiana we use "babe" generically, so can we just start > calling everyone "babe". > > Sure someone might get offended, but since we are changing the basic > tenets of the English language then we might as well make it > provocative. I'm not sure that's workable as a pronoun: --- Rewrite quote --- The actual mechanics go like this: if a Methuselah initiates any activity (or "pass") that seems (to any player at the table) to indicate that Methuselah is not Playing to Win (that is, babe is working toward zero more VPs), ask for explanation. If babe indicates that babe is not in violation of the Play to Win rules because babe is in a lost position, then call a judge over to confirm. If the judge agrees, then babe is ousted (babes predator gets 1VP and six pool as usual). --- End rewrite quote --- (And that doesn't even use "babeself" :-)

Jason wrote: > > Male descriptors serve perfectly well as default setting when > referring to singulars of indeterminate sex in the English language. > They have done for centuries. > Women did not have the right to vote for centuries too... best - chris

[ quoted text not captured ] In some places I have been, we have used the term "fucker" generically too. best - chris

Damnans <damna...@ono.com> wrote: >James Coupe escribi�: >> Welcome to the wonderful world of language, where meanings move on >>and dictionaries play catch-up. > >And where people tend to forget that the masculine genre is generic >first, and then it is masculine. In fact, if people don't use it as generic first, it's *not* generic first. Languages evolve. There are many, many words whose meanings have changed significantly in the last 5 years, the last 50 years, the last 500 years. [ quoted text not captured ]

Kevin M. <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >James Coupe wrote: >> Damnans wrote: >>> The English language already has a pronoun to indicate generic >>> sense, and that pronoun is "he" (see 2nd meaning). >> >> Welcome to the wonderful world of language, where meanings >> move on and dictionaries play catch-up. > >Are you implying that this 'Xer' lingua is standard? No. >If not, >I'm unsure as to what you're implying with your statement. That quoting a dictionary definition to show that a word means something does not mean that, in fact, all users of the language agree on or use or immediately recognize that meaning. Living languages gain, lose and modify the nuanced meanings of words. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe escribi�: > Damnans <damna...@ono.com> wrote: >> James Coupe escribi�: >>> Welcome to the wonderful world of language, where meanings move on >>> and dictionaries play catch-up. >> And where people tend to forget that the masculine genre is generic >> first, and then it is masculine. > > In fact, if people don't use it as generic first, it's *not* generic > first. Languages evolve. There are many, many words whose meanings > have changed significantly in the last 5 years, the last 50 years, the > last 500 years. Of course languages evolve, but the fact is that most people use the masculine gender as generic all the time nowadays. Some other people who think they are too smart (like those trying to implement political correctness on our lives) ignore the fact that there is already a generic "gender" to use, which also happens to be used to refer to the masculine things. Besides, human beings are lazy by default, and those politically correct terms will not stick, since speakers will follow, as usual, the golden rule of simplicity. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 21 May 2010 19:53:13 +0100, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > Kevin M. <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >> James Coupe wrote: >>> Damnans wrote: >>>> The English language already has a pronoun to indicate generic >>>> sense, and that pronoun is "he" (see 2nd meaning). >>> >>> Welcome to the wonderful world of language, where meanings >>> move on and dictionaries play catch-up. >> >> Are you implying that this 'Xer' lingua is standard? > > No. > >> If not, >> I'm unsure as to what you're implying with your statement. > > That quoting a dictionary definition to show that a word means something > does not mean that, in fact, all users of the language agree on or use > or immediately recognize that meaning. Living languages gain, lose and > modify the nuanced meanings of words. As a generic statement this is not false. But in the specific case stating it does not clarify the situation. More people will agree and recognize "he" to refer to an unspecified gender subject than the arbitrary "xe". Which you will have to explain every once in a while. And it will still be arbitrary. Languages evolving usually take steps in the direction of simplicity, not complexity. -- Regards, Daneel

On May 22, 7:19 am, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote: > But in the specific case stating it does not clarify the situation. More > people will agree and recognize "he" to refer to an unspecified gender > subject than the arbitrary "xe". Which you will have to explain every > once in a while. And it will still be arbitrary. Sure. Until enough people decide to use "xe", at which point more people will agree and recognize "xe" to refer to an unspecified gender subject. And you will no longer have to explain it. I'm pretty sure that, say, the word "cool" didn't mean "extra awesome" for a really long time. And yet now, most english speaking people (and probably most non english speaking people, for that matter) accept that when something seemingly inappropriate is called "cool", it is likely "extra awesome" as opposed to having a low temperature. 'Cause that is how language works. Like, I don't necessarily agree that trying to port "xe" into English as a common word is going to have much traction. But I certainly understand the point, and can't imagine why anyone questions the use of it, given that people are willing to explain it when needed. -Peter

On May 22, 6:11 am, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: > Of course languages evolve, but the fact is that most people use the > masculine gender as generic all the time nowadays. Sure. Until they don't. Most people used "girl" to refer to adult, grown women for a long time too. Not so much any more. > Some other people who think they are too smart (like those trying to > implement political correctness on our lives) ignore the fact that there > is already a generic "gender" to use, which also happens to be used to > refer to the masculine things. Things never change if people don't think they are "too smart" and start ignoring the default status quo. When people start thinking they are "too smart" and start attempting to implement change of the status quo, things sometimes happen. > Besides, human beings are lazy by default, and those politically correct > terms will not stick, since speakers will follow, as usual, the golden > rule of simplicity. People regularly used completely offensive racial slurs in every day conversation and didn't think twice about it for, heck, even most of my life time. Nowadays? Not so much. So apparently, even though human beings are lazy by default, sometimes people can change speaking habits just by trying. I'm in no way trying to imply that using "he" instead of "xe" is offensive. But I certainly see why someone would want to try the alternative. And it baffles me that people object to it. I mean, yeah, ok, kind of klunky seeming currently, but so what? I'm pretty sure that, say, when LSJ uses "xe" instead of "he", he isn't, in his head, secretly demanding that *you* do. -Peter

Peter D Bakija escribi�: > On May 22, 6:11 am, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: [...] >> Some other people who think they are too smart (like those trying to >> implement political correctness on our lives) ignore the fact that there >> is already a generic "gender" to use, which also happens to be used to >> refer to the masculine things. > > [...] When people start thinking they > are "too smart" and start attempting to implement change of the status > quo, things sometimes happen. Or things may just not happen if those changes are baseless, unnecessary and unuseful. >> Besides, human beings are lazy by default, and those politically correct >> terms will not stick, since speakers will follow, as usual, the golden >> rule of simplicity. > > People regularly used completely offensive racial slurs in every day > conversation and didn't think twice about it for, heck, even most of > my life time. Nowadays? Not so much. Probably just in some contexts. But I agree that that way of controlling people, called political correctness, is having some success. > So apparently, even though human > beings are lazy by default, sometimes people can change speaking > habits just by trying. As long as those changes are useful. > I'm in no way trying to imply that using "he" instead of "xe" is > offensive. But I certainly see why someone would want to try the > alternative. And it baffles me that people object to it. I mean, yeah, > ok, kind of klunky seeming currently, but so what? I'm pretty sure > that, say, when LSJ uses "xe" instead of "he", he isn't, in his head, > secretly demanding that *you* do. Using "xe" instead of "he" is more confusing than just using "he". But LSJ is as free to use "xe/xer" as I am to explain why I think these words aren't needed for generic sense, because there is already a generic pronoun in English, which is "he". [ quoted text not captured ]

On May 22, 4:39 pm, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: > Or things may just not happen if those changes are baseless, unnecessary > and unuseful. See, you think these changes are baseless, unecessary, and unuseful. Others disagree with you. Why is your viewpoint any more valid? > Probably just in some contexts. But I agree that that way of controlling > people, called political correctness, is having some success. You can derisively call it "political correctness" all you want. I prefer to think of it as making the world more civil. I'd never demand that another grown up not use the words they want to use, but I'd certainly call them out for being a douche-bag, and vastly prefer the world when people try to be civil, rather than not. > As long as those changes are useful. I can see as much of an argument that "xe" is useful as not. > Using "xe" instead of "he" is more confusing than just using "he". Only 'cause it is early in the use of said word. When more people are familiar with the use of "xe"? It won't be more confusing. How do people become more familiar with it? People use it. I mean, I'm sure it was confusing when people started to refer to junk e-mail as "spam" too, before everyone understood that's what it meant ("What do you mean you got a lot of spam? Why do you need that much canned meat?") > But > LSJ is as free to use "xe/xer" as I am to explain why I think these > words aren't needed for generic sense, because there is already a > generic pronoun in English, which is "he". Sure. But enough people think that using "he" as a generic pronoun is a bad idea to have developed an alternative. Which may or may not gain traction as time goes on. If you don't want to use it, don't use it. But it makes perfect sense to me that LSJ, for example, likes to use it. -Peter

On May 22, 5:25 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > You can derisively call it "political correctness" all you want. I > prefer to think of it as making the world more civil. I'd never demand > that another grown up not use the words they want to use, but I'd > certainly call them out for being a douche-bag, and vastly prefer the > world when people try to be civil, rather than not. (To clarify here, as it seems like something that could be misconstrued now that I look at it again, I'm in no way trying to slag Damnans, here.)

What about the people that don't have English as a mother language? Why make another (pointless to the point of clarifying rules) layer of dificulty? Tiago

[ quoted text not captured ] Using terms like "they" as a singular also introduces a layer of difficult, by having a term that is often read as a plural noun being used as a singular. However, since V:TES players have to be reasonably fluent in written English to understand card text, "xe" doesn't seem like a very hard change to understand. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sat, 22 May 2010 05:35:48 -0700 (PDT), Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On May 22, 7:19ￜam, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote: >> But in the specific case stating it does not clarify the situation. More >> ￜ people will agree and recognize "he" to refer to an unspecified gender >> ￜ subject than the arbitrary "xe". Which you will have to explain every >> ￜ once in a while. And it will still be arbitrary. > > Sure. Until enough people decide to use "xe", at which point more > people will agree and recognize "xe" to refer to an unspecified gender > subject. And you will no longer have to explain it. > > I'm pretty sure that, say, the word "cool" didn't mean "extra awesome" > for a really long time. And yet now, most english speaking people (and > probably most non english speaking people, for that matter) accept > that when something seemingly inappropriate is called "cool", it is > likely "extra awesome" as opposed to having a low temperature. 'Cause > that is how language works. Language has grammar and vocabulary and pronunciation rules to ensure it can be used as a medium for communication. If everyone uses their own version of the language then it will no longer allow common understanding. > Like, I don't necessarily agree that trying to port "xe" into English > as a common word is going to have much traction. But I certainly > understand the point, and can't imagine why anyone questions the use > of it, given that people are willing to explain it when needed. I think Scott - as an official netrep - should stick to the commonly understood language instead of trying to advocate a language reform (even if that reform would otherwise be good - which I don't think is the case, as "xe*" is non-intuitive and feels artificial trying to fill in a need that is already filled in by the language). I mean, Scott does have a tendency to be cryptic, and I assume using "xe*" is one way to make people run for their answers, but it still kind of feels awkward to me. Especially since any aspirant of political correctness can simply type "he or she", which isn't a disaster, it's still a shorter phrase than many commonly used ones. Or use the plural form in singular unspecified-gender references (which was the way I was taught when I learned English some 25 or so years ago). Or, just stick to using the masculine as the generic gender reference (which also works fine, especially over the Internet). -- Regards, Daneel

On 23 mei, 09:49, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote: > I mean, Scott does have a tendency to be cryptic, and I assume using "xe*" > is one way to make people run for their answers, but it still kind of > feels awkward to me. Especially since any aspirant of political > correctness can simply type "he or she", which isn't a disaster, it's > still a shorter phrase than many commonly used ones. Or use the plural > form in singular unspecified-gender references (which was the way I was > taught when I learned English some 25 or so years ago). Or, just stick > to using the masculine as the generic gender reference (which also > works fine, especially over the Internet). > > -- > Regards, > > Daneel > > - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven - Did LSJ ever state he's using 'xe' out of political correctness? I always thought it was just because typing 'he or she'/'his or her' was kinda cumbersome. It would reduce the length/clunkyness of card texts if 'xe' were used, for sure. Besides, the rulebook states it uses 'he' for minions and 'her' for players, purely for sake of doing just that.

[ quoted text not captured ] I am glad that you agree that Babe makes every bit as much sense as xe! Now, all those posts with "babes" will be on topic. http://tinyurl.com/2457b56 http://tinyurl.com/2d7zh2d http://tinyurl.com/2ad978n See we've been using it for years! Killing two birds with one stone!

On May 23, 3:49 am, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote: > Language has grammar and vocabulary and pronunciation rules to ensure it > can be used as a medium for communication. If everyone uses their own > version of the language then it will no longer allow common understanding. Oh, sure. But still, things change and language adapts. There are plenty of examples of words becoming common usage simply due to the force of will of people who want them to become common usage. This particular example, while not necessarily something I have a need to jump on to, is something I certainly understand and empathize with. I mean, yeah, LSJ could just stick to the standard words. But he doesn't want to. Makes sense to me. > I think Scott - as an official netrep - should stick to the commonly > understood language instead of trying to advocate a language reform (even > if that reform would otherwise be good - which I don't think is the case, > as "xe*" is non-intuitive and feels artificial trying to fill in a need > that is already filled in by the language). Meh (Ooh! There's one!). I could certainly see an argument that he shouldn't, say, introduce "xe" into VTES card text and rulebooks. But even as a netrep answering questions, using "xe" strikes me as no more unreasonable than calling things "cool". -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] As I mentioned above, I could certainly see an argument that using "xe" on card texts and in the rulebook would be a bad idea (although maybe in 20 years...). But in posts on the internet, even posts answering questions? No more confusing than calling things "cool". Or saying "meh." -Peter

Peter D Bakija escribi�: > On May 22, 4:39 pm, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: [...] >> Using "xe" instead of "he" is more confusing than just using "he". > > Only 'cause it is early in the use of said word. When more people are > familiar with the use of "xe"? It won't be more confusing. How do > people become more familiar with it? People use it. I mean, I'm sure > it was confusing when people started to refer to junk e-mail as "spam" > too, before everyone understood that's what it meant ("What do you > mean you got a lot of spam? Why do you need that much canned meat?") That example is not comparable to the use of an artificial term like "xe", because "spam" was already an English word (it only got a new meaning), and because there was no prior word (as far as I know) to refer to junk e-mail. >> But >> LSJ is as free to use "xe/xer" as I am to explain why I think these >> words aren't needed for generic sense, because there is already a >> generic pronoun in English, which is "he". > > Sure. But enough people think that using "he" as a generic pronoun is > a bad idea to have developed an alternative. I would like to know why they think it to be a bad idea. [...] [ quoted text not captured ]

On May 23, 2:05 pm, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: > That example is not comparable to the use of an artificial term like > "xe", because "spam" was already an English word (it only got a new > meaning), and because there was no prior word (as far as I know) to > refer to junk e-mail. Junk e-mail is a perfectly reasonable way to refer to junk e-mail. Why call it "spam"? And "xerox" as a verb wasn't already an English word before it became used to mean "copy" something. > I would like to know why they think it to be a bad idea. I certainly can't speak for the world, but I suspect that at least some of it is rooted in that "he" being used as a generic pronoun continues to marginalize more than 50% of the world's population. I'm sure some people would think that rationale is stupid. But enough people don't think it is stupid to have come up with an alternative. -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] I use "xe" as an alternative to singular "they" (since "they" is not singular). I suppose that just moves the question back a few hundred years: to the people who coopted "they" to be a singular pronoun: "why is using 'he' a bad idea?" (The answer, of course, is obvious: because 'he' carries some connotation of gender in the ears of some listeners.) And see riddles about a doctor and 'his' son whose father is dead.

> Women did not have the right to vote for centuries too... You're honestly comparing a woman's inability to influence the election of a government offical who has a direct say over how she lives/her taxes are spent/her civil liberites to using male descriptors as generic terms? I understand you're saying the state of play constantly evolves, yes. But I suspect the motivations of the Suffragette movement were slightly different than people who use terms like "xe". jase

> I always thought it was just because typing 'he or she'/'his or her' > was kinda cumbersome. "xe" is easier to type that "he/she" yes. And "tho" is easier than "though", "mite" is easier than "might", "dey" is easier than "they". Tryn read da average convo ona mb for <16s tho n u mite c where dat road leads miright? ++ungood jase

> I certainly can't speak for the world, but I suspect that at least > some of it is rooted in that "he" being used as a generic pronoun > continues to marginalize more than 50% of the world's population. Have you asked many women how they feel about usage of male descriptors? Does the aveage American woman feel "marginalised" by the "all men are created equal" part of the declaration of independence, for example? I'd venture most couldn't give a tinker's cuss. However, the very fact that you suspect "xe" is an attempt to overcome that marginalisation lends credence to the claim that the origins of the phrase lie in political correctness. It's not about accuracy. It's about how using "he" makes people feel (or at least, how you suspect they might feel). In this, I think you're 100% correct. jase

Jason <jason...@iinet.net.au> wrote: >Have you asked many women how they feel about usage of male >descriptors? Sure, I've been in plenty of situations where a variety of women have specifically asked for non-gender-specific language to be used, or for text to be rewritten so that the issue doesn't arise. [ quoted text not captured ]

Jason wrote: >> No. I'm suggesting that your assertion regarding the utility of xe >> from Janne's point of view being na�ve is myopic -- it misses his >> (well-stated) point of view entirely. > > You obviously don't understand my assertion then. It had nothing to do > with xe's utility. > > Janne made two points. The first, that the 'problem" lies in English's > lack of placeholder descriptors. Undisputed. The second, that the use > of nonesensical "xers" has nothing to do with political correctness. > This is entirely disputable. > Not sure why being politically correct is bad. best - chris

[ quoted text not captured ] Regardless of scale, the old "hey, it's how we've done it forever" argument just doesn't fly. Come up with something else substantive and we can have a dialog. Hopefully not personal (the "You're honestly...?" and "Are you seriously" - are those necessary to get your point across? Or are they just there to put down your forensic opponent?). best - chris

LSJ wrote: > I use "xe" as an alternative to singular "they" (since "they" is not > singular). > > I suppose that just moves the question back a few hundred years: to > the people who coopted "they" to be a singular pronoun: "why is using > 'he' a bad idea?" > > (The answer, of course, is obvious: because 'he' carries some > connotation of gender in the ears of some listeners.) Then let's change the rulebook. It'll save trees, ink, and space, space which could be used to FINALLY add the Imbue rules. Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/ Please bid on my auctions! http://shop.ebay.com/kjmergen/m.html

> Not sure why being politically correct is bad. OK, some recent examples: The term "fail" being replaced with "deferred success" in Australian independent secondary schools so as not to discourage or hurt student's feelings. The term "Evening" as a form of greeting being discouraged amongst British police officers (it has been deemed by bosses as a "subjective term", which does not necessarily mean the same across cultures and nationalities.) British police have also been told to use the term "gay" rather than "homosexual" while "heterosexual" should be used instead of "straight" so as not to cause offence. Words such as "child" or "youngster" have also been discouraged by various forces as they imply inexperience and may offend. European Parliament introduced laws last year to outlaw titles stating marital status such as 'Miss' and 'Mrs' so as not to cause offence. 'Madame' and 'Mademoiselle', 'Frau' and 'Fraulein' and 'Senora' and 'Senorita' were also banned. Note the term "outlaw". Saying these words in parliament is now ILLEGAL. A friend of mine who works for the Victorian government told me about a recent meeting in which he was briefed on a list of offensive words including nit-picking (which apparently used to refer to the examination of slaves' heads for lice - this is in Australia mind you ,where slavery was never an issue) and brainstorming (offensive to those with epilepsy or other mental impairment). Should I continue? jase

> Regardless of scale, the old "hey, it's how we've done it forever" argument > just doesn't fly. Of course it does. What other reason do we have for any of the rules of language that we use? All language is built on fiat, on tradition. "That's the way we've always done it" is the only reason to give for any rule of linguistics. Why don't you spell the word "purple" as "perpull"? Because "purple" is the way we've always spelled it. I'm not disputing that the language is mutable and has evolved over time. But prior to this last decade, political correctness has seldom been a factor in that evolution. And why? Because people don't like being told what they can and can't say, particularly by vocal minorities. jase

On Mon, 24 May 2010 05:14:17 +0100, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > Jason <jason...@iinet.net.au> wrote: >> Have you asked many women how they feel about usage of male >> descriptors? > > Sure, I've been in plenty of situations where a variety of women have > specifically asked for non-gender-specific language to be used, or for > text to be rewritten so that the issue doesn't arise. Yeah. And some women insist on being called a "womyn", because "woman" includes the hateful "man" word. Some people are plain stupid; there's no way around that. Whether society aims to cope with the normal majority (who accept that there are two genders, who are similar in some ways but different in others, with both being needed for a balanced life) or the stupid, disruptive minority (who do stuff like the above) tells a lot about the mental health of society. Honestly - I wouldn't give a damn if English said that "she" is the generic pronoun and it would be used to indicate the unspecified. I wouldn't feel hurt in my masculinity, or anything like that. I think this is the normal reaction. So it is expectable also if "he" is supposed to be used as the generic pronoun (as seems to be the case). -- Regards, Daneel

On Sun, 23 May 2010 14:58:22 -0700 (PDT), LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > And see riddles about a doctor and 'his' son whose father is dead. Except that the gender of said doctor is probably not unknown to the speaker. -- Regards, Daneel

Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote: >On Mon, 24 May 2010 05:14:17 +0100, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> >wrote: > >> Jason <jason...@iinet.net.au> wrote: >>> Have you asked many women how they feel about usage of male >>> descriptors? >> >> Sure, I've been in plenty of situations where a variety of women have >> specifically asked for non-gender-specific language to be used, or for >> text to be rewritten so that the issue doesn't arise. > >Yeah. And some women insist on being called a "womyn", because "woman" > includes the hateful "man" word. Some people are plain stupid; Which is completely unlike the situations I've been in. Please stop constructing idiotic straw-men. Thanks in advance. >Honestly - I wouldn't give a damn if English said that "she" is the > generic pronoun Good for you. We don't just write English to satisfy your own personal whims, however. Since a variety of people have made well-reasoned arguments to me and polite requests to avoid gender-specific language, I try to avoid using it where possible when talking about hypotheticals (where gender isn't a factor). It creeps in all over the place, I know, but I try not to use it if I spot myself doing so. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 24 Mai, 09:54, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > Since a variety of people have made well-reasoned > arguments to me and polite requests to avoid gender-specific language, I > try to avoid using it where possible when talking about hypotheticals > (where gender isn't a factor). Now you've made me curious. Could you be so kind and give some examples? Would be appreciated.

On Sun, 23 May 2010 23:00:18 -0700 (PDT), Jason <jason...@iinet.net.au> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Sic transit gloria mundi. In history, when an empire became too self-absorbed, the barbarians came and ensured a fresh start. I hear we're fresh out of visigoths, so I wonder who the next wave will be? -- Regards, Daneel

On Mon, 24 May 2010 08:54:12 +0100, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote: >> On Mon, 24 May 2010 05:14:17 +0100, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> >> wrote: >> >>> Jason <jason...@iinet.net.au> wrote: >>>> Have you asked many women how they feel about usage of male >>>> descriptors? >>> >>> Sure, I've been in plenty of situations where a variety of women have >>> specifically asked for non-gender-specific language to be used, or for >>> text to be rewritten so that the issue doesn't arise. >> >> Yeah. And some women insist on being called a "womyn", because "woman" >> includes the hateful "man" word. Some people are plain stupid; > > Which is completely unlike the situations I've been in. Same fish, just stinks a bit more. > Please stop constructing idiotic straw-men. Thanks in advance. I am offended by your disrespect and your apparent lack of understanding. >> Honestly - I wouldn't give a damn if English said that "she" is the >> generic pronoun > > Good for you. We don't just write English to satisfy your own personal > whims, however. Since a variety of people have made well-reasoned > arguments to me and polite requests to avoid gender-specific language, I > try to avoid using it where possible when talking about hypotheticals > (where gender isn't a factor). It creeps in all over the place, I know, > but I try not to use it if I spot myself doing so. Again, I find your post offensive. You are being disrespectful by calling my statement - which is rooted in a deep conviction of social equality and a firm belief in the familial values - a "whim". This illustrates well that to be disrespectful based on lack of understanding does not necessarily tie in to gender or race based prejudice. It is a part of human nature. Educating people to ensure they are smart enough to see this might be a better solution than trying to divide society based on arbitrary restrictions that don't address the real causes. -- Regards, Daneel

[ quoted text not captured ] Largely such things as avoiding the appearance of bias (unconscious or otherwise). Given that, by and large, it's just as easy to write text that doesn't say he, him, his all over the place as not, not using it will help anyone who feels excluded by such language (consciously or otherwise). A non-trivial number of people do feel excluded. Since it's easy to not exclude them in this manner, fixing it is a no-brainer. It can also be interesting to see who objects to its removal and why. "Oh, but I wouldn't mind if I was a woman," goes the cry. Ah, let's just marginalize other people's feelings because we think our feelings would be different. "But everyone involved _is_ a man, women don't want to do [whatever]" is also very revealing about the culture perpetuated in a given area - a profession, a game etc. See also: male privilege. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Believe me, if there's one person out there who hates the current trend towards writing 'official things' in text-message style, it's me. But that wasn't my point. Xe and xer are new words, not deliberate misspellings of existing words. Ok, I should've rephrased that last post. I meant to say that I thought LSJ doesn't want to introduce a new word just because he wants to be PC, but to have a nice short word while at the same time not offending anyone who would possibly be offended by "he" and "his". Say a card reads something like "...[he or she] may take a card on one of [his or her] minions and place it on top of [his or her] library. Then, if any of [his or her] vampires is a brujah, that brujah may burn a card on [him or her] to look through [his or her]..." That's what I meant by cumbersome. 59 spaces used where only 17 would've been used if replaced by xe/xer. That's a lot of room saved on a tiny game card. And less text = easier to read, less chance of missing something, less of a hassle for new players, etc. All just by doing away with that PC crap. I personally would have no problem with using just "he" and "his". And I honestly can't think of any woman I've ever known who would feel offended by this (or even notice). But some people do get offended by (completely unintentional) stuff like that. And those people sometimes sue you for discriminating. Sad, but there you go. Oh by the way, Jase, next time you're replying to one of my posts, please include my name (on <...>, Teeka wrote:) in the quote so I can spot it earlier and respond quicker. Thanks. -Teeka

On May 24, 3:47 am, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote: > On Sun, 23 May 2010 14:58:22 -0700 (PDT), LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> > wrote: > > > And see riddles about a doctor and 'his' son whose father is dead. > > Except that the gender of said doctor is probably not unknown to the > speaker. > Wow. Really? Anyway, thanks for verifying that "he" connotes gender.

On May 24, 6:56 am, Teeka <teeka_dra...@hotmail.com> wrote: > I personally would have no problem with using just "he" and "his". And > I honestly can't think of any woman I've ever known who would feel > offended by this (or even notice). Since cards already exist whose effects exclude certain groups (like "this minion <X>" and then later "this vampire <Y>", so as Y doesn't affect minions that aren't vampires), this wouldn't work: "this minion <R>" and then later "he <Q>" would introduce confusion as to whether Q applies to cards that don't seem to be "he"s).

[ quoted text not captured ] Well, yeah, of course. I only meant instead of the generic use of "he or she", not specified wordings like 'this vampire'. I guess I overdid it with that fictional example... (sorry, English is not my first language)

On May 23, 9:46 pm, Jason <jasonsv...@iinet.net.au> wrote: > Have you asked many women how they feel about usage of male > descriptors? Does the aveage American woman feel "marginalised" by the > "all men are created equal" part of the declaration of independence, > for example? I'd venture most couldn't give a tinker's cuss. I can't speak to "most", but I certainly know that some women do, in fact, object to use of "he" as a generic pronoun and the declaration of independance stating that "all men are created equal". Does the average American woman feel marginalized by this? I have no idea. But they probably should. > However, the very fact that you suspect "xe" is an attempt to overcome > that marginalisation lends credence to the claim that the origins of > the phrase lie in political correctness. I try to avoid the use of the phrase "political correctness" myself, as it is a silly and derisive phrase. Do I think that how language is used has an impact on society, and that changing its use can have a positive impact on the world? Absolutely. > It's not about accuracy. I never claimed it was about accuracy. I just claimed that some people thought it was a good idea. -Peter

> I'm pretty sure that, say, the word "cool" didn't mean "extra awesome" > for a really long time. And yet now, most english speaking people (and > probably most non english speaking people, for that matter) accept > that when something seemingly inappropriate is called "cool", it is > likely "extra awesome" as opposed to having a low temperature. 'Cause > that is how language works. Just as a side-note. The use of saying that something is "hot" to mean it is "some degree of good" and using "cool" to do the same thing comes from the Jazz movement in the 30s-60s. There was a group of jazz musicians who tended to play fast, many-note type improvisation... amongst themselves they called it "hot jazz" and also tended to say such things as "that is hot" to indicate their approval of the playing. A counter-movement began doing the opposite and aiming for tone, harmony and slow-note playing. As a counter-movement using the word "hot" was an insult and instead became the "cool jazz" movement; where saying someone's playing was "cool" was to approve of it. It SLOWLY seeped into a broader culture as jazz moved into broader culture.

> Not sure why being politically correct is bad. > > best - > > chris I don't see why you need to worry about being politically correct. If you're going to be nice and polite, then political correctness doesn't do anything... If you're going to be rude, insulting, sexist, racist, elitist, etc, etc, etc, then political correctness won't change your behaviour either. So if it's general result is "nothing"... why does it exist? It has also spawned such other brilliant moments (via a few other books such as "Weasel Words") as... "There have been no deaths, but there have been four hanging gestures" - From the Colonel In Command at Guantanamo Bay "People who are not as tall as others should be referred to as 'height challenged'" "You should not call the Australian Aboriginal People 'aboriginals' as they are the indigenous people and should be referred to as Indigenous Australians" "You should not refer to students with diagnosed or undiagnosed learning difficulties as unintelligent or any other similar term. They should be referred to as intellectually challenged or as having special learning needs. This is true even if the medical terminology for their condition includes retardation, in fact especially in such cases since as a teacher you should avoid negative stigmatisation of students. You should not use other terms such as Intellectually Modified, Intellectually Impaired or abbreviations such as IO or IM" (Note: IM & IO are the terms used by the same people to designate students who have sufficiently low IQ readings to be declared intellectually disabled) So, when it is politically incorrect to use the correct medical terms for conditions because using that terminology may stigmatise... or when using the word "aboriginal" which is used frequently in Government documents in Australia to reference those people who are from the cultural group who lived in Australia before settlement (or invasion) of Australia by Europeans... It all just seems like a big waste of everyone's time and brainpower.

On May 24, 10:13 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On May 23, 9:46 pm, Jason <jasonsv...@iinet.net.au> wrote: > > > Have you asked many women how they feel about usage of male > > descriptors? Does the aveage American woman feel "marginalised" by the > > "all men are created equal" part of the declaration of independence, > > for example? I'd venture most couldn't give a tinker's cuss. > > I can't speak to "most", but I certainly know that some women do, in > fact, object to use of "he" as a generic pronoun and the declaration > of independance stating that "all men are created equal". Does the > average American woman feel marginalized by this? I have no idea. But > they probably should. > > -Peter On the same score there are plenty of other documents that are based on concepts such as 'the common rights of man' and so forth. They were always written in the period with the implication that they covered "humans" and "humanity", implying "man vs animal" rather than "man vs woman". Attempting to read a period document using modern English is futile. It is clear that the English used in the past is not the English of today, but attempting to read our modern thoughts into their period words is foolish. Attempting to say that the writers of the American Declaration of Independence wrote it specifically in mind to marginalise women, is like claiming that the King James Version is designed to marginalise women because it has references to "man" in it as well. Seriously get a grip.

On Mon, 24 May 2010 09:56:46 +0100, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > Amenophobis <preac...@gmx.at> wrote: >> Now you've made me curious. Could you be so kind and give some >> examples? > > Largely such things as avoiding the appearance of bias (unconscious or > otherwise). BS. > It can also be interesting to see who objects to its removal and why. > "Oh, but I wouldn't mind if I was a woman," goes the cry. Ah, let's > just marginalize other people's feelings because we think our feelings > would be different. Non-sequitur. And BS. Get your act together. You are so gay! -- Regards, Daneel

[ quoted text not captured ] Stop waving your dick in everyone's face Peter! Your new androgynous name is Xeter!

On May 24, 8:59 am, Juggernaut1981 <brasscompo...@gmail.com> wrote: > On the same score there are plenty of other documents that are based > on concepts such as 'the common rights of man' and so forth. They > were always written in the period with the implication that they > covered "humans" and "humanity", implying "man vs animal" rather than > "man vs woman". ... in an era and culture when women were not granted any self- determination, were not considered to be worth educating to any particular degree, and to a certain extent were essentially their husband's or father's property. They were written as differentiating man from animal, sure, but only because man vs woman was sort of beside the point, in that era. > Attempting to say that the > writers of the American Declaration of Independence wrote it > specifically in mind to marginalise women, is like claiming that the > King James Version is designed to marginalise women because it has > references to "man" in it as well. Of course they didn't write it intending to marginalize women. They already marginalized women, as a matter of course, and took it for granted. Just like they didn't see any contradiction in stating that "all men were created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights... to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," but kept slaves who had no recognized right to any of those. There's such a thing as institutionalized racism and sexism. This discussion has been filled with plenty of good examples of how very, very far from dead those are. > Seriously get a grip. Get a sense of history. - D.J.

On May 24, 5:03 am, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote: > On Mon, 24 May 2010 08:54:12 +0100, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> > > Please stop constructing idiotic straw-men. Thanks in advance. > > I am offended by your disrespect and your apparent lack of understanding. BS, as you so eloquently put it in other replies. You're just looking to start a flame war. - D.J.

On May 24, 8:59 am, Juggernaut1981 <brasscompo...@gmail.com> wrote: > Attempting to say that the > writers of the American Declaration of Independence wrote it > specifically in mind to marginalise women, is like claiming that the > King James Version is designed to marginalise women because it has > references to "man" in it as well. I'm not saying that was the deliberate intent. But given the attitudes towards women when those documents were written, it certainly had the same effect. -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] Umm, so, those are all examples. But, you haven't said *why* they are "bad". It is not self-evident to me, as it seems to be to you, why those examples of usage that tend to marginalize certain populations should be acceptable. Please help me see why more sensitive words and usage are bad. Ie, why is it bad to try to make kids who are struggling in school feel a little bit better (or perhaps more accurately, "not worse") about themselves because they haven't "failed". When you give a name to something, it makes it real. Self-fulfilling prophecies and all that. So, please explain your point of view. Thanks. chris

Juggernaut1981 wrote: >> Not sure why being politically correct is bad. >> >> best - >> >> chris > > I don't see why you need to worry about being politically correct. If > you're going to be nice and polite, then political correctness doesn't > do anything... If you're going to be rude, insulting, sexist, racist, > elitist, etc, etc, etc, then political correctness won't change your > behaviour either. So if it's general result is "nothing"... why does > it exist? > Aren't words behavior? I don't see them as being separate. If you drop "F-bombs" into your nice genteel discussion with your friend's granny, I don't think you are any longer being genteel. Words are real; words have power. To deny that is I think to deny the difference between human and not-human. "There have been no deaths, but there have been four hanging gestures" > - From the Colonel In Command at Guantanamo Bay > I took your quote and entered it into Google, and came up with nothing. > "People who are not as tall as others should be referred to as 'height > challenged'" I don't think this is real, also couldn't find it in Google. But it is funny. Was it Frank Zappa? > > "You should not call the Australian Aboriginal People 'aboriginals' as > they are the indigenous people and should be referred to as Indigenous > Australians" > > "You should not refer to students with diagnosed or undiagnosed > learning difficulties as unintelligent or any other similar term. > They should be referred to as intellectually challenged or as having > special learning needs. This is true even if the medical terminology > for their condition includes retardation, in fact especially in such > cases since as a teacher you should avoid negative stigmatisation of > students. You should not use other terms such as Intellectually > Modified, Intellectually Impaired or abbreviations such as IO or > IM" (Note: IM & IO are the terms used by the same people to designate > students who have sufficiently low IQ readings to be declared > intellectually disabled) > > > So, when it is politically incorrect to use the correct medical terms > for conditions because using that terminology may stigmatise... or > when using the word "aboriginal" which is used frequently in > Government documents in Australia to reference those people who are > from the cultural group who lived in Australia before settlement (or > invasion) of Australia by Europeans... It all just seems like a big > waste of everyone's time and brainpower. Some words gain a connotation that is used to denigrate a marginalized population. For instance, "aboriginal", or "retarded". I don't doubt that in 20-30 years, we will no longer call kids in special needs education "special needs". And in 50-100 years, we will be calling the Indigenous populations of the world by some other term. See, I guess I disagree with your final point. I don't feel like taking into account another's feelings is a waste of time or brainpower. best - chris

Daneel wrote: You are so gay! > Well, that certainly will help quell an interesting discussion. best - chris

[ quoted text not captured ] PC language (and how it's implemented) is rarely about whatever the target group is. It's more about the people using it and making them look better. It's often used more as a badge to try to give the appearance to other people that the individual using it is somehow more compassionate/enlightened rather than to have any impact on the group/problem in question. Also, it can lead people away from actually fixing problems. Especially in education, where diagnosing problems and working to correct them early is of high importance. And more to the topic, "xer" is harder to read and understand. It's also not the only gender-neutral singular pronoun being floated around http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-neutral_pronoun . It's functionally no better than just using the plural "they/their", and arguably worse as it adds to confusion.

On May 24, 3:01 pm, smithson <joe124...@gmail.com> wrote: > And more to the topic, "xer" is harder to read and understand. It's > also not the only gender-neutral singular pronoun being floated aroundhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-neutral_pronoun. It's > functionally no better than just using the plural "they/their", and > arguably worse as it adds to confusion. Except that it is singular. They is not. So "xe" is functionally better than "they" by reason of not confusing the number. If you prefer one of the other pronoun schemes on that wiki page, feel free to discuss it.

[ quoted text not captured ] Opinion? Or backed up with fact. It sounds like an opinion. Also, it can lead people away from actually > fixing problems. Perhaps. Or perhaps it's low-hanging fruit, so is the earliest item implemented. And in terms of budgets, it's cheap. Especially in education, where diagnosing problems > and working to correct them early is of high importance. > Agree that early diagnosis is always important. > And more to the topic, "xer" is harder to read and understand. It's > also not the only gender-neutral singular pronoun being floated around > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-neutral_pronoun . It's > functionally no better than just using the plural "they/their", and > arguably worse as it adds to confusion. TBH, I find xer very funny, and to some small degree makes our tiny corner of the universe ours. Would hate it used in the real world however. I tend to use they/their as opposed to he/his. Thanks, chris

On May 24, 1:54 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > Stop waving your dick in everyone's face Peter! Yeah, the therapist says that too... > Your new androgynous name is Xeter! Score! Can I also be the secret overlord of my own religion with a name like that? :-) -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] You already are, it's just so secret, even you don't know about it. best - chris (makes sign of Xeter - putting one hand in front of nose, while other hand's index and middle finger try to poke own eyes, but are blocked by first hand)

[ quoted text not captured ] I prefer s/he or (s)he. S/he (compact) S/he laughed I called him/r His/r eyes gleam That is his/rs S/he likes him/rself Speaking of which, we have been writing xer, when apparently, according the wiki page, it's xyr. best - chris (thon underpants are on fire)

On May 24, 2:24 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On May 24, 1:54 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > > > Stop waving your dick in everyone's face Peter! > > Yeah, the therapist says that too... So don't shoot, shoot, shoot that thing at me! > > Your new androgynous name is Xeter! > > Score! Can I also be the secret overlord of my own religion with a > name like that? You are the son of the aliens who have returned to the planet to visit humanity, xer spore children!

[ quoted text not captured ] Here's a video of one of your/their/xer services (thanks to KevinM for the link...) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bAN7Ts0xBo best - chris

On May 23, 11:58 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > On May 23, 5:09 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 23, 2:05 pm, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: > > > > That example is not comparable to the use of an artificial term like > > > "xe", because "spam" was already an English word (it only got a new > > > meaning), and because there was no prior word (as far as I know) to > > > refer to junk e-mail. > > > Junk e-mail is a perfectly reasonable way to refer to junk e-mail. Why > > call it "spam"? > > > And "xerox" as a verb wasn't already an English word before it became > > used to mean "copy" something. > > > > I would like to know why they think it to be a bad idea. > > > I certainly can't speak for the world, but I suspect that at least > > some of it is rooted in that "he" being used as a generic pronoun > > continues to marginalize more than 50% of the world's population. I'm > > sure some people would think that rationale is stupid. But enough > > people don't think it is stupid to have come up with an alternative. > > I use "xe" as an alternative to singular "they" (since "they" is not > singular). > > I suppose that just moves the question back a few hundred years: to > the people who coopted "they" to be a singular pronoun: "why is using > 'he' a bad idea?" > > (The answer, of course, is obvious: because 'he' carries some > connotation of gender in the ears of some listeners.) > > And see riddles about a doctor and 'his' son whose father is dead. "Doctor" is generic here (despite the masculine ending, you see? That's because masculine gender is generic first). So if the doctor is a woman, you should use "her" for clarification, as you already know. -- Damnans http://www.almadrava.net/damnans http://www.vtes.net http://es.groups.yahoo.com/group/vteshispania/ http://iuturna.sorcery.net (IRC channel: #vtes)

On May 23, 11:09 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On May 23, 2:05 pm, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: [...] > > > I would like to know why they think it to be a bad idea. > > I certainly can't speak for the world, but I suspect that at least > some of it is rooted in that "he" being used as a generic pronoun > continues to marginalize more than 50% of the world's population. So that is political correctness, if I am not mistaken. > I'm sure some people would think that rationale is stupid. At least it has a very weak basis. [...] [ quoted text not captured ]

On May 24, 5:00 pm, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: > So that is political correctness, if I am not mistaken. You say that phrase as if it means something. > At least it has a very weak basis. What? That some folks would prefer gender equity in their language? Apparently some folks would prefer gender equity in their language. I'm not, like, expecting you to agree with this as a concept, as clearly you don't. But apparently some folks do. So they try to implement that. -Peter

On May 24, 4:54 pm, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: > "Doctor" is generic here (despite the masculine ending, you see? > That's because masculine gender is generic first). So if the doctor is > a woman, you should use "her" for clarification, as you already know. Uh, what? "Doctor" does not have, in English, a masculine ending. In English, "doctor" is a completely gender neutral term (although many people are socialized to think of doctors as male, which is why the riddle LSJ refers is what it is). You need to specify, should it be important, that a doctor is male or female. -Peter

On May 24, 11:08 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On May 24, 4:54 pm, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: > > > "Doctor" is generic here (despite the masculine ending, you see? > > That's because masculine gender is generic first). So if the doctor is > > a woman, you should use "her" for clarification, as you already know. > > Uh, what? "Doctor" does not have, in English, a masculine ending. It does. "-tor" is a masculine (and also generic) ending, as opposed to "-tress", femenine ending (e.g. "actor" -masculine-, "actress" - femenine-). Some English words with a "-tor" ending may not have the femenine form "-tress". [...] [ quoted text not captured ]

On May 24, 5:22 pm, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: > It does. "-tor" is a masculine (and also generic) ending, as opposed > to "-tress", femenine ending (e.g. "actor" -masculine-, "actress" - > femenine-). Some English words with a "-tor" ending may not have the > femenine form "-tress". In practice, "doctor" is not a masculine form. "Doctress" is not a word. Words that end with "tor" are not always gender specific in English, although sometimes they might be--"editor" and "adjustor" are no more gender specific than "doctor". -Peter

On May 24, 11:04 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On May 24, 5:00 pm, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: > > > So that is political correctness, if I am not mistaken. > > You say that phrase as if it means something. > > > At least it has a very weak basis. > > What? That some folks would prefer gender equity in their language? Then why should equity be focussed just on gender? It could be focussed on race, eye, hair, skin color, religious allegiances... and a long etcetera. The more equity you add to your speech, the more euphemistic, soft and rigid it will become, and the more afraid you will be to offend some people, until you see the only way for you not to offend anyone will be not to say a word ;) > Apparently some folks would prefer gender equity in their language. > I'm not, like, expecting you to agree with this as a concept, as > clearly you don't. But apparently some folks do. So they try to > implement that. Perhaps some folks give too much importance to gender. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Sorry Peter, It's a moment of shadenfreude... but seriously as far as linguistics goes... you're getting pillaged by someone who speaks English as a second language.

[ quoted text not captured ] OK, then you agree that a word with a masculine ending has a generic sense :) [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] The same usage conventions that make "xe" a word at come into play for "they" being used as a singular gender-neutral pronoun. With the notable difference that one has a widely accepted usage which is clear to the vast majority of speakers, and the other doesn't. Also, "you" and "you" is used both in the plural and singular (although in Pennsylvania there is a "yin" used for the plural second person, but that's a regional dialect) so the number agreement is hardly an issue. Now, clarity when using either word with non-native speakers is an issue, but one isn't even found in the vast majority of dictionaries, and is hard in a vacuum to find the definition for, so it seems even that issue wouldn't support usage of "xe".

[ quoted text not captured ] > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-neutral_pronoun. It's > > functionally no better than just using the plural "they/their", and > > arguably worse as it adds to confusion. > > TBH, I find xer very funny, and to some small degree makes our tiny corner > of the universe ours. Would hate it used in the real world however. I > tend to use they/their as opposed to he/his. > > Thanks, > > chris Well, it's also my opinion, but most of that was from an essay I read recently (it was a review of a usage guide for English). Now, you could question the author (David Foster Wallace, if you're wondering) but I think he's a pretty solid authority w/r/t English. And as for it being low-hanging fruit, I haven't found any study showing that changing nomenclature has had any worthwhile impact on education results (to use one example). Since such things have been implemented in the US, students have in general performed more poorly (not saying it's the cause, just pointing out there's been no improvement). It's a symbolic gesture made generally to assuage the feelings of parents and to avoid making the school look bad. Also, it's much easier to advance a student who "chooses not to perform" than one who is "unsatisfactory" (and pass the problem on to other people).

On May 24, 5:41 pm, Juggernaut1981 <brasscompo...@gmail.com> wrote: > Sorry Peter, It's a moment of shadenfreude... but seriously as far as > linguistics goes... you're getting pillaged by someone who speaks > English as a second language. Bah, Peter can't even get "once in a while" right. :-) That said, though, it's a far stretch from "pillaged" to be "corrected" to an inaccurate, outdated, and assumption-heavy point of view on whether "tor" is a masculine ending that may or may not even be correct (note: words that look similar in English may have very different roots with little relation to one another). So... - D.J.

[ quoted text not captured ] "Doctor" has an unequivocal Latin root, which is masculine. [ quoted text not captured ]

On May 24, 5:51 pm, smithson <joe124...@gmail.com> wrote: > On May 24, 3:17 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > Except that it is singular. They is not. So "xe" is functionally > > better than "they" by reason of not confusing the number. > > The same usage conventions that make "xe" a word at come into play for > "they" being used as a singular gender-neutral pronoun. Trivially disproved: The doctor is finally in (they is running late).

Damnans wrote: > On May 25, 12:02 am, Meej <djchag...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On May 24, 5:41 pm, Juggernaut1981 <brasscompo...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Sorry Peter, It's a moment of shadenfreude... but seriously as far as >>> linguistics goes... you're getting pillaged by someone who speaks >>> English as a second language. >> Bah, Peter can't even get "once in a while" right. :-) >> >> That said, though, it's a far stretch from "pillaged" to be >> "corrected" to an inaccurate, outdated, and assumption-heavy point of >> view on whether "tor" is a masculine ending that may or may not even >> be correct (note: words that look similar in English may have very >> different roots with little relation to one another). So... > > "Doctor" has an unequivocal Latin root, which is masculine. > > All I can think of is Fugazi - Your Latin Roots... Lying on our backs, This is your parents' bed, A good place to be laid 'cos it's so neatly made. Staring at the ceiling, Vein to vein the lines look the same As the ones that you're seeing, And then you start speaking: Rracing your father's footsteps in your mother's shoes, Going up and over and across your latin roots. Point points back to it's origin, Across the world cogs are clogged with the sand, Here the air breathes freely and our tongues work loosely, Border approaches border, You're using your hands and smearing your r's. I'm looking over my shoulder, Strained resistance to scour the door for Your father's footsteps or your mother's shoes, Coming up and over, cut across your latin roots. It's time to meet you makers. best - chris

Damnans wrote: > On May 24, 11:04 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: >> On May 24, 5:00 pm, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: > > soft and > rigid Eh? best - chris

[ quoted text not captured ] Fatally flawed example: In that case you would refer to the doctor by he or she. This isn't some anonymous doctor you're talking about. The use of "the" shows that it's a familiar object. Alternately, basic grammar (you do know that, I assume)would make the proper sentence: The doctor is finally in (they are running late). This is of course assuming for some odd reason someone who is well- known enough to use the direct article "the" is still of unknown gender to either/both speakers (although the example would be more grammatically correct, it's still logically inconsistent, as the doctor can't both be in and running late, past tense should be used).

smithson wrote: > On May 24, 3:19 pm, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote: >> smithson wrote: >>> On May 24, 2:38 pm, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote: >>>> Jason wrote: >>>>>> Not sure why being politically correct is bad. >>>>> OK, some recent examples: >>>>> The term "fail" being replaced with "deferred success" in Australian >>>>> independent secondary schools so as not to discourage or hurt >>>>> student's feelings. >>>>> The term "Evening" as a form of greeting being discouraged amongst >>>>> British police officers (it has been deemed by bosses as a "subjective >>>>> term", which does not necessarily mean the same across cultures and >>>>> nationalities.) British police have also been told to use the term >>>>> "gay" rather than "homosexual" while "heterosexual" should be used >>>>> instead of "straight" so as not to cause offence. Words such as >>>>> "child" or "youngster" have also been discouraged by various forces as >>>>> they imply inexperience and may offend. >>>>> European Parliament introduced laws last year to outlaw titles stating >>>>> marital status such as 'Miss' and 'Mrs' so as not to cause offence. >>>>> 'Madame' and 'Mademoiselle', 'Frau' and 'Fraulein' and 'Senora' and >>>>> 'Senorita' were also banned. Note the term "outlaw". Saying these >>>>> words in parliament is now ILLEGAL. >>>>> A friend of mine who works for the Victorian government told me about >>>>> a recent meeting in which he was briefed on a list of offensive words >>>>> including nit-picking (which apparently used to refer to the >>>>> examination of slaves' heads for lice - this is in Australia mind >>>>> you ,where slavery was never an issue) and brainstorming (offensive to >>>>> those with epilepsy or other mental impairment). >>>> Umm, so, those are all examples. But, you haven't said *why* they are >>>> "bad". It is not self-evident to me, as it seems to be to you, why those >>>> examples of usage that tend to marginalize certain populations should be >>>> acceptable. >>>> Please help me see why more sensitive words and usage are bad. Ie, why is >>>> it bad to try to make kids who are struggling in school feel a little bit >>>> better (or perhaps more accurately, "not worse") about themselves because >>>> they haven't "failed". >>>> When you give a name to something, it makes it real. Self-fulfilling >>>> prophecies and all that. >>>> So, please explain your point of view. >>>> Thanks. >>>> chris >>> PC language (and how it's implemented) is rarely about whatever the >>> target group is. It's more about the people using it and making them >>> look better. It's often used more as a badge to try to give the >>> appearance to other people that the individual using it is somehow >>> more compassionate/enlightened rather than to have any impact on the >>> group/problem in question. >> Opinion? Or backed up with fact. It sounds like an opinion. >> >> Also, it can lead people away from actually >> >>> fixing problems. >> Perhaps. Or perhaps it's low-hanging fruit, so is the earliest item >> implemented. And in terms of budgets, it's cheap. >> >> Especially in education, where diagnosing problems >> >>> and working to correct them early is of high importance. >> Agree that early diagnosis is always important. >> >>> And more to the topic, "xer" is harder to read and understand. It's >>> also not the only gender-neutral singular pronoun being floated around >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-neutral_pronoun. It's >>> functionally no better than just using the plural "they/their", and >>> arguably worse as it adds to confusion. >> TBH, I find xer very funny, and to some small degree makes our tiny corner >> of the universe ours. Would hate it used in the real world however. I >> tend to use they/their as opposed to he/his. >> >> Thanks, >> >> chris > > Well, it's also my opinion, but most of that was from an essay I read > recently (it was a review of a usage guide for English). Now, you > could question the author (David Foster Wallace, if you're wondering) > but I think he's a pretty solid authority w/r/t English. Probably this one http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/DFW_present_tense.html Thanks, will have to read the whole thing later. > > And as for it being low-hanging fruit, I haven't found any study > showing that changing nomenclature has had any worthwhile impact on > education results (to use one example). Since such things have been > implemented in the US, students have in general performed more poorly > (not saying it's the cause, just pointing out there's been no > improvement). It's a symbolic gesture made generally to assuage the > feelings of parents and to avoid making the school look bad. Also, > it's much easier to advance a student who "chooses not to perform" > than one who is "unsatisfactory" (and pass the problem on to other > people). I'll ask my wife, she's getting her special education credential. She most likely has read/heard about this one way or the other. best - chris

On May 24, 7:33 pm, smithson <joe124...@gmail.com> wrote: > On May 24, 6:30 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > > On May 24, 5:51 pm, smithson <joe124...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 24, 3:17 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > > > Except that it is singular. They is not. So "xe" is functionally > > > > better than "they" by reason of not confusing the number. > > > > The same usage conventions that make "xe" a word at come into play for > > > "they" being used as a singular gender-neutral pronoun. > > > Trivially disproved: > > > The doctor is finally in (they is running late). > > Fatally flawed example: > > In that case you would refer to the doctor by he or she. This isn't > some anonymous doctor you're talking about. The use of "the" shows > that it's a familiar object. False. The successful student will employ many strategies. They uses the strategy or strategies appropriate to each situation. > Alternately, basic grammar (you do know > that, I assume)would make the proper sentence: > The doctor is finally in (they are running late). Exactly. It (the word "they") doesn't agree in number. > > This is of course assuming for some odd reason someone who is well- > known enough to use the direct article "the" is still of unknown > gender to either/both speakers (although the example would be more > grammatically correct, it's still logically inconsistent, as the > doctor can't both be in and running late, past tense should be used). False, trivially: When they arrives [sic] late, they is both late and in.

Howdy, On May 24, 4:33 pm, smithson <joe124...@gmail.com> wrote: > On May 24, 6:30 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > > On May 24, 5:51 pm, smithson <joe124...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 24, 3:17 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > > > Except that it is singular. They is not. So "xe" is functionally > > > > better than "they" by reason of not confusing the number. > > > > The same usage conventions that make "xe" a word at come into play for > > > "they" being used as a singular gender-neutral pronoun. > > > Trivially disproved: > > > The doctor is finally in (they is running late). > > Fatally flawed example: > > In that case you would refer to the doctor by he or she. This isn't > some anonymous doctor you're talking about. The use of "the" shows > that it's a familiar object. Alternately, basic grammar (you do know > that, I assume)would make the proper sentence: > The doctor is finally in (they are running late). Dude (not in the gender specific sense). Why the need to be snarky? If you want to form a convincing counter-argument, you would do well to attack your opponent's strongest argument, not nitpick and talk around a quickly constructed example. If you find the given example 'fatally flawed', try: "I wonder when the cable guy (again, not in the gender specific sense) will get here? They must be running late." Hint: If the 'guy' part is throwing you, substitute some other service provider or professional who 1) one might reasonably be expected not to know personally, and 2) who might be running late... (Similarly with the joke: substitute 'lawyer' or 'engineer' for 'doctor'.) > This is of course assuming for some odd reason someone who is well- > known enough to use the direct article "the" is still of unknown > gender to either/both speakers (although the example would be more > grammatically correct, it's still logically inconsistent, as the > doctor can't both be in and running late, past tense should be used). Many people have wondered if 'political correctness' is (nefariously) behind LSJ's usage of 'xe'. I wonder what's behind the really strong reaction to its usage. (Especially from the non-native English speakers.) Why is this such a sore spot? I once created acres of ill-will with a female colleague in grad school who was up in arms about the exclusive usage of masculine pronouns in physics journals. I tried to protest that they weren't trying to be offensive, and, thus, that she shouldn't be offended... I don't recommend arguing with people about the validity of their feelings as a way of endearing oneself. These days I'm with James (and Xeter and librarian) - if you can fairly easily accomodate those who are offended by the usage of the masculine as the default pronoun, why not do it? Clearly there can be found examples of ridiculously over the top euphemistic substitution in the name of 'political correctness', some of it even potentially sincere and not just trolling. This doesn't strike me as one of those things. And you can find ridiculous examples of pretty much anything, if you look hard enough. Plus I love the sound I hear when I see the word 'xe'. With apologies to LSJ, it clearly goes 'Egg-see', not 'zee', just like some sort of alien raygun! Hope that helps, Alex

On May 24, 10:13 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > I can't speak to "most", but I certainly know that some women do, in > fact, object to use of "he" as a generic pronoun and the declaration > of independance stating that "all men are created equal". Does the > average American woman feel marginalized by this? I have no idea. But > they probably should. Now you're telling people how they "should" feel. And this is the heart of the problem with the whole PC movement. A small group of people who think they know how others feel without asking them, or even if they do ask and receive a resounding "meh" decide that people "should" feel differently, and go around trying to fix wheels that aren't broken while there are far, far bigger fish to fry. > I try to avoid the use of the phrase "political correctness" myself, > as it is a silly and derisive phrase. Do I think that how language is > used has an impact on society, and that changing its use can have a > positive impact on the world? Absolutely. I agree changing language can have a positive effect. But there comes a point where the changes become simply ridiculous. Changing "retard' or "spastic" to "mentally handicapped"? Yep, that's positivity. Changing "brainstorming" to "idea showering" (I am dead serious here)or "fail' to "deferred success"? This is bullshit pandering by an idiot minority who think they know better than the rest of us. Is PC a silly term? Not in my opinion. Is it derisive? Absolutely. Because these people deserve my derision. > I never claimed it was about accuracy. I just claimed that some people > thought it was a good idea. Yep. Some people think its a good idea to drive drunk too. jase

On May 25, 4:38 am, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote: > Please help me see why more sensitive words and usage are bad. Ie, why is > it bad to try to make kids who are struggling in school feel a little bit > better (or perhaps more accurately, "not worse") about themselves because > they haven't "failed". Alrighty, speaking from personal experience. I failed my major in second year university. No sugar coating. No "deferred success". No counsellor giving me a back rub and telling me it was alright. Just a big fat F and the realisation that I'd wasted my cash on uni fees that year. And it was the kick in the behind that I needed. It made me take stock, ask myself what I was doing there, whether I really wanted to be doing what I was doing. And after answering those questions I came back next year and topped my class. Sometimes, people need to taste failure in order to succeed. Sure it tastes like sh*t. But it makes you not want to taste it again and try harder. Cutting the sh*t with sugar and comforting words and hand holding makes it easier to swallow, and the thought of swallowing it again easier to take. The school where my sister teaches gives all kids who compete in the sports day a ribbon, out of some attempt, I suppose, to reward participation. To my mind, all it does is reward mediocrity. Some kids aren't good at sport, some aren't good at maths or art or english. You don't get a prize in the real world for being average, for working at Mickey D's or a 7-11. If you fail at your job, you generally get fired (unless you're a public servant). This is life. Taking the sting off failure makes it easier to accept, and more likely that you'll accept it in future, rather that trying, desperately, to never taste that horrible sh*t again. jase

On May 24, 5:42 pm, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: > OK, then you agree that a word with a masculine ending has a generic > sense :) Sort of? I don't think "doctor" actually has a "masculine" ending, as English doesn't really work like that. -Peter

On May 24, 8:46 pm, Jason <jasonsv...@iinet.net.au> wrote: > Now you're telling people how they "should" feel. No I'm not. I'm not telling anyone they should do anything. It makes sense to me that more people should be bothered by some things. I'm not going to make them be more bothered by anything. I'm just sometimes surprised when people aren't. > heart of the problem with the whole PC movement. A small group of > people who think they know how others feel without asking them, or > even if they do ask and receive a resounding "meh" decide that people > "should" feel differently, and go around trying to fix wheels that > aren't broken while there are far, far bigger fish to fry. Boy, are you projecting this way beyond its borders. I'm not suggesting anyone fix anything. I'm just pointing out that there is a logic behind what LSJ is doing when he uses "xe". Heck--I'm not jumping on that train any time soon. But I see why someone would. > I agree changing language can have a positive effect. But there comes > a point where the changes become simply ridiculous. Changing "retard' > or "spastic" to "mentally handicapped"? Yep, that's positivity. > Changing "brainstorming" to "idea showering" (I am dead serious > here)or "fail' to "deferred success"? This is bullshit pandering by an > idiot minority who think they know better than the rest of us. That certainly is bullshit. I don't, however, think that attempting to introduce a gender neutral, singular pronoun is on the same level as "deferred success". A gender neutral singular pronoun is something that doesn't exist and probably should. A silly euphemism for something that already has a perfectly reasonable term is just silly. > Yep. Some people think its a good idea to drive drunk too. Hmm. Hyperbolic extreme much? "Gender neutral, singular pronoun" = "arguably something that is worth having and isn't going to 'cause any damage." "driving drunk" = "criminal activity that is likely to get you and someone else killed" Try again. -Peter

On May 24, 5:41 pm, Juggernaut1981 <brasscompo...@gmail.com> wrote: > Sorry Peter, It's a moment of shadenfreude... but seriously as far as > linguistics goes... you're getting pillaged by someone who speaks > English as a second language. Uh, 'cause he thinks that "doctor" is a masculine specific term? When it isn't really any more than "adjustor" or "editor"? Yeah, hardly something that could fall under the realm of "pillaged". -Peter

On May 24, 8:46 pm, Jason <jasonsv...@iinet.net.au> wrote: > Yep. Some people think its a good idea to drive drunk too. [citation needed]

On May 24, 5:40 pm, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: > Then why should equity be focussed just on gender? Millennia of gender inequity that is yet to be overcome? > It could be > focussed on race, eye, hair, skin color, religious allegiances... and > a long etcetera. Attempts at equity are often focused on these as well (well, not so much eye and hair color, as that rarely results in inequity. Although if you watch a lot of South Park, you might think otherwise...) > The more equity you add to your speech, the more euphemistic, soft and > rigid it will become, and the more afraid you will be to offend some > people, until you see the only way for you not to offend anyone will > be not to say a word ;) Yeah, I'll get right on that. If you can accommodate making the world a more equitable place without 'causing much collateral damage along the way, it strikes me as a reasonable plan. > Perhaps some folks give too much importance to gender. Maybe. Perhaps some people give too much importance to race or religion too. What are you gonna do? -Peter

On May 24, 6:13 pm, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: > "Doctor" has an unequivocal Latin root, which is masculine. Sure. It seems likely that plenty of words have a latin root which is masculine which in modern English are not remotely gender specific. "Doctor" is not a gender specific term, although it might have been originally intended to have been. "He" is undoubtedly a gender specific term, although it sometimes is intended to not be. -Peter

On May 18, 4:55 pm, simcof <sim...@gmail.com> wrote: > I notice LSJ keeps referring to somethign/someone called xer? > > Is xer a VTES celebrity I have not heard of or am I completely missing > something here and this question exposes me for the imbecile I am? I prefer 'hir'. Discuss. ;P

[ quoted text not captured ] False example (again). You made the same agreement error. Repeating a previous mistake =/= proof. "They" is taken to be a genderless third- person pronoun. http://mw4.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/they Notice in the usage examples even in the cases where "they" is being used as a singular pronoun it still takes a plural form of verb. And your other example is wrong again, because you've changed what the sentence said. The original example used not the "be" form with late, but a gerund form of "run". If you change your example to something different, obviously it will change. You said "The doctor is finally in (they is running late)". Now, if your example had been "The doctor is finally in (they is late)" it would've been correct.

[ quoted text not captured ] My "snarkiness" was in reply to LSJ's. If he doesn't want to actually discuss his odd usage of imaginary words, that's ok. And I acknowledge the problems with using generic gendered pronouns. Fortunately, English has found a way to avoid that (the singular use of "they"). In this particular case, I do think it's motivated more from a "look at me, see how enlightened I am" than any actual attempt at solving underlying gender bias in language. Which is ok, but when someone's operating in an official capacity and giving out rulings, clarity and not personal agenda should be the primary concern.

Jason wrote: > On May 25, 4:38 am, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote: > >> Please help me see why more sensitive words and usage are bad. Ie, why is >> it bad to try to make kids who are struggling in school feel a little bit >> better (or perhaps more accurately, "not worse") about themselves because >> they haven't "failed". > > Alrighty, speaking from personal experience. > > I failed my major in second year university. No sugar coating. No > "deferred success". No counsellor giving me a back rub and telling me > it was alright. Just a big fat F and the realisation that I'd wasted > my cash on uni fees that year. And it was the kick in the behind that > I needed. It made me take stock, ask myself what I was doing there, > whether I really wanted to be doing what I was doing. And after > answering those questions I came back next year and topped my class. > So, in actuality, you deferred success. Ok. Sadly, that's my takeaway from your example. (That, and in university, you have a choice - not so in public elementary and secondary schools here. But perhaps it's in the university setting that this example was originally used? Not sure, haven't heard the term "deferred success" here in California). best - chris (sort of bored with this argument now)

On May 25, 3:16 pm, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote: > So, in actuality, you deferred success. Ok. No, I failed. Then tried again and succeeded. And probably wouldn't have succeeded nearly as well if I got a cookie and a "there, there schnookums". The best motivator in the world can often be a swift kick in the a$$. jase

On May 25, 11:43 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > Boy, are you projecting this way beyond its borders. I'm not > suggesting anyone fix anything. I'm just pointing out that there is a > logic behind what LSJ is doing when he uses "xe". Heck--I'm not > jumping on that train any time soon. But I see why someone would. I'm not suggesting *you* are. I'm suggesting this is the motivation for many of the Politically Correct amongst us. > That certainly is bullshit. I don't, however, think that attempting to > introduce a gender neutral, singular pronoun is on the same level as > "deferred success". Same motivation. Same slippery slope. Same end result. > "Gender neutral, singular pronoun" = "arguably something that is worth > having and isn't going to 'cause any damage." > "driving drunk" = "criminal activity that is likely to get you and > someone else killed" > > Try again. My point is that just because somebody thinks something is a good idea, doesn't necessarily make it so. So pointing out that LSJ thought it was a good idea is kinda moot. At the end of the day, he's still typing imaginary words. jase

Funniest thing i have ever heard of regarding the whole PC crapspeak thing? My cousin, who has been in a wheelchair since birth, calls a resort call centre to make a booking. Asking which oif the resorts are setup to be able to cater for disabled people. Gets a very snarky "Please, do not use such discriminatory terms, the correct term is Physically challenged." To which my cousin replies that if someone is unable to walk due to a spinal defect, they are not physically challenged, they are unable to walk. And if you are unable to do something, then that option has been disabled for you. Thus they are disabled. The operator then gets highly annoyed, starts shouting at my cousin, accusing him of insensitivity to the problems of others, that he is unfeeling and shallow, and some more diatribic crap. My cousin gets some what annoyed himself, and tells the operator that he is coming down to their office, and would like to meet his supervisor and him. The agent agrees. I drive down there with her. We get out, and I walk in while my cousin sorts out his wheelchair. Which he will always get himself, cos even though he is disabled, he is definitely not unable... The reception lady calls the operator in question, and he and his manager walk out together. They both start having go at me, and the more i try to interject and ask them to hold on, the more irate and insulting they get. When my cousin rolls in the manager actually shouts at me "How do you think this gentleman would feel if you called him disabled?" To which i reply "I am sure he has no issue." Near apoplectic with rage, the manager loses his cool completely, calling me l kinds of names. Which is when my cousin pipes up and says it was him on the phone earlier. Yay for PC getting its ass kicked, ad free holidays! PC is short not for politically correct, but piss crap. which is what it is.

[ quoted text not captured ] That's the best story I've heard in years. You didn't get a chance to video any of that, did you?

On May 25, 1:51 am, Jason <jasonsv...@iinet.net.au> wrote: > I'm not suggesting *you* are. I'm suggesting this is the motivation > for many of the Politically Correct amongst us. Sure. But you are then taking a specific example of something that is actually happening (LSJ using "xe") and porting it to a general instance of stupid things happening, when those stupid things aren't directly connected to what we are actually discussing. > Same motivation. Same slippery slope. Same end result. "Slippery slope" is always a dubious argument. Just 'cause someone is and advocate of X doesn't mean that they are an advocate of Y, even though some advocates of Y are also advocates of X. That someone thinks a gender neutral, singular pronoun is a good idea, 'cause there isn't one, doesn't mean that they are going to spearhead the adoption of Newspeak. > My point is that just because somebody thinks something is a good > idea, doesn't necessarily make it so. Certainly not. But if one can argue that it *is* a good idea (a gender neutral singular pronoun certainly has some sort of valid argument behind it), then maybe it is a good idea. No one can make a legitimate argument that driving drunk is a good idea. Someone certainly can make a legitimate argument that a gender neutral singular pronoun is a good idea. That you don't agree with it doesn't put it on the same level as driving drunk. Even as a preposterous comparison. > it was a good idea is kinda moot. At the end of the day, he's still typing imaginary words. At the end of the day, we all type imaginary words all the time (see: "meh" or "woot"). And we still do it, and figure that people will know what we are talking about. And eventually, these imaginary words become slightly less imaginary. -Peter

On May 25, 1:41 am, Jason <jasonsv...@iinet.net.au> wrote: > The best motivator in the world can often be a swift kick in the a$$. So wait. You are horrified that someone would like to use the word "xe" as a gender neutral singular pronoun, as it is the spearhead of mind control and Newspeak, but you won't type "ass"? Check. -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] Exactly. I repeat the illustration showing that "they" fails to agree in number. The doctor operates. He operates. She operates. It operates. Xe operates. They operate. One of these things is not like the others. (Yeah, yeah. One isn't a pronoun. And one is an "artificial word" (horror!). But, and here's the point again: one doesn't agree in number.) > Notice > in the usage examples even in the cases where "they" is being used as > a singular pronoun it still takes a plural form of verb. Wow? Really? I hadn't noticed that when explaining and illustrating exactly that. > And your other example is wrong again, because you've changed what the > sentence said. The original example used not the "be" form with late, > but a gerund form of "run". If you change your example to something > different, obviously it will change. You said "The doctor is finally > in (they is running late)". Now, if your example had been "The doctor > is finally in (they is late)" it would've been correct. Moot, but still misguided "correcting". The example is correct. The doctor has a series of scheduled appointments, as doctors usually do. The doctor is in (finally). And the doctor is (still) running late.

wumpus wrote: > Many people have wondered if 'political correctness' is (nefariously) > behind LSJ's usage of 'xe'. I wonder what's behind the really strong > reaction to its usage. (Especially from the non-native English > speakers.) Why is this such a sore spot? I'd guess that the issue people have with Xe/Xer is that it looks and feels like an attempt by LSJ at an Esperanto-like "fix" for something that doesn't need fixing, unless he's unwilling to use the already-in-place rulebook fix, he's being PC, or he is anal about his grammar. If LSJ is unwilling to use the already-in-place fix, I can see how that would bother some people, seeing as it's set-in-stone for us in the rulebook and we (the player base) have no choice in that regard when we are teaching out of the rulebook, not to mention the more than minor issue of that space being used for something viewed as unneccesary when there are rules missing from the book. If LSJ is being PC, that's something that most people have a great dislike for, although it should be noted that LSJ has stated he doesn't do it for this reason. If LSJ is being anal about his grammar and this is REALLY all about numerical grammatical agreement, then I congratulate him on being one of the very first adopters of the future English, but I'd also suggest that he look at the rulebook for the game which he is net-repping for, to what feedback he is receiving from the gaming community, and to consider his options. Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/ Please bid on my auctions! http://shop.ebay.com/kjmergen/m.html

On May 25, 1:03 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > I'd guess that the issue people have with Xe/Xer is that it looks > and feels like an attempt by LSJ at an Esperanto-like "fix" for > something that doesn't need fixing, unless he's unwilling to use > the already-in-place rulebook fix, he's being PC, or he is anal > about his grammar. What does being anal about grammar have to do with it, if there's no problem to be fixed? Perfection soothes the anal soul. > If LSJ is unwilling to use the already-in-place fix, There's an in-place fix? I've seen mechanisms to move the problem around (to gender or to number or to punctuation), but no in-place fix (other than the various fixes already mentioned: xe, zhey, hu, and so on, which you seem to categorize as not in-place). > If LSJ is being anal about his grammar and this is REALLY all > about numerical grammatical agreement, then I congratulate him > on being one of the very first adopters of the future English, but > I'd also suggest that he look at the rulebook for the game which > he is net-repping for, to what feedback he is receiving from the > gaming community, and to consider his options. Done. (I've also looked at card text, FWIW)

[ quoted text not captured ] teeka, if i had, i would have a youtube channel with just that clip, yah know?

On May 25, 1:03 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > If LSJ is unwilling to use the already-in-place fix, I can see how > that would bother some people, seeing as it's set-in-stone for us > in the rulebook and we (the player base) have no choice in that > regard when we are teaching out of the rulebook, not to mention > the more than minor issue of that space being used for something > viewed as unneccesary when there are rules missing from the book. Hmm. I confused. This has nothing at all to do with the rulebook. There is a solution/compromise in the rulebook (i.e. alternating "he" and "she" with a reasonable pattern). I have no reason to believe that LSJ has any intention of introducing "xe" to the rulebook or cards. He just uses it in coversation. -Peter

Peter D Bakija escribi�: [ quoted text not captured ] Then you are wrong. http://www.lousywriter.com/nouns_gender.php "II. Gender shown by Suffixes. 29. By far the largest number of gender words are those marked by suffixes. In this particular the native endings have been largely supplanted by foreign suffixes. [...] The foreign suffixes are of two kinds:� Foreign suffixes. Unaltered and little used. (1) [...] (2) That regarded as the standard or regular termination of the feminine, -ess (French esse, Low Latin issa), the one most used. The corresponding masculine may have the ending -er (-or), but in most cases it has not. Whenever we adopt a new masculine word, the feminine is formed by adding this termination -ess." [...] -- Damnans http://www.almadrava.net/damnans http://www.vtes.net http://es.groups.yahoo.com/group/vteshispania/ http://iuturna.sorcery.net (IRC channel: #vtes)

Peter D Bakija escribi�: > On May 24, 5:40 pm, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: >> Then why should equity be focussed just on gender? > > Millennia of gender inequity that is yet to be overcome? What kind of inequity are you talking about? The fact that in order to express masculine gender, we have been using generic terms for millennia, because that gender had no form of its own (unlike the feminine gender)? [...] > >> Perhaps some folks give too much importance to gender. > > Maybe. Perhaps some people give too much importance to race or > religion too. What are you gonna do? Tell them they are too touchy and that they may need therapy :) [ quoted text not captured ]

On May 25, 3:02 pm, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: > Peter D Bakija escribió: > > > On May 24, 5:42 pm, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: > >> OK, then you agree that a word with a masculine ending has a generic > >> sense :) > > > Sort of? I don't think "doctor" actually has a "masculine" ending, as > > English doesn't really work like that. > > Then you are wrong. > (2) That regarded as the standard or regular termination of the > feminine, -ess (French esse, Low Latin issa), the one most used. The > corresponding masculine may have the ending -er (-or), but in most cases > it has not. Whenever we adopt a new masculine word, the feminine is > formed by adding this termination -ess." I've never seen or heard anyone use "doctess" in English, and Google seems to be equally unaware of this usage, contrary to the cited "authority".

[ quoted text not captured ] Not every "masculine" word has its femenine form. [ quoted text not captured ]

On May 25, 3:02 pm, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: > Then you are wrong. And yet, as someone who speaks English as a primary language, I will tell you that the words that end with "-tor" are far more often than not gender neutral. Words that end with "-tor" being gender specific are an exception rather than a rule. For every "actor/actress" (which, honestly, still only exists as a dichotomy 'cause it makes handing out awards easier and for no other reason--lots of people already ignore the existence of the word "actress" in conversation, for example), there are 10 "adjustors", "assessors", "pastors", or "prosecutors", all of which are words that end with "-tor" and are completely gender neutral. There are no claims adjustresses or property asseresses or pastresses or prosecutresses. Or doctresses. There are just claims adjustors (who may be male or female), property assessors (who may be male or female), pastors (who may be male or female) and prosecutors (who may be male or female). Just like doctors (who may be male or female). > http://www.lousywriter.com/nouns_gender.php > > "II. Gender shown by Suffixes. I mean it is great that you can look stuff up on the internet and all, but really, I assure you. "Doctor" is, at this point in time, a completely gender neutral term. Just like "prosecutor" or "claims adjustor". -Peter

On May 25, 4:41 pm, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: > Not every "masculine" word has its femenine form. In English, words don't have "masculine" forms in the way that they often do in other languages. Often words adopted into English come from words that have a masculine or feminine form ("sombrero", for example). But English tends to ignore that sort of thing. Doctor comes from a word that has a masculine root. Doctor, however, is currently a completely gender neutral term. Calling someone a "doctor" does not infer gender. A "doctor" can be male or female. I suspect what you are trying to get at is that if "doctor" can be a genderless term, why can't "he"? Well, 'cause "he" specifically refers to the male gender. Calling someone of indeterminate gender "doctor" does not imply a gender one way or the other. Calling someone of indeterminate gender "he" implies that he or she is a male, until more information is gained. -Peter

On May 25, 3:11 pm, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: > What kind of inequity are you talking about? The fact that in order to > express masculine gender, we have been using generic terms for > millennia, because that gender had no form of its own (unlike the > feminine gender)? No, no, the inequity that comes from being a second class citizen for a millennia, which is further reinforced by use of language. Some folks object to that. > Tell them they are too touchy and that they may need therapy :) Clearly, you aren't a marginalized minority. I mean, I'm not either. But at least I can see why someone might object to the use of language that furthers said marginalization. And why someone might think that a gender neutral, singular pronoun for use in situations where gender is not known, and automatically implying that they are male might be seen as objectionable, would be a good idea. I mean, as noted, I'm not jumping on the "xe" train any time soon or anything. But it is certainly handier than "he/she" or "s/he" in situations where "they" isn't appropriate. -Peter

On May 25, 3:17 am, Blooded Sand <sandm...@gmail.com> wrote: > Funniest thing i have ever heard of regarding the whole PC crapspeak > thing? > > My cousin, who has been in a wheelchair since birth, calls a resort > call centre to make a booking. Asking which oif the resorts are setup > to be able to cater for disabled people. > {snip} > > Which is when my cousin pipes up and says it was him on the phone > earlier. > > Yay for PC getting its ass kicked, ad free holidays! > > PC is short not for politically correct, but piss crap. which is what > it is. While I agree it's a funny story, I feel the need to point out that "disabled" *is* a politically correct term. Your cousin may or may not get upset when someone calls him a "cripple", but I can assure you that many people do. Which is why the term disabled is preferred. "Physically challenged" is another way of putting it, but personally I find that to be a bit condescending and more insulting than disabled ("differently-abled" is just awkward and wrong). Politically correct doesn't have to mean stupid... even though sometimes it is... Also, I think you referred to your cousin as "him" several times and "her" once... Maybe you meant "xer"?

On May 24, 8:45 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On May 24, 5:41 pm, Juggernaut1981 <brasscompo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Sorry Peter, It's a moment of shadenfreude... but seriously as far as > > linguistics goes... you're getting pillaged by someone who speaks > > English as a second language. > > Uh, 'cause he thinks that "doctor" is a masculine specific term? When > it isn't really any more than "adjustor" or "editor"? Yeah, hardly > something that could fall under the realm of "pillaged". > Not that "doctor" is a masculine word, but that it has a masculine ending and has come to be a gender-neutral word. Since the word comes from the Latin "one who teaches", and the Latin "or" (or "tor"?) ending is masculine, I think you're wrong on this one... Even though English is primarily a genderless language, the original derivation of words *does* have bearing on their meanings.

[ quoted text not captured ] dyslexia. funnily enough the one thing i almost always get right'

On May 25, 5:27 pm, Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote: > Not that "doctor" is a masculine word, but that it has a masculine > ending and has come to be a gender-neutral word. Since the word comes > from the Latin "one who teaches", and the Latin "or" (or "tor"?) > ending is masculine, I think you're wrong on this one... Even though > English is primarily a genderless language, the original derivation of > words *does* have bearing on their meanings. We already covered this :-) There are lots of words in English that come from Latin (or whatever) root words that originally had a masculine (or feminine) gender. And yet at this point in time, they are completely gender neutral. "Doctor" is such an example. Just like "Adjustor" or "Pastor". -Peter

On May 25, 11:04 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On May 25, 4:41 pm, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: > > > Not every "masculine" word has its femenine form. [...] > I suspect what you are trying to get at is that if "doctor" can be a > genderless term, why can't "he"? Yup. > Well, 'cause "he" specifically refers > to the male gender. Calling someone of indeterminate gender "doctor" > does not imply a gender one way or the other. Calling someone of > indeterminate gender "he" implies that he or she is a male, until more > information is gained. I know that the primary meaning of "he" is "that male one who is neither speaker nor hearer", but its secondary meaning is generic, which may be due to its etymology (Greek "ekeinos" = "that person"), which is genderless. Therefore, calling someone "that person" is not offensive. [ quoted text not captured ]

On May 25, 6:02 pm, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: > I know that the primary meaning of "he" is "that male one who is > neither speaker nor hearer", but its secondary meaning is generic, > which may be due to its etymology (Greek "ekeinos" = "that person"), > which is genderless. And yet in modern usage the secondary greek use doesn't actually work. I mean, history and etymology is cool and all, but it generally fails in the face of actual language use. > Therefore, calling someone "that person" is not offensive. Calling someone "he" when they aren't a "he" isn't offensive either. Just something that some folks would like to avoid. And as "xe" is a potentially good way to do that, I suspect that some people are trying it out. -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] Peter, And people accuse me of continuing a debate/argument/fight for the sake of my own sport and amusement...

On May 25, 6:39 pm, Juggernaut1981 <brasscompo...@gmail.com> wrote: > And people accuse me of continuing a debate/argument/fight for the > sake of my own sport and amusement... I'm sure they do? What do you want me to do? Damnans made a post. I replied to it. The jist of it is that I'm not talking about etymological history of words. I'm talking about modern, standard usage. In modern, standard usage, "doctor" is a gender neutral word. In modern, standard usage, "he" is not a gender neutral word. That they one has a Latin, etymological root that is masculine and that the other has a Latin, etymological root that is neutral is irrelevant. -Peter

Peter D Bakija wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Correct. Thereby creating TWO manufactured systems. Useless. [ quoted text not captured ]

On May 25, 10:18 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > Sure. But you are then taking a specific example of something that is > actually happening (LSJ using "xe") and porting it to a general > instance of stupid things happening, when those stupid things aren't > directly connected to what we are actually discussing. But I think they are connected. LSJ typing "xe" and people called "failure" "deferred success" are the same stupid, bullsh*t flavour. > "Slippery slope" is always a dubious argument. Just 'cause someone is > and advocate of X doesn't mean that they are an advocate of Y, even > though some advocates of Y are also advocates of X. That someone > thinks a gender neutral, singular pronoun is a good idea, 'cause there > isn't one, doesn't mean that they are going to spearhead the adoption > of Newspeak. No it doesn't. But both occurences are examples of Political Correctness. And both lead to the same conlusion and stem from the same motivation. If Johnny Jones thinks "deferred success" is a good idea, but scoffs at the banning of the term "brainstorming', Johnny still an advocate of PC (and a twat). > Certainly not. But if one can argue that it *is* a good idea (a gender > neutral singular pronoun certainly has some sort of valid argument > behind it), then maybe it is a good idea. No one can make a legitimate > argument that driving drunk is a good idea. Sure you can. "I went camping with my buddy, drank half a bottle of scotch, then my buddy fell into the firepit and suffered third degree burns. My mobile had no signal. I needed to get him to a hospital." People can make up all kinds of preposterous excuses for their behaviour, as defenders of PC are wont to do (see Blooded Sand's example) > At the end of the day, we all type imaginary words all the time (see: > "meh" or "woot"). And we still do it, and figure that people will know > what we are talking about. And eventually, these imaginary words > become slightly less imaginary. Yes. But the motivation behind you typing woot is, I suspect, somewhat different from typing "idea showering" or "deferred success" or 'xe". The motivation is what is being questioned here. jase

> So wait. You are horrified that someone would like to use the word > "xe" as a gender neutral singular pronoun, as it is the spearhead of > mind control and Newspeak, but you won't type "ass"? > > Check. No, I just remember a couple of people on this group in past posts asking that profanity be edited because their mailer filters out posts with swear words in them. A couple of my friends work for govt depts and their mailers also filter out profanity, so typing * or $$ is a habit I'm trying to get into to avoid bounces. (sometimes I forget to do so, but I try my best). Believe me when I say, I am probably one of the most profane people you'll ever speak to. Snap? jase

Juggernaut1981 wrote: > Peter D Bakija wrote: >> Damnans wrote: >>> I know that the primary meaning of "he" is "that male one who is >>> neither speaker nor hearer", but its secondary meaning is generic, >>> which may be due to its etymology (Greek "ekeinos" = "that person"), >>> which is genderless. >> >> And yet in modern usage the secondary greek use doesn't actually >> work. I mean, history and etymology is cool and all, but it >> generally fails in the face of actual language use. >> >>> Therefore, calling someone "that person" is not offensive. >> >> Calling someone "he" when they aren't a "he" isn't offensive either. >> Just something that some folks would like to avoid. And as "xe" is a >> potentially good way to do that, I suspect that some people are >> trying it out. > > Peter, > And people accuse me of continuing a debate/argument/fight > for the sake of my own sport and amusement... Jugg, You haven't been around long enough -- that's Peter's M.O.! Just like mine is to be abrasive, aggressive, abusive, acting like I have Asberger's, and, oh yea, I'm an asshole. I like A's. And LSJ uses pretend words to force his mathematics upon us. And you should really come to Origins. http://www.originsgames.com/ [ quoted text not captured ]

On May 25, 7:34 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > Correct. Thereby creating TWO manufactured systems. Useless. Huh. Well, if that is the way you are looking at it, then that is the way you are looking at it. The system the rulebook uses makes sense as a viable compromise for publishing something like rules (where it is unlikely that the Powers that Be will be convinced to use, say, "xe"). What LSJ does he does 'cause he likes to do so. I don't really see the connection. But ok. -Peter

On May 25, 7:43 pm, Jason <jasonsv...@iinet.net.au> wrote: > But I think they are connected. LSJ typing "xe" and people called > "failure" "deferred success" are the same stupid, bullsh*t flavour. And yet they aren't. I'm sure LSJ is totally happy to use "xe" while also calling "failure" "failure". Use of "xe" strikes me as a reasonable, if currently kind of unwieldy practice. Calling "failure" "deferred success" strikes me as ridiculous. And probably something that some right wing radio personality made up as an "example" of something gone mad. But stupid in either case. > No it doesn't. But both occurences are examples of Political > Correctness. If you want to believe that, go nuts. Personally, I think that avoiding easily avoided speech that is likely to piss someone off somewhere (unless you are intentionally trying to piss someone off) without doing much collateral damage to language as a whole is a reasonable thing to do. On the other hand, I also think making up ridiculous euphemisms for things that have perfectly reasonable words is ridiculous. I must be blowing your mind. > Sure you can. "I went camping with my buddy, drank half a bottle of > scotch, then my buddy fell into the firepit and suffered third degree > burns. My mobile had no signal. I needed to get him to a hospital." Which is then followed by "man, that was stupid, but I needed to get him to the hospital." No one is going to use this as a justification for drunk driving being a good idea. They are going to use it as a justification for getting someone to the hospital being a good idea. Different thing all together. > Yes. But the motivation behind you typing woot is, I suspect, somewhat > different from typing "idea showering" or "deferred success" or 'xe". > The motivation is what is being questioned here. And again, "idea showering" and "deferred success" are stupid and likely apocryphal examples of the ridiculous extremes that some people want to glom on to. "Xe" has a rational reason to exist (being a gender neutral, singular pronoun that does not currently exist). And while currently is kind of unwieldy, is something that could certainly gain some traction. -Peter

Peter D Bakija wrote: > On May 25, 3:02 pm, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: >> Then you are wrong. > > And yet, as someone who speaks English as a primary language, I will > tell you that the words that end with "-tor" are far more often than > not gender neutral. Words that end with "-tor" being gender specific > are an exception rather than a rule. > > For every "actor/actress" (which, honestly, still only exists as a > dichotomy 'cause it makes handing out awards easier and for no other > reason--lots of people already ignore the existence of the word > "actress" in conversation, for example), there are 10 "adjustors", > "assessors", "pastors", Assessess. Heh. And pastress? For a female father? Oivay. best - chris (are there any words that are exclusively ending in -ess?)

On Mon, 24 May 2010 04:12:27 -0700 (PDT), LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > On May 24, 3:47 am, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote: >> On Sun, 23 May 2010 14:58:22 -0700 (PDT), LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> >> wrote: >> >> > And see riddles about a doctor and 'his' son whose father is dead. >> >> Except that the gender of said doctor is probably not unknown to the >> speaker. > > Wow. Really? > > Anyway, thanks for verifying that "he" connotes gender. Not necessarily. But "son" and "father" definitely do... :) -- Regards, Daneel

librarian escribió: > Jason wrote: >>> No. I'm suggesting that your assertion regarding the utility of xe >>> from Janne's point of view being naďve is myopic -- it misses his >>> (well-stated) point of view entirely. >> >> You obviously don't understand my assertion then. It had nothing to do >> with xe's utility. >> >> Janne made two points. The first, that the 'problem" lies in English's >> lack of placeholder descriptors. Undisputed. The second, that the use >> of nonesensical "xers" has nothing to do with political correctness. >> This is entirely disputable. >> > > Not sure why being politically correct is bad. Then I suggest that you watch this video (SFW) by George Carlin :) http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=7313467 [ quoted text not captured ]

On May 26, 4:36 pm, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: > librarian escribió: > > > Jason wrote: > >>> No. I'm suggesting that your assertion regarding the utility of xe > >>> from Janne's point of view being naïve is myopic -- it misses his > >>> (well-stated) point of view entirely. > > >> You obviously don't understand my assertion then. It had nothing to do > >> with xe's utility. > > >> Janne made two points. The first, that the 'problem" lies in English's > >> lack of placeholder descriptors. Undisputed. The second, that the use > >> of nonesensical "xers" has nothing to do with political correctness. > >> This is entirely disputable. > > > Not sure why being politically correct is bad. > > Then I suggest that you watch this video (SFW) by George Carlin :) > > http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=... > > -- > Damnans > > http://www.almadrava.net/damnanshttp://www.vtes.nethttp://es.groups.yahoo.com/group/vteshispania/http://iuturna.sorcery.net (IRC channel: #vtes) tooo awesome for any except george.

[ quoted text not captured ] > Mistress.. Dress. Distress. Happiness.

On May 27, 4:09 pm, Jozxyqk <jfeue...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Loch Ness.

[ quoted text not captured ] > Loch Ness. Watercress.

On May 27, 9:57 am, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > Mistress.. Mister. - D.J.

On May 27, 9:09 am, Jozxyqk <jfeue...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] It is interesting that these are words associated with women (men don't wear dresses) or they are emotions which are also more associated with women than men.

[ quoted text not captured ] You associate distress and happiness more with women? wow... just, wow.... and also duress

"Blooded Sand" <sand...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:387e31d9-ff8a-4049...@k31g2000vbu.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Reminds me of the surface-dwelling men in the episode of old, old Star Trek called, "Spock's Brain", referring to women as "the bringers of pain and delight". Indeed! Fred