DCCRPG going Woke

estar · November 10, 2021, 01:19:21 PM

Quote from: 3catcircus on November 10, 2021, 08:19:48 AM
They and them are plural pronouns - anyone who wants you use these words to refer to a single person is essentially stating "there is more than one of me." Having multiple personalities is a mental disorder, last I recall

According to the Oxford English Dictionary the singular they has been in use since the 14th century. And been criticized since the 18th century for various reasons starting with grammatists trying to "clean up" the English language by issuing solemn proscriptions of proper usage.

But people will what they want with the language including a certain group that insist the plural of dwarf is dwarves not dwarfs, elves not elfs.

Plural they	They are my children.	When my children cry, I hug them.	My children tell me their ages.	If I lose my phone, my children lend me theirs.	My children dress themselves.
Singular they	They are a child.	When a child cries, I hug them.	A child tells me their age.	If I lose my phone, a child lends me theirs.	A child dresses themself [or themselves].
Generic he	He is a child.	When a child cries, I hug him.	A child tells me his age.	If I lose my phone, a child lends me his.	A child dresses himself.

jhkim · November 10, 2021, 01:22:30 PM

Quote from: rytrasmi on November 10, 2021, 01:04:16 PM
Quote from: jhkim on November 10, 2021, 12:58:19 PM
In reply #34, you claimed that "you" was incorrect to refer to something that is neither male nor female. Here's what you said:

Quote from: rytrasmi on November 10, 2021, 12:15:12 PM
Oh, I realize that. However, "you" has traditionally been used to refer to male and female. If someone does not use "he" or "she" because they believe they are neither gender, then it is inconsistent to call that person "you." Same goes for first person. This is why the pronoun game is half-assed and weak.
No, I did not. I was pointing out an inconsistency in the thinking of the pronoun people.

Restated for you: If person X believes that "he" or "she" is insufficient for their gender because these words are traditionally used for male and female people, then person X should also believe that "you" is insufficient because this word is also traditionally used for male and female people.

That doesn't logically follow, because "you" is also used for non-gendered or differently-gendered targets - just like the car I mentioned in my example, as well as non-gendered targets in traditional folk tales, fantasy, and sci-fi (i.e. robots, golems, etc.). So the traditional form is sufficient to cover non-gendered or non-binary-gendered.

rytrasmi · November 10, 2021, 01:32:12 PM

Quote from: jhkim on November 10, 2021, 01:22:30 PM
That doesn't logically follow, because "you" is also used for non-gendered or differently-gendered targets - just like the car I mentioned in my example, as well as non-gendered targets in traditional folk tales, fantasy, and sci-fi (i.e. robots, golems, etc.). So the traditional form is sufficient to cover non-gendered or non-binary-gendered.

The exact same thing can be said for "he" and "she."

"He" and "she" have been used to cover non-gendered or differently-gendered targets.

Wrath of God · November 10, 2021, 01:37:48 PM

QuoteRestated for you: If person X believes that "he" or "she" is insufficient for their gender because these words are traditionally used for male and female people, then person X should also believe that "you" is insufficient because this word is also traditionally used for male and female people.

Yes, we get your point. And it is point, if you assume existence of non-binaries as real thing, fallacy, because by this nature you is non-gendered pronoun, while he and she is. That's why you have division into three 3rd person genders in singular (in Polish also in plural). In languages where 3rd person singular is naturally non-gendered like Hungarian problem does not exist AFAIK.

QuoteAccording to the Oxford English Dictionary the singular they has been in use since the 14th century. And been criticized since the 18th century for various reasons starting with grammatists trying to "clean up" the English language by issuing solemn proscriptions of proper usage.

Of course, 18-19 century enlightened linguists trying to purify language to be rational. Disease as bad as wokesters.

QuoteBut people will what they want with the language including a certain group that insist the plural of dwarf is dwarves not dwarfs, elves not elfs.

TBH I wonder how those rules evolved, since in 16th century plural of wolf - was wolfs or woolfs, while now it's wolves and archaic forms are considered incorrect.

Steven Mitchell · November 10, 2021, 01:44:42 PM

I have an unfinished system where l use "creature" generally and "it" as the pronoun. I worry a little that if I ever let it out into the wild, someone might mistake this as a concession to woke. It is really about reflecting the alien nature of many of the characters from humanity. Guess I'd have to have a disclaimer at the front to make sure no woke people bought in expecting something different.

"This game uses "it" as the (im)personal pronoun to emphasize the alien nature of characters. Also, to ignore woke bullshit. But mainly the first thing."

estar · November 10, 2021, 01:56:25 PM

Quote from: Wrath of God on November 10, 2021, 01:37:48 PM
TBH I wonder how those rules evolved, since in 16th century plural of wolf - was wolfs or woolfs, while now it's wolves and archaic forms are considered incorrect.

This seems to be a good explanation.

QuoteIt's all about the 'L'.

Try to say 'beliefs'. (I'll wait)

Ok, pretty easy, wasn't it? /fs/ is a very easy consonant cluster.

Now, try saying 'wolfs'. (do it 3 times really quickly)

Not so easy, eh? The transition from the/ l/ to the /f/ and then to the /s/ is a bit of a rough transition.

What is needed here is similarity. Consonants have two distinct categories: vibrating or not vibrating. The easiest transitions are when the consonants are in the same category.

So with 'beliefs' we don't have a problem. The /f/ and the /s/ are both in the same category: not vibrating

With 'wolfs' we have a problem. /l/ vibrates but /f/ doesn't. We can't change the /l/ because it doesn't have a 'not vibrating; twin. We can change the /f/. Its vibrating twin is /v/.

An /f/ can easily become a /v/, simply by adding vibration. Make an /f/. (Come on, try!).

Ok, now notice where your lips and teeth are when you make an /f/. Now make a /v/. You see? Your position didn't change. You simply vibrated or 'voiced' the /f/. Also vibrating or 'voiced' is the /l/. Two vibrating consonants are not too hard to make.

With beliefs we have two non-vibrating sounds. That is also pretty easy.

It's when you have to move from vibrating to not vibrating that the trouble starts.

Now try to say 'wolves'.

Now 'wolfs'.

Which one is easier?

Wrath of God · November 10, 2021, 02:37:25 PM

QuoteI have an unfinished system where l use "creature" generally and "it" as the pronoun. I worry a little that if I ever let it out into the wild, someone might mistake this as a concession to woke. It is really about reflecting the alien nature of many of the characters from humanity. Guess I'd have to have a disclaimer at the front to make sure no woke people bought in expecting something different.

"This game uses "it" as the (im)personal pronoun to emphasize the alien nature of characters. Also, to ignore woke bullshit. But mainly the first thing."

Add no disclaimers. Just let wokes and unwokes to boil down internally trying to guess your intentions. No virtue signalling - that's the first rule. And that would be virtue signalling. Unwoke, but still.

QuoteIt's all about the 'L'.

Try to say 'beliefs'. (I'll wait)

Ok, pretty easy, wasn't it? /fs/ is a very easy consonant cluster.

Now, try saying 'wolfs'. (do it 3 times really quickly)

Not so easy, eh? The transition from the/ l/ to the /f/ and then to the /s/ is a bit of a rough transition.

What is needed here is similarity. Consonants have two distinct categories: vibrating or not vibrating. The easiest transitions are when the consonants are in the same category.

So with 'beliefs' we don't have a problem. The /f/ and the /s/ are both in the same category: not vibrating

With 'wolfs' we have a problem. /l/ vibrates but /f/ doesn't. We can't change the /l/ because it doesn't have a 'not vibrating; twin. We can change the /f/. Its vibrating twin is /v/.

An /f/ can easily become a /v/, simply by adding vibration. Make an /f/. (Come on, try!).

Ok, now notice where your lips and teeth are when you make an /f/. Now make a /v/. You see? Your position didn't change. You simply vibrated or 'voiced' the /f/. Also vibrating or 'voiced' is the /l/. Two vibrating consonants are not too hard to make.

With beliefs we have two non-vibrating sounds. That is also pretty easy.

It's when you have to move from vibrating to not vibrating that the trouble starts.

Now try to say 'wolves'.

Now 'wolfs'.

Which one is easier?

Terrible idea. To change your ortography for such petty shit.
Here in civilised Eastern Europe - we just spell inconvinient combinations differently than they are written.

AFAIK there is voiceless L equivalent - [ɬ] in IPA. It exist in Welsh and is written as ll.

GeekyBugle · November 10, 2021, 02:37:38 PM

Quote from: Wrath of God on November 10, 2021, 12:45:42 PM
Quote

QuoteSomeone please tell me what type of person we used to have especial pronouns for?

Because if I'm not mistaken that's the royalty/priesthood.

Are the transactivists claiming to be of royal blood or part of the priesthood of a new cult?

If they use plural in first person (second is irrelevant as you and thou were conflated by weak-ass evolution of English language) speaking about themselves as one person in "we are" mode. Then clearly they do

Regardless if they use it in the first person or not (And I'm pretty sure they do), only people who have a special pronoun to be referred to by others are Royalty/Priesthood:

Your/His/Her Higness/Santity.

I'm not bending my knee other than to the Spanish King/Queen, because I've double citizenship.

Maybe if I ever met other members of a diferent Royal family. Certainly not to the mentally ill.

estar · November 10, 2021, 02:49:11 PM

Quote from: Wrath of God on November 10, 2021, 02:37:25 PM
Terrible idea. To change your ortography for such petty shit.
Here in civilised Eastern Europe - we just spell inconvinient combinations differently than they are written.

Well being conquered by the French or rather viking flavored French and Norman French being the official language for a couple of hundred years will do that to a language. Then to cap it off have a major shift in dialect (The Great Vowel Shift) happen AFTER spelling started to get standardized and and English language literature starting to happen.

Wrath of God · November 10, 2021, 03:17:08 PM

Indeed. Now on the other side, old English had simply WULFAS, much easier to spell.

QuoteI'm not bending my knee other than to the Spanish King/Queen, because I've double citizenship.

Maybe if I ever met other members of a diferent Royal family.

Louis XX de France is pretty based guy and well cousin to Spanish royalty (though unfortunately due to his grandfather dropping rights to Spanish crown, and Utrecht treaty he hold no claim for Spain. Hope it can be reversed - France, Spain and Naples in hands of one King is good foundation to rebuild Western Roman Empire.)

FingerRod · November 10, 2021, 03:39:37 PM

If you are getting pulled into the semantics of how they is singular, plural, or whatever you are being pulled away from the real conversation.

A change moving forward, okay, fine. The fact they will spend time, money, and resources going over the back catalogue to retread work already completed tells you what this is really about.

Pat · November 10, 2021, 03:45:33 PM

RPGs have a history of using minor variations of a word to create new monsters. Dwarfs and dwarves could be different monsters. They're exactly the same when there's only one of them, but when they appear in a group, dwarfs start to speak with a Scottish accent.

Zalman · November 10, 2021, 03:51:40 PM

Quote from: estar on November 10, 2021, 01:19:21 PM
According to the Oxford English Dictionary the singular they has been in use since the 14th century. And been criticized since the 18th century for various reasons starting with grammatists trying to "clean up" the English language by issuing solemn proscriptions of proper usage.

But people will what they want with the language including a certain group that insist the plural of dwarf is dwarves not dwarfs, elves not elfs.

Plural they They are my children. When my children cry, I hug them. My children tell me their ages. If I lose my phone, my children lend me theirs. My children dress themselves.
Singular they They are a child. When a child cries, I hug them. A child tells me their age. If I lose my phone, a child lends me theirs. A child dresses themself [or themselves].
Generic he He is a child. When a child cries, I hug him. A child tells me his age. If I lose my phone, a child lends me his. A child dresses himself.

Singular "they" is for an indeterminate person, not for a specific person of indeterminate gender. "When a child cries, I hug them" is right, "When the child cries, I hug them" is, traditionally, broken grammar.

P.S. got a link for that Oxford assertion?

Zalman · November 10, 2021, 03:55:16 PM

Quote from: SHARK on November 10, 2021, 01:04:34 PM
It is really too bad that DCC cannot just say, "We are adhering to the traditional rules of the English language."

Commercially, there is no need to say more, argue, justify, or anything else. Period.

It's too bad they feel the need to say anything at all about using grammar in a published work.

Quote from: FingerRod on November 10, 2021, 03:39:37 PM
If you are getting pulled into the semantics of how they is singular, plural, or whatever you are being pulled away from the real conversation.

A change moving forward, okay, fine. The fact they will spend time, money, and resources going over the back catalogue to retread work already completed tells you what this is really about.

And doubly so that they need to announce reprints of everything.

Zalman · November 10, 2021, 03:58:12 PM

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on November 10, 2021, 01:44:42 PM
I have an unfinished system where l use "creature" generally and "it" as the pronoun. I worry a little that if I ever let it out into the wild, someone might mistake this as a concession to woke. It is really about reflecting the alien nature of many of the characters from humanity. Guess I'd have to have a disclaimer at the front to make sure no woke people bought in expecting something different.

"This game uses "it" as the (im)personal pronoun to emphasize the alien nature of characters. Also, to ignore woke bullshit. But mainly the first thing."

No doubt that language emphasizes the alien nature of something

For monsters, sure, but PCs? Makes me feel like my character is a chair.