New Church Policy?

[jkwilliams]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Pretty much. 
 

Do you deny it? 

Deny what? Back when I worked for the church I was a lot more rigid and pedantic than I am now. Has nothing to do with “wokeness.” 

In the case of “they/them,” it became preferable to use it instead of “he or she” in software and hardware instructions, which is what I left church employment to do. Changing something to passive voice to avoid using “they” would have been frowned upon by my employers.

Edited April 28, 2022 by jkwilliams

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

In this instance, very much so. 
 

The passive voice is not a sin. 

It is in my profession. 

[pogi]

21 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Here’s a way to recast it to avoid the problematic singular they:

I served in the Philippines.  They use the singular "they, them, or y'all" when addressing or referencing elderly people.  It is a sign of respect.  It is a healthy and normal part of their linguistics and is seen as disrespectful not to use it.

It just goes to show that it is only problematic if we want it to be. 

[Scott Lloyd]

Just now, jkwilliams said:

Deny what? Back when I worked for the church I was a lot more rigid and pedantic than I am now. Has nothing to do “wokeness.” 

In the case of “they/them,” it became preferable to use it instead of “he or she” in software and hardware instructions, which is what I left church employment to do. Changing something to passive voice to avoid using “they” would have been frowned upon by my employers.

That’s on your employers. In many instances passive voice is fine. 

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

That’s on your employers. In many instances passive voice is fine. 

That’s a different discussion. Even at the church office building, we avoided passive voice. 

From the Chicago Manual of Style:

”As a matter of style, passive voice is typically, though not always, inferior to active voice.”

I choose not to employ inferior voice. 

Edited April 28, 2022 by jkwilliams

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, pogi said:

I served in the Philippines.  They use the singular "they, them, or y'all" when addressing or referencing elderly people.  It is a sign of respect.  It is a healthy and normal part of their linguistics and is seen as disrespectful not to use it.

It just goes to show that it is only problematic if we want it to be. 

How about passive voice? Is it only problematic if we want it to be? Would you mind explaining that to jk Williams?

[california boy]

40 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It’s new in the sense that it fell out of favor for a long time but has recently been revived. 

Just curious, how would you address someone who is non-binary?

[jkwilliams]

22 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

How about passive voice? Is it only problematic if we want it to be? Would you mind explaining that to jk Williams?

Maybe your beef is with the Chicago Manual. 

Here’s the MS Manual of Style (2004):

”Avoid the generic masculine pronoun. Use the instead of his, or rewrite material in the second person (you) or in the plural  If necessary, use a plural pronoun such as they or their with an indefinite singular antecedent. … Use his or her for the singular possessive case if you can do so infrequently and if nothing else works.”

Apparently my profession was woke before woke was a thing.

And here’s Chicago, which we used at the church:

”You can apply indefinitely to any person or all persons. The same is true of they.”

Edited April 28, 2022 by jkwilliams

[ttribe]

12 minutes ago, california boy said:

Just curious, how would you address someone who is non-binary?

I think you know the answer to that; but if not, let me help - in the rudest way imaginable.

[ttribe]

28 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Pretty much. 
 

Do you deny it? 

[Scott Lloyd]

29 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Maybe your beef is with the Chicago Manual. 

Here’s the MS Manual of Style (2004):

”Avoid the generic masculine pronoun. Use the instead of his, or rewrite material in the second person (you) or in the plural  If necessary, use a plural pronoun such as they or their with an indefinite singular antecedent. … Use his or her for the singular possessive case if you can do so infrequently and if nothing else works.”

Apparently my profession was woke before woke was a thing.

And here’s Chicago, which we used at the church:

”You can apply indefinitely to any person or all persons. The same is true of they.”

How about when the antecedent is NOT indefinite? When the gender is known, even obvious? As I mentioned earlier, Nehor has declared his intent to use the singular they/them even in such cases. That strikes me as obstinacy. Do you agree with him? 

[JLHPROF]

42 minutes ago, california boy said:

Just curious, how would you address someone who is non-binary?

By their name.

[jkwilliams]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

How about when the antecedent is NOT indefinite? When the gender is known, even obvious? As I mentioned earlier, Nehor has declared his intent to use the singular they/them even in such cases. That strikes me as obstinacy. Do you agree with him? 

As I said, it depends on whether the context demands gender be specified.  I suspect we would disagree when that is or is not the case. 

ETA: you do realize Nehor and I share the same profession, right?

Edited April 28, 2022 by jkwilliams

[Calm]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

It also signals their virtue though, as being politically correct, to not recast the sentence.  It show them to be a flag bearer for the movement.

Not really.  Not if they have been using “they” or “them” for eons because writing “him or her”, etc creates awkward sentences and see no reason that it is that big of a deal to do the same even if gender is known when there is a perfectly good traditional usage available to justify that choice.  They might also simply prefer the sound of “they” to either “he” or “she”.  (Both reasons apply to me.)

[Scott Lloyd]

25 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

As I said, it depends on whether the context demands gender be specified.  I suspect we would disagree when that is or is not the case. 

ETA: you do realize Nehor and I share the same profession, right?

The question was quite straightforward; no need to complicate it or equivocate. When the gender of the subject is known and obvious, would you still insist on using the singular they/them? 

Edited April 28, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

That strikes me as obstinacy.

Says the person who has been complaining about others’ perfectly serviceable writing in a casual setting for years.

[Scott Lloyd]

52 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

And here’s Chicago, which we used at the church

That helps explain one of the practices of Church Public Affairs that I find annoying, namely the use of the execrable spokesperson instead of the more precise spokesman or spokeswoman or the perfectly adequate representative. 

Edited April 28, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Says the person who has been complaining about others’ perfectly serviceable writing in a casual setting for years.

Maybe you can respond: Why use the problematic singular they/them when the gender of the subject is known and obvious? 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Nofear said:

Like not using the Oxford comma and double space after periods. Alas, vestiges of these archaic practices still persist.

Double space has some reasoning to still use it for people who are very visual and use the extra space as much as or even more than the period to process the end of sentences.  Also it is understandable if they were trained to type that way as it may slow their typing and even create errors more if they have to consciously stop themselves from using it.  If I am using a keyboard, double spacing is automatic for me.  Fingerpecking at a keyboard, my programming is less rigid, so it comes out both ways.  
 

It was kind of nice not to have to worry about it, but now people are getting picky about double spacing as well as other unnecessarily rigid rules, writing again becomes more chore than joy at times.  I have made the conscious choice to simply write what looks and sounds natural to me as it isn’t worth the discomfort of feeling unsettled when the vast majority of people don’t care (yes, little stuff like a period inside a partial quote at the end of a sentence is like walking around with a sharp little rock in my shoe for me, it makes no logical sense to put a period inside a quote if it was not originally there and the quote is not the complete sentence).

[Calm]

40 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Maybe you can respond: Why use the problematic singular they/them when the gender of the subject is known and obvious? 

Because I like the sound of it better.  I speak the words internally as I write.  I have always liked the “th” sound.  It often flows better, “he” and “she” feel a bit bumpy to me, especially “he”.  And if I write “she” for generic (because “sh” is a good sound as well), I get complaints of virtue signaling.  Plus too easy for emphasis in speaking to slip to either as well, so they can throw off the rhythm in my view.

It is only a problem in some people’s minds.  Not a problem for me or the vast majority of people if the comments I get about my writing truly indicate if they like it or not.  There are somethings I am willing to sacrifice my comfort for so others don’t have to deal with their own discomfort.  Rigid American English writing rules are not one of them.  That grade 8 English teacher who ruined my perfect spelling score simply because I used the British version of “colour” even after I pulled out a dictionary to show it was an accepted spelling has not won in the end.  I shouldn’t have been penalized because I happened to read a lot of British publications when younger.  It was one of the reasons I had a massive vocabulary for my age, which she certainly approved of.  In this day and age when anyone from anywhere can post in a conversation, it makes no sense to insist American rules of writing are the  correct ones….especially when the professionals that originally established the rules that are being defended so fervently have changed them again.

Edited April 28, 2022 by Calm

[jkwilliams]

41 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The question was quite straightforward; no need to complicate it or equivocate. When the gender of the subject is known and obvious, would you still insist on using the singular they/them? 

I don’t “insist” on anything. Again, if the situation demands that gender be identified, then it makes sense. On the other hand, I can’t think of too many situations that demand a gendered pronoun. 

“The suspect is described as a ‘woke’ male technical writer in his late fifties with graying hair and an injured shoulder. He should be considered dangerous.”

But then the gender has already been specified. I’m fine with “they” instead of “he.”

I try to avoid using the term “Mormon” because people have asked me not to use it. But I’ll be damned if someone can tell me what pronoun they prefer! That’s going too far. 

Edited April 28, 2022 by jkwilliams

[Scott Lloyd]

58 minutes ago, Calm said:

Also it is understandable if they were trained to type that way as it may slow their typing and even create errors more if they have to consciously stop themselves from using it.

From the moment I first used a computer word processor in place of a typewriter (journalism workshop class in college) I was required to cease using the double space after a period. Breaking the habit was nearly instantaneous for me. 
 

And being prone to errors from making a conscious effort to break the habit was never an issue, because errors are so easily fixed with a word processor. Unlike using a typewriter, you can correct the errors on the fly. Which, by the way, makes me wonder why schools are still teaching students to write rough drafts when composing essays. That’s another relic of the typewriter era that needs to be left by the wayside. 

Edited April 28, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

So, yours is a principled stand on language, but I’ve given in to wokeness. 

😂😂😂😂

And others insist and are obstinate, but he is rational.

[Scott Lloyd]

39 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I don’t “insist” on anything. Again, if the situation demands that gender be identified, then it makes sense. On the other hand, I can’t think of too many situations that demand a gendered pronoun. 

“The suspect is described as a ‘woke’ male technical writer in his late fifties with graying hair and an injured shoulder. He should be considered dangerous.”

But then the gender has already been specified. I’m fine with “they” instead of “he.”

I try to avoid using the term “Mormon” because people have asked me not to use it. But I’ll be damned if someone can tell me what pronoun they prefer! That’s going too far. 

Writing is almost always a two-point communication process involving a receiver as well as a sender. If using a singular they/them is fraught with problems such as awkward construction and confusion that might be distracting to a reader, isn’t it worth  the effort to avoid it when you reasonably and easily can? 

Edited April 28, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Oh, sure, the passive voice is preferable. 😳

 

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

In this instance, very much so. 
 

The passive voice is not a sin. 

Here’s a professional blog post that makes the case that the passive voice is not the egregious offense some make it out to be. (Or, to put it another way, it is not the egregious offense it is sometimes made out to be. 😉 )

 

https://www.macmillandictionaryblog.com/passive-voice-is-not-to-be-shunned

Edited April 28, 2022 by Scott Lloyd