|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Rune <aut### [at] runevisioncom> wrote:
> Conversely, I
> think the sentence below with "he" sounds very weird:
> "Readers of women's magazines are not known to be very loyal. If a reader
> finds that his favourite magazine have gotten pricier than it used to be, he
> will often tend to buy a different one instead."
I can honestly say that the use of "he" did not sound odd or out-of-place
to me at all in that sentence. Maybe it's because I'm so used to using "he"
as the neutral pronoun.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> It may not yet have overtaken businessman, but it's quite common here.
> I doubt it raises any eyebrows.
> Same goes for layperson.
I always notice specifically when someone uses "person" instead of "man"
in a common term like those. If the "man" is used instead, I don't even pay
attention. It sounds completely normal to me.
The fact that I specifically notice it as something a bit out-of-place
means that I feel that it's artificial and an attemp at being hypercorrect.
OTOH, I'm not a native speaker.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 09:35:42 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> On 8 Feb 2008 13:06:28 -0500, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>
>> English lacks a gender-neutral pronoun for people
>
> Well put, I for one won't argue with that.
>
> Regards
> Stephen
"They" and "Them" is about as close as we get in modern usage, but to me
it sounds awkward.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Rune wrote:
>> Conversely, I
>> think the sentence below with "he" sounds very weird:
>
>> "Readers of women's magazines are not known to be very loyal. If a reader
>> finds that his favourite magazine have gotten pricier than it used to be,
>> he
>> will often tend to buy a different one instead."
>
> I can honestly say that the use of "he" did not sound odd or out-of-place
> to me at all in that sentence. Maybe it's because I'm so used to using
> "he"
> as the neutral pronoun.
Hmm. Okay.
Rune
--
http://runevision.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <47ae4a7c$1@news.povray.org>, aut### [at] runevisioncom
says...
>
> Warp wrote:
> > Rune wrote:
> >> Conversely, I
> >> think the sentence below with "he" sounds very weird:
> >
> >> "Readers of women's magazines are not known to be very loyal. If a rea
der
> >> finds that his favourite magazine have gotten pricier than it used to
be,
> >> he
> >> will often tend to buy a different one instead."
> >
> > I can honestly say that the use of "he" did not sound odd or out-of-pl
ace
> > to me at all in that sentence. Maybe it's because I'm so used to using
> > "he"
> > as the neutral pronoun.
>
> Hmm. Okay.
>
> Rune
>
Actually, where it bugs me is in customer service. You never use he/she,
but you use sir, mam, miss, mrs, etc., and its too damn easy when tired
and/or distracted to mess that up. Something like "ker" which was used
in C.J. Cherryh's Chanur series as a kind of general honorific would be
a whole hell of a lot less a) embarassing, b) insulting to people that
are offended easy, and c) likely to be misused. So, yeah, I would vote
for some set of gender neutral words too.
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Actually, where it bugs me is in customer service. You never use he/she,
> but you use sir, mam, miss, mrs, etc., and its too damn easy when tired
> and/or distracted to mess that up. Something like "ker" which was used
> in C.J. Cherryh's Chanur series as a kind of general honorific would be
> a whole hell of a lot less a) embarassing, b) insulting to people that
> are offended easy, and c) likely to be misused. So, yeah, I would vote
> for some set of gender neutral words too.
Quoting a site:
I took a call from a customer who sounded like quite a nice old lady.
Querying the customer database through the serial number, I found the
customer's name to be "Carol" and her surname to be impossibly long and
presumably Eastern European. Fortunately -- or so I thought at first --
she didn't want tech support and was only calling to claim a free
software offer that was a part of the packaged bundle. I checked on the
issue and the offer had expired a good three months before.
* Me: "I'm sorry, ma'am, but the offer has expired."
* Customer: "What?"
* Me: "This offer has expired, ma'am, I'm sor--"
* Customer: (her soprano turning into a growling contralto) "What do
you mean it has expired? I've got the right to get my free CD! I paid
for it! You will give me my CD."
* Me: (explained again)
* Customer: "Oh yeah? I'll talk to your supervisor, then."
Sure, escalate the call, but she wasn't going to get it. I told her so
in the nicest and sweetest of the tones I'm capable of.
* Customer: "I'M NOT TALKING TO YOU ANY MORE. GET-ME-YOUR-SUPERVISOR!"
Wow, talk about getting emotional. I called my supervisor who would take
the escalated call and try to talk some sense into her, but he failed.
The call escalated a second time as the area supervisor took the call
and once more as the shift supervisor took over.
I couldn't believe it. There we were, all four of us sitting in a row,
listening to the call that -- for an encore -- got escalated once more.
A customer satisfaction specialist took the call and didn't do any better.
We decided to roll it around once more and patched her through another
tech, who finally placed and solved the ACTUAL problem.
* Tech Support: "Your name is Carol...what? Oh sure, yes SIR...sure,
I'll fix your entry in our database right away."
Or hanging jaws nearly hit the floor. "Carol" was A GUY -- even though
he sounded like a Powerpuff girl -- and we had all been calling him
"Ma'am" all along. The whole company laughed at this for almost a week.
-- http://www.rinkworks.com/stupid/cs_comeagain.shtml
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> In article <47ae4a7c$1@news.povray.org>, aut### [at] runevisioncom
> says...
>> Warp wrote:
>>> Rune wrote:
>>>> Conversely, I
>>>> think the sentence below with "he" sounds very weird:
>>>> "Readers of women's magazines are not known to be very loyal. If a reader
>>>> finds that his favourite magazine have gotten pricier than it used to be,
>>>> he
>>>> will often tend to buy a different one instead."
>>> I can honestly say that the use of "he" did not sound odd or out-of-place
>>> to me at all in that sentence. Maybe it's because I'm so used to using
>>> "he"
>>> as the neutral pronoun.
>> Hmm. Okay.
>>
>> Rune
>>
> Actually, where it bugs me is in customer service. You never use he/she,
> but you use sir, mam, miss, mrs, etc., and its too damn easy when tired
> and/or distracted to mess that up. Something like "ker" which was used
> in C.J. Cherryh's Chanur series as a kind of general honorific would be
> a whole hell of a lot less a) embarassing, b) insulting to people that
> are offended easy, and c) likely to be misused. So, yeah, I would vote
> for some set of gender neutral words too.
>
I never get called sir when I call customer support, but if I show up in
a store I get either sir or ma'am split about 50/50. You create a
general honorific, and you ruin half the fun I have of actually shopping
in stores instead of online!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] rraznet> wrote:
> Actually, where it bugs me is in customer service. You never use he/she,
> but you use sir, mam, miss, mrs, etc., and its too damn easy when tired
> and/or distracted to mess that up.
I like Finnish in this regard: There are no gender-specific pronouns,
and while some words equivalent to "sir/madam/etc" exist, they are not
in common usage. Instead, if you want to address someone politely, you
use the polite version of "you", which is still gender-neutral. (The polite
"you" in Finnish is the plural second-person pronoun. I think this is
something common to many languages, including Finnish.)
Of course this doesn't mean that there's no possibility for messing up
in any context. For example addressing someone by name in third-person in
a very formal context (especially writing) often requires using the
equivalent for "Mr", "Mrs" or "Miss" in Finnish (it has all three).
However, mistakes with these are less frequent because they are seldom
used (especially in spoken language). They are only used in very formal
situations, which are often different from just being polite.
The need to use "Mr", "Mrs" or "Miss" in spoken Finnish is greatly
reduced by the fact that addressing people by name is uncommon, and not
really part of the culture. Addressing by name, and especially attaching
those honorifics, usually implies formalism.
This is sometimes actually a tiny problem for Finnish people when they
go to other countries. For example, in the US it's very common to address
people by their name. If I'm not mistaken, it's considered more or less
polite there to address someone by name, and they use the other person's
name rather often when talking with them. Not mentioning the other person's
name even once might be perceived as being rude.
Finnish people are not accustomed to address people by their name, and
they may sometimes give a slightly rude image of themselves when they go
to the US or other countries where this is different.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 20:49:09 -0700, Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] rraznet> wrote:
>in C.J. Cherryh's Chanur series
I liked that, ker.
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 15:18:44 -0600, Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>
> I'm not sure to what extent Tim was joking/exaggerating,
Nor I
> but what seems trivial to you may not be so.
Yeah, go on.
>It has often been argued that language and
>choice of words does often dictate people's perceptions, and that at
>times changing them has changed those perceptions over a matter of
>decades.
You have a point.
>I haven't studied it in detail,
Go on.
> but I'm not sure the argument
>is without merit. It may well be that the very argument about the choice
>of words makes more people aware of the issues and that's what effects
>change - not the actual change in wording.
>
> Either way, seems like a win/win situation.
Or a win/lose if you must speak American.
>As I said, I see no harm in
>either adding a third person pronoun that is gender neutral (has the
>shift from using "humanity" instead of "mankind", or "businessperson"
>instead of "businessman" damaged anything?), or allowing both he and she
>to be used as a gender neutral pronoun of someone whose gender is not
>specified.
I can't say that I agree. Action not words and fine words butter no parsnips.
> I've seen "she" used frequently by people (some were women, and then I
>stopped bothering to check) in this regard. I don't know if it was
>naturally or with this in mind, but it didn't at all seem awkward except
>the first two times or so.
>
> Languages are dynamic, and I'm rarely sympathetic to those who want to
>keep them static for the sake of being static.
Nor I.
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|