Hacker News Reader

Comment by zeveb | Hacker News Reader

> Without getting into the scope of the 1001 statute (I think they're probably mostly right about it), I just want to chime in with a nit about the example they chose:

He. Solomon L. Wisenberg is a man: http://pview.findlaw.com/view/1362810_1

> If you take a job at a health provider that you later learn is corrupt, and later knowingly transport false vouchers as part of your job while otherwise avoiding direct participation with the more overtly criminal parts of the enterprise, you are a criminal.

> We in this industry all need to be taking more responsibility for our individual actions and the net impact they have on society.

Yes, you're correct in an absolute sense, much as the prosecutor who indicted Martha Stewart was correct in an absolute sense. But you're incorrect in a different sense, much as the prosecutor who indicted Martha Stewart was incorrect in that same sense.

View on HN

Please don't take HN threads on trivial tangents, such as arguing about pronouns when the topic isn't pronouns (which admittedly can be interesting in their own right—but not like this). I get that you also said something about the topic, but that doesn't matter because off-topic provocations always win.

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14206390 and marked it off-topic.

I was replying to his post in traditional bottom-posting order, not taking his words out of sequence.

It wasn't an argument about pronouns, just noting that Mr. Wisenberg's gender is known.

And my substantive point remains, I think, unaddressed.

My comment was on-topic. The responses to it (to include my own follow-ups) were off-topic, but my comment was on-topic.

In English, the singular "they" is gender-neutral.

Additionally, it has a longer history than the grammar pedants give it credit for. It has been part of the English language since the 14th century. Meaning it's just as valid as the word "succeed", which was inherited from French in the same time period.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they

For Language Log or Geoffrey Pullum fans, here's a more fun link:

http://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/~gpullum/grammar/sing_they_sli.pdf

I'll have to keep that link around for reference! I love all the quotes from literary references... I want to see the mental knots that are tied trying to address that cognitive dissonance.

"The evidence is literally overwhelming."

I love it!

as I am not surprised, I assume the author was using "literally" according to its secondary definition: "figuratively"

The author was using "literally" chiefly according to its play-on-words definition of the samples having been drawn from literature.

As for the claim that "literally" ever means "figuratively", I have never encountered that use - including in examples offered by those who claim its existence. Literally is sometimes used in figurative circumstance, but I would argue the use is hyperbolic - in the same way we don't say "'days' sometimes means 'minutes'" because people say "I've been waiting for you for days". I have never seen an example that would not have been understood to be figurative but for the addition of "literally".

I disagree with the notion that the novelty of a component of language can be best assessed by when it was first used. In particular, vocabulary is far more mutable than grammar.

Then again, I'm a grammatical traditionalist: I consider English to not have a male gender, but rather the three genders "inanimate", "female", and "animate".

The assessment isn't simply that its first use is ancient, but that it has been used universally throughout the history of the language and occurs routinely in its greatest works --- not just in Chaucer, but in Orwell. See the link I posted downthread. To me, a "controversial" language feature that has been used by Chaucer, Austen, and Orwell is no controversy at all.

The prescriptivists have lost this debate, comprehensively. There may be a language that lacks a gender-neutral singular "they", but it isn't English.

> I disagree with the notion that the novelty of a component of language can be best assessed by when it was first used.

I think novelty is a bad choice of word here, as that has a connotation of being related to time and exposure, which makes your statement seem somewhat contradictory... I think the word "controversial" that Thomas uses is more appropriate. I'll continue as if you had used that instead.

I do agree, that length of attestation does not necessarily mean a feature is non-controversial. But I do think it is likely a prerequisite for being non-controversial, precisely because it allows the usage to be non-novel.

> Then again, I'm a grammatical traditionalist: I consider English to have a male gender, but rather the three genders "inanimate", "female", and "animate".

Ironically for a grammatical traditionalist making a comment about grammar, this sentence is not grammatically correct.

Muphry's Law

Are grammar traditionalists now ok with the split infinitive?

Only when one doesn't know someone's sex. In the case of Mr. Wisenberg, one does.

And you're completely ignoring my substantive point that the fact that someone is technically a criminal does not mean that he actually deserves the full force and power of the State to bear down on him.

Respectfully, that is a rule you just made up.

From your own Wikipedia link: 'It typically occurs with an antecedent of indeterminate gender,' meaning that use with an antecedent of determinate gender is atypical.

From the same page: 'In some situations, an individual may be known but referred to using the pronoun they. This may occur because the individual's gender is unknown to the speaker, or because the gender is non-binary or genderqueer, so that they regard both masculine and feminine pronouns as inappropriate and thus prefer to be referred to as they.'

Mr. Wisenberg's gender is known and he presents as a man in his profile; there is no reason to use 'they' instead of 'he,' and thus it's simply wrong to do so.

I don't think you intended to be rude to him by failing to use the correct pronoun, but I believe you were.

And, again, you continue to ignore the substantive point.

I think you're responding to the wrong commenter. I didn't provide you with a Wikipedia link. The rest of your comment, which amounts to a rule saying "the singular they is okay but only as a last resort", is incorrect. Singular "they" is correct even with a known gender†. I can, of course, back this up with cites, but at this point you're going to have bet me $100 (charity of your choice) that you're right to make me continue along this tiresome tangent.

† (in my case: I used "they" because I didn't know or care to learn the gender).

I used to hold the line on "the correct pronoun for any person you do not know is female is 'he'" until I saw a list similar to what tptacek linked to (I think in the book Style: Toward Clarity and Grace).

Singular "they" has been used for centuries. Chaucer used it. It wasn't always meticulously used to identify people who don't fit into traditional gender roles. "He" is certainly acceptable for "person without identifying gender," but so is "they."

The OP just said 'criminal', nothing about 'full force and power of the State'. Few criminals actually get that.

I have a hard time separating the argument you are attempting to make from the "just following orders" argument. That is, that immoral behavior is excusable or at least less-immoral as long as the actor is just following orders for their own self-preservation. Of course, this viewpoint has not been very well regarded, especially when used by actors of militaristic war crimes.

Is there a difference that you can elaborate for me?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com