a general comment about the language in the book (although it's probably too late).

consistently using 'they' as a gender neutral noun is much less intrusive than switching between he & she ad hoc. for example:

'When the character finally fails her constitution check, she begins to drown.'
becomes
'When a character finally fails their constitution check, they begin to drown.'

Using 'they' in this case is not grammatically correct, because the subject is not plural.

"Since at least the 15th century 'they', 'them' and 'their' have been used, in an increasingly more accepted fashion, as singular pronouns. This is called the singular 'they'."

'When a character finally fails its constitution check, it begins to drown.'

Problem solved.

'When a character finally fails its constitution check, it begins to drown.'

Problem solved.

Well, solved if you replace 'character' with 'creature' (which is more accurate anyway.)

"Since at least the 15th century 'they', 'them' and 'their' have been used, in an increasingly more accepted fashion, as singular pronouns. This is called the singular 'they'."

'He' and 'she' (or 'it', if referring to something that actually lacks gender, rather than something that could be either) is still more correct. I have no problem with the current wording.

If you are bothered by the apparent ad hoc nature of which gender is used in conjunction with each rule, perhaps an example of each rule could be given (examples are always good), using an iconic. The gender for that rule, then, would be the gender of the example iconic.

Of course, this wouldn't help the SRD-ized version, because the proper names for the iconics would need to be stripped (they are product identity, same as the deities.)

While it's true that "they" is forcing its way into the English language -- and much more rapidly, lately -- it is still extremely jarring for people who internalized grammatical conventions more than, say, 20 years ago. Much, much more jarring than switching on an equitable basis between the feminine and masculine pronouns.

(I'm conflicted about this, FWIW, because of the gender-dominance implications. On the other hand, 15 years ago people were also complaining about switching gender pronouns, only back then people were saying that it was fine to just use the masculine for everything. The evolution of language is pretty interesting.)

-- Jeff

Correct English is a lie agreed upon.

Correct English is a lie agreed upon.

Correct English dictates 'he' for referring to a generic person and 'she' for referring to inanimate objects (this is why ships are 'she').

Imagine the blood on the walls if they tried that!

My personal preference is for 'creature' and 'it' since I write specifications for a living and the rule is applicable to all creatures in general and not limited to characters.

This whole discussion is probably ...ing in the wind anyhow as I doubt that we are going to overturn Paizo editorial guidelines - even should we wish to.

Correct English dictates 'he' for referring to a generic person and 'she' for referring to inanimate objects (this is why ships are 'she').

Ships are a special exception, and it is because they are anthromophized. 'It' is almost universally used for inanimate objects in English.

This is where i make the joke about how all German tables want to go to France, because German tables are masculine and French tables are feminine.

My personal preference is for 'creature' and 'it' since I write specifications for a living and the rule is applicable to all creatures in general and not limited to characters.

I agree.

Correct English is a lie agreed upon.

English is based on a melting pot of other languages wih quite a bit of Latin influence. It is quite common to see/hear in Latin the singular they as meaning "anyone".

Anyone ever notice Yoda speaks latin translated into english?

"The dark side in him, he has" rather than "he has the dark side in him"

its retty much the same arguement as "your"

With out actually meaning YOU (the reader or listener) You can say "you or your" to mean a generic person when the accpeted version of this translation means you are speaking directly to well you.

What about "when characters fail, they ..."? That's gramatically correct.

What about "when characters fail, they ..."? That's gramatically correct.

That's true, but most rules don't refer to characters in the plural. They apply to individuals. We don't want to imply, using the example in the first post, that PCs can only drown in multiples.

Using 'they' in this case is not grammatically correct, because the subject is not plural.

Actually, 'they' was once used as a gender neutral, singular pronoun, and it was considered to be grammatically correct. In fact, the assumption that 'they' is grammatically incorrect was only made within the last two hundred years. Also, there are plenty of people today (including yourself, I would imagine) who use 'they' as a singular, gender neutral pronoun in their everyday language. Of course, there are plenty of people (including myself) who end sentences with prepositions in their everyday language, yet I blanch whenever I see it in print, so maybe that's not the greatest argument. :)

Anyway, I rather like how they use the iconics to determine the gender of the pronouns, and the ad hoc use of pronouns in places where it isn't necessarily clear. It's not a perfect system, but it's clever, and it works.

brock wrote:

Correct English dictates 'he' for referring to a generic person and 'she' for referring to inanimate objects (this is why ships are 'she').

Ships are a special exception, and it is because they are anthromophized. 'It' is almost universally used for inanimate objects in English.

This is where i make the joke about how all German tables want to go to France, because German tables are masculine and French tables are feminine.

Well, I sit corrected. I've just scoured Strunk and White from whence I would have sworn blind that I read that ... and it isn't in there.

It depends on the object - as some Google digging reminded me, musical instruments and countries are often referred to as female.

S&W did warn that using 'creature' and 'it' too much would make the tone of the writing cold and impersonal.

Correct English dictates 'he' for referring to a generic person and 'she' for referring to inanimate objects (this is why ships are 'she').

Imagine the blood on the walls if they tried that!

Well, *she* just lies there. Motionlessly. Until the tide comes in and she's finally in the water again. Then she gently bobs up and down on the waves.

'When a character finally fails its constitution check, it begins to drown.'

Problem solved.

It put the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again.

This is where i make the joke about how all German tables want to go to France, because German tables are masculine and French tables are feminine.

Oh year! We have manly tables here. With a strong back and hairy legs! Those dainty french "tablettes" may be nice to look on with their fancy dresses, but they're not strong enough to hold anything more than a Vogue.

'When a marklar finally fails its marklar check, marklar begins to marklar.'

FTFY

As far back as the 1st edition PHB D&D had a little note about *not* using "they" to avoid the blandness of it. (Full Disclosure: 1st edition used exclusively male pronouns).

I like the variation, and it can remind you of an iconic performing whatever maneuver (or suffering whatever consequence, muahahhaha..erm) is being described.

As far back as the 1st edition PHB D&D had a little note about *not* using "they" to avoid the blandness of it. (Full Disclosure: 1st edition used exclusively male pronouns).

IIRC, 1st edition actually used 'he or she.' It was 2nd edition that used male pronouns exclusively.

'When a marklar finally fails its marklar check, marklar begins to marklar.'

You beat me. I was going to suggest, "When a smurf fails smurf's smurf save, smurf is smurfed!"

Chet Awesome Laser wrote:

'When a marklar finally fails its marklar check, marklar begins to marklar.'

You beat me. I was going to suggest, "When a smurf fails smurf's smurf save, smurf is smurfed!"

Smurfin' smurfs. ;)

What the heck? My icon changed. That's awesome!

As far back as the 1st edition PHB D&D had a little note about *not* using "they" to avoid the blandness of it. (Full Disclosure: 1st edition used exclusively male pronouns).

Vaarsuvius disapproves.

Vaarsuvius disapproves.

Given the ambiguous nature of Vaarsuvius's gender in the OOTS comic, that somehow seems appropriate. ;)

English is a Germanic language, with heavy French and Latin influences, which has also stolen from many languages throughout the world.

After all, "English doesn't borrow from other languages. It follows them down dark alleys, knocks them over, and goes through their pockets for loose grammar."

rotfl

should be using the terms Humons and vertically-challenged-lings too

text explaining rules like combat etc should use the iconic characters as protagonists. Seoni all the way.

Little side note: In the german PHB is a little clause that explains that the masculinum is used because it has grinded into neutrality.

One does not need to invent a new, gender-neutral usage, for English already has one.

;)