http://xkcd.com/149/

I tried this last night.

It didn't work.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Invisible escribió:
> http://xkcd.com/149/
> 
> I tried this last night.
> 
> It didn't work.
> 

Your target may not run Unix. If he/she/it runs Windows, try:

runas /user:Administrator <command>

Or maybe it runs a Linux distro without sudo. Try su -c "command"; but 
then you definitely need the root password.

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 13:53:03 -0200, Nicolas Alvarez
<nic### [at] gmailisthebestcom> wrote:

>... he/she/it ...

Funny, an xkcd comic applies to your reply...

http://xkcd.com/145/

Post a reply to this message

Kyle <hob### [at] gatenet> wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 13:53:03 -0200, Nicolas Alvarez
<nic### [at] gmailisthebestcom> wrote:

> >... he/she/it ...

> Funny, an xkcd comic applies to your reply...

> http://xkcd.com/145/

  IMO "he" is a perfectly valid gender-neutral third-person pronoun.
IMO anyone who constructs those artificial "he/she" or whatever
monstrosities is just being ridiculously over-PC.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:

>   IMO "he" is a perfectly valid gender-neutral third-person pronoun.
> IMO anyone who constructs those artificial "he/she" or whatever
> monstrosities is just being ridiculously over-PC.

Even the QA department at my work agrees on this - and they don't agree 
on *anything*!

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> 
>>   IMO "he" is a perfectly valid gender-neutral third-person pronoun.
>> IMO anyone who constructs those artificial "he/she" or whatever
>> monstrosities is just being ridiculously over-PC.
> 
> Even the QA department at my work agrees on this - and they don't agree 
> on *anything*!
> 

I thought the convention in formal writing was to choose one and use it. 
i.e. if you're using he to refer to one particular unspecified person, 
use it consistently, if using she for that unspecified person, use that.

Of course, it's been a long time since composition class ...

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   IMO "he" is a perfectly valid gender-neutral third-person pronoun.
> IMO anyone who constructs those artificial "he/she" or whatever
> monstrosities is just being ridiculously over-PC.

	I'm fine with it if you're fine when others use "she" instead.

	Personally, I always wished English had gender-neutral third-person
pronouns that applies to humans. Can't see a downside to it.

-- 
Why is the person who invests all your money called a broker?


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>  Personally, I always wished English had gender-neutral third-person
> pronouns that applies to humans.

"it" only applies to objects and non-human creatures?

Post a reply to this message

nemesis escribió:
> Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>>  Personally, I always wished English had gender-neutral third-person
>> pronouns that applies to humans.
> 
> "it" only applies to objects and non-human creatures?

Yes.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>>  Personally, I always wished English had gender-neutral third-person
>> pronouns that applies to humans.
> 
> "it" only applies to objects and non-human creatures?
> 
> 

Try referring to a person who's gender you can't guess as 'it' and see
how far it gets you.

Post a reply to this message

Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> >   IMO "he" is a perfectly valid gender-neutral third-person pronoun.
> > IMO anyone who constructs those artificial "he/she" or whatever
> > monstrosities is just being ridiculously over-PC.

>         I'm fine with it if you're fine when others use "she" instead.

  I'm sorry, but to my ear "she" explicitly states that we are talking
about a female, while "he", when in proper context, doesn't necessarily
do so.

  It's similar to the word "man". It can either be used to specifically
refer to a male, or it can be used as a generic term for person/human,
depending on the context, such as in the phrase "where no man has gone
before". Even though the word "man" is used there, it's not referring to
a specific gender, but to humanity in general.

  (If someone said "where no woman has gone before" it would be quite
clearly specifically referring to female persons.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 8 Feb 2008 06:38:51 -0500, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:

>
>  I'm sorry, but to my ear "she" explicitly states that we are talking
>about a female, while "he", when in proper context, doesn't necessarily
>do so.

You must have been taught English properly unlike some native speakers and those
who want to change the rules to fit their ideas of what is right.

Regards
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   I'm sorry, but to my ear "she" explicitly states that we are talking
> about a female, while "he", when in proper context, doesn't necessarily
> do so.
> 
>   It's similar to the word "man". It can either be used to specifically
> refer to a male, or it can be used as a generic term for person/human,
> depending on the context, such as in the phrase "where no man has gone
> before". Even though the word "man" is used there, it's not referring to
> a specific gender, but to humanity in general.

Which, if you're a feminist, is incredibly offensive, because to you, 
it's as clearly specifically referring to males as you feel she is, when 
used, referring to females.

The fact that you see 'man' and 'he' as general terms encompassing both 
genders just goes to show how deeply ingrained the phallocentric elitist 
regime has portrayed men as being the norm and females being an aberration.

...or something.

Right on sister!  Grrl powah!  etc.

-- 
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.digitalartsuk.com

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 12:18:34 -0500, Tim Cook <z99### [at] gmailcom> wrote:

>Warp wrote:
>>   I'm sorry, but to my ear ...
>
>Which, if you're a feminist, is incredibly offensive, because to you, 
>it's as clearly specifically referring to males as you feel she is, when 
>used, referring to females.
>
>The fact that you see 'man' and 'he' as general terms encompassing both 
>genders just goes to show how deeply ingrained the phallocentric elitist 
>regime has portrayed men as being the norm and females being an aberration.
>
>...or something.
>
>Right on sister!  Grrl powah!  etc.

I think that I'm a feminist as I believe in the doctrine advocating social,
political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men. I'm not offended
nor is my wife who could never be described as anything other than a feminist.
What you are saying is trivial and a smokescreen making it more important to do
little rather than actually treat women as if they had the same rights as men. 
I bet you a pound to a penny that whoever came up with that idea didn't work for
a living.
 

Regards
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 17:41:52 +0000, Stephen <mcavoysATaolDOTcom@> wrote:

>actually treat women as if they had the same rights as men. 

I should have read that a bit more carefully before posting. What I should have
said was 
"actually ensure that women have the same rights as men and treat them
accordingly." 

Regards
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mcavoysATaolDOTcom@> wrote:
> I think that I'm a feminist as I believe in the doctrine advocating social,
> political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men. I'm not offended
> nor is my wife who could never be described as anything other than a feminist.
> What you are saying is trivial and a smokescreen making it more important to do
> little rather than actually treat women as if they had the same rights as men. 
> I bet you a pound to a penny that whoever came up with that idea didn't work for
> a living.

  I think feminists who oppose the usage of "he" (or "man") as the
gender-neutral pronoun should put things in perspective.

  English lacks a gender-neutral pronoun for people (unlike other languages,
such as Finnish, where the third person pronoun is gender-neutral, and in
fact there are no gender-specific pronouns at all), so there are only three
possible options available:

  1) Use the established gender-neutral pronoun "he" which has been used
in that role for a long time. Forget *why* it was chosen as the generic
pronoun hundreds of years ago. That's not relevant today.

  2) Use awkward grammar-breaking over-PC artificial constructs such as
"he/she" everywhere, interrupting the normal flow of text.

  3) Invent a new word for the English language and establish it as the
gender-neutral third-person pronoun.

  For some reason nobody seems to opt for number 3.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp escribió:
>   3) Invent a new word for the English language and establish it as the
> gender-neutral third-person pronoun.
> 
>   For some reason nobody seems to opt for number 3.

I have seen many "suggestions" for number 3, and they all sound awkward.

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 15:41:34 +0000, Invisible wrote:

> http://xkcd.com/149/
> 
> I tried this last night.
> 
> It didn't work.

That's because you're root already. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" wrote:
> there are only three possible options available:
>
>  1) Use the established gender-neutral pronoun "he" which has been used
> in that role for a long time. Forget *why* it was chosen as the generic
> pronoun hundreds of years ago. That's not relevant today.
>
>  2) Use awkward grammar-breaking over-PC artificial constructs such as
> "he/she" everywhere, interrupting the normal flow of text.
>
>  3) Invent a new word for the English language and establish it as the
> gender-neutral third-person pronoun.

4) Use either "he" or "she" as a gender-neutral pronoun; whichever one you 
prefer, as long as it is used consistently within the text.

Whoa, there were more than three possible options after all...!

Rune
-- 
http://runevision.com

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   I'm sorry, but to my ear "she" explicitly states that we are talking
> about a female, while "he", when in proper context, doesn't necessarily
> do so.

	What your ear hears is not the only factor to consider.

-- 
Whose cruel idea was it for the word "Lisp" to have a "S" in it?


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> I think that I'm a feminist as I believe in the doctrine advocating social,
> political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men. I'm not offended
> nor is my wife who could never be described as anything other than a feminist.
> What you are saying is trivial and a smokescreen making it more important to do
> little rather than actually treat women as if they had the same rights as men. 

	I'm not sure to what extent Tim was joking/exaggerating, but what seems
trivial to you may not be so. 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. I haven't studied it in detail, 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. 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'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.

-- 
Whose cruel idea was it for the word "Lisp" to have a "S" in it?


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

Mueen Nawaz escribió:
> 	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.

Gettext manual uses 'he' to refer to the programmer and 'she' to refer 
to the translator, just so they can conveniently use pronouns instead of 
repeating "the translator" over and over again. But they make it clear 
it's not racism:

"In this manual, we use 'he' when speaking of the programmer or 
maintainer, 'she' when speaking of the translator, and 'they' when 
speaking of the installers or end users of the translated program. This 
is only a convenience for clarifying the documentation. It is absolutely 
not meant to imply that some roles are more appropriate to males or 
females. Besides, as you might guess, GNU gettext is meant to be useful 
for people using computers, whatever their sex, race, religion or 
nationality!"

Post a reply to this message

Rune <aut### [at] runevisioncom> wrote:
> >  1) Use the established gender-neutral pronoun "he" which has been used
> > in that role for a long time. Forget *why* it was chosen as the generic
> > pronoun hundreds of years ago. That's not relevant today.

> 4) Use either "he" or "she" as a gender-neutral pronoun; whichever one you 
> prefer, as long as it is used consistently within the text.

  What's the difference (except that "she" sound weird)?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> (has the
> shift from using "humanity" instead of "mankind", or "businessperson"
> instead of "businessman" damaged anything?)

  The latter sounds to me like ridiculously PC hypercorrection. A totally
abstract construct, not a natural developement of the language.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailisthebestcom> wrote:
> Gettext manual uses 'he' to refer to the programmer and 'she' to refer 
> to the translator, just so they can conveniently use pronouns instead of 
> repeating "the translator" over and over again. But they make it clear 
> it's not racism:

  I can't even begin to imagine how using "he" or "she" could be seen
as *racism*.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 20:02:19 -0500, Warp wrote:

> Rune <aut### [at] runevisioncom> wrote:
>> >  1) Use the established gender-neutral pronoun "he" which has been
>> >  used
>> > in that role for a long time. Forget *why* it was chosen as the
>> > generic pronoun hundreds of years ago. That's not relevant today.
> 
>> 4) Use either "he" or "she" as a gender-neutral pronoun; whichever one
>> you prefer, as long as it is used consistently within the text.
> 
>   What's the difference (except that "she" sound weird)?

Doesn't sound weird to me.  And there's not much of a difference, really, 
except that in a male-dominated society using the masculine pronoun as a 
neuter pronoun does reinforce masculine "superiority".

There's nothing wrong with having a little sensitivity for your audience.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

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

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Rune wrote:
>> >  1) Use the established gender-neutral pronoun "he" which has been used
>> > in that role for a long time. Forget *why* it was chosen as the generic
>> > pronoun hundreds of years ago. That's not relevant today.
>
>> 4) Use either "he" or "she" as a gender-neutral pronoun; whichever one 
>> you
>> prefer, as long as it is used consistently within the text.
>
>  What's the difference (except that "she" sound weird)?

Lots of people think there is a difference, otherwise we wouldn't be having 
this discussion at all. Hence, there *is* a difference in how many people 
relate to the words. Also, I don't think it sounds weird. 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."

Although both men and women can read woman's magazines, the sentence come 
across as very misleading when using "he", since it sounds like we are 
talking about the minority that is the male readers.

Rune
-- 
http://runevision.com

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Mueen Nawaz escribió:
>>     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.
> 
> Gettext manual uses 'he' to refer to the programmer and 'she' to refer
> to the translator, just so they can conveniently use pronouns instead of
> repeating "the translator" over and over again. But they make it clear
> it's not racism:

	Which is perfectly satisfactory to all who complain...

-- 
Whose cruel idea was it for the word "Lisp" to have a "S" in it?


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>> (has the
>> shift from using "humanity" instead of "mankind", or "businessperson"
>> instead of "businessman" damaged anything?)
> 
>   The latter sounds to me like ridiculously PC hypercorrection. A totally
> abstract construct, not a natural developement of the language.

	It may not yet have overtaken businessman, but it's quite common here.
I doubt it raises any eyebrows.

	Same goes for layperson.

	Sure, no doubt it did seem that way when people started using it. A
generation or two later, it will be the norm. I can't seem to find any
argument against it other than "sounds weird".

	For the record (Merriam Webster):

businessman: a man who transacts business; especially : a business executive




-- 
Whose cruel idea was it for the word "Lisp" to have a "S" in it?


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

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 Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
    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

Patrick Elliott escribió:
> 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

On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 03:17:12 -0200, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:

> 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.

First rule of working with international customers:  Never, ever, EVER 
assume gender based on a name.

My mom has a friend who's husband (now-deceased) was also named Carol.  
As is my mom.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Sun, 10 Feb 2008 05:17:12 -0000, Nicolas Alvarez  
<nic### [at] gmailisthebestcom> did spake, saying:

> Patrick Elliott escribió:
>> 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 saw an elderly gentleman try to catch the attention of a store clerk  
with "Young lady" before *he* turned around to face him. Didn't quite get  
it admittedly the guy had a long pony-tail (ditto), but he was moving  
about putting things on shelves which the elderly gent could see? Meh.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 12:24:36 +0000, Phil Cook wrote:

> I saw an elderly gentleman try to catch the attention of a store clerk
> with "Young lady" before *he* turned around to face him

I get that every once in a while; usually on airplanes.  "Anything to 
drink, Ma'am?" - he he he he he.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Phil Cook wrote:
> I saw an elderly gentleman try to catch the attention of a store clerk 
> with "Young lady" before *he* turned around to face him. 

<Python> SOrry, I have a cold. </Python>


-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     On what day did God create the body thetans?

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Tue, 12 Feb 2008 00:14:07 -0000, Jim Henderson  
<nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:

> On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 12:24:36 +0000, Phil Cook wrote:
>
>> I saw an elderly gentleman try to catch the attention of a store clerk
>> with "Young lady" before *he* turned around to face him
>
> I get that every once in a while; usually on airplanes.  "Anything to
> drink, Ma'am?" - he he he he he.

Never happened to me despite the hair, I must naturally exude maleness :-P

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Phil Cook wrote:
>> I saw an elderly gentleman try to catch the attention of a store clerk 
>> with "Young lady" before *he* turned around to face him. 
> 
> <Python> SOrry, I have a cold. </Python>

Haha! Beautiful plumage.

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 08:59:16 +0000, Phil Cook wrote:

> And lo on Tue, 12 Feb 2008 00:14:07 -0000, Jim Henderson
> <nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:
> 
>> On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 12:24:36 +0000, Phil Cook wrote:
>>
>>> I saw an elderly gentleman try to catch the attention of a store clerk
>>> with "Young lady" before *he* turned around to face him
>>
>> I get that every once in a while; usually on airplanes.  "Anything to
>> drink, Ma'am?" - he he he he he.
> 
> Never happened to me despite the hair, I must naturally exude maleness
> :-P

:-P indeed. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 12 Feb 2008 17:15:00 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 08:59:16 +0000, Phil Cook wrote:
>
>>> I get that every once in a while; usually on airplanes.  "Anything to
>>> drink, Ma'am?" - he he he he he.
>> 
>> Never happened to me despite the hair, I must naturally exude maleness
>> :-P
>
>:-P indeed. ;-)
>

Uber-male :)
I got it all the time when I was young. But then I was pretty with my long hair
and all. :)

Regards
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 22:34:48 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 12 Feb 2008 17:15:00 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
>>On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 08:59:16 +0000, Phil Cook wrote:
>>
>>>> I get that every once in a while; usually on airplanes.  "Anything to
>>>> drink, Ma'am?" - he he he he he.
>>> 
>>> Never happened to me despite the hair, I must naturally exude maleness
>>> :-P
>>
>>:-P indeed. ;-)
>>
>>
> Uber-male :)
> I got it all the time when I was young. But then I was pretty with my
> long hair and all. :)

I'm told that as well, but the one who tells me is fairly biased. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message