Risto_Saarelma comments on That other kind of status - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (108)
I suppose it would be futile to attempt to convince you to use singular 'they' as a gender-neutral pronoun that wouldn't completely derail my train of thought from the actual (interesting) subject matter when encountered two-thirds into the article?
Singluar they is strongly attested all up and down the language. See: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1601
and the rest of Language Log in general for wonderfully informative linguistic commentary.
Enough with the nonce pronouns.
When I read that paragraph my first reaction was "what, is this some sort of tricky joke about Yvain's own status-seeking? I'm not sure I get it."
I thought it was a reference to a Dutch obsession with status.
Ah, but surely Yvain has high enough status in this particular community that we can consider him (her? zim? zer? What z-pronoun goes here?) as a groundbreaking visionary instead?
Zir or hir. According to wikipedia
I prefer Ve, because that was the first one I came across. I forget which one Eliezer uses, but I have seen him use one, so we are ground breaking in a number of different directions. I'd like to standardise if possible and they (sing) is not sufficient.
I always thought ve was limited to transhumans.
"Ve" was supposed to be for actual gender-neutral entities, transhuman or otherwise. In any case I gave up and started using "they" or "it".
In my book, ey/em/eir is the only semifeasible option, because it's memorable.
Upvoted out of agreement. Could we have a top-level post for debating & voting on the house style for singular pronouns?
Thank you for being our canary.