undefined | Better HN

0 pointsrandomdata8y ago0 comments

While you are not strictly wrong, "he" carries multiple meanings (see below). The original commenter is clearly using one of the latter definitions.

1. used to refer to a man, boy, or male animal previously mentioned or easily identified.

2. used to refer to a person or animal of unspecified sex

3. any person

"They" is more modern, if a little awkward in some cases, but the english language is fluid and thus "he", alongside "they", remains perfectly acceptable for those who wish to use it in that capacity. The message was able to be conveyed, which is the only requirement of the english language.

0 comments

sdoering8y ago

@randomdata:

> "They" may be more modern, if a little awkward in some cases, but the english language is fluid and thus "he", alongside "they", remains a perfectly acceptable for those who wish to use it in that capacity.

Well. I am not sure of your sources for your statements (1 to 3). But would love to read them, as this is a topic of great interest to me. Especially as they go against everything I did learn during my time studying the history of languages (German and English).

I know of language fluidity and I know of a time around the 14th century where "he" was in some contexts used in a more gender neutral way (and even that is debated nowadays). And even then the neutral "they" (singular and plural) was also in use in cases that were clearly gender neutral.

So looking back into the development and the history of the English language I cannot find (or recollect) indicators for your way of reading "he" as being totally fine and acceptable and really gender neutral (and not just a sign of a more patriarchal society).

Talking about fluidity of language. At least in the last some years there has been a development of "he" being incivil and assuming and therefore should probably not be used in a gender neutral way. Also that other alternatives would be more civil and unassuming regarding others taking part in our conversations.

> The message was able to be conveyed, which is the only requirement of the english language.

Well technically speaking that is true. But aren't there always human beings part of every conversation? And imho our wetware isn't a purely logic parser for information. We are flawed and our flaws should be considered when trying to communicate. Esp. if we try to get an idea across and not wanting to "hurt"/alienate others.

We have different "ways" we process information. The purely informational part of a message is but one of them. Ignoring the others might just hinder our arguments/ideas from getting the recognition they deserve.

One model of communication for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-sides_model

[Edit] Removed unnecessary quote markers.

randomdataOP8y ago

> I am not sure of your sources for your statements (1 to 3).

The dictionary, as provided by Google in this case. Although you are likely to find similar definitions in any dictionary. The usage, even if falling out of fashion, is still common enough to be recorded.

> Well technically speaking that is true. But aren't there always human beings part of every conversation? And imho our wetware isn't a purely logic parser for information.

Which is fine. The original comment provided enough information to indicate that this person was referring to the original article, which reveals that the author is female. Even if you accidentally parsed "he" as referring to the male gender at first, the context surrounding the comment would quickly clarify that misunderstanding and highlight that the comment was written in a gender-neutral form. That "wetware" you refer to makes humans particularly great at forming these connections between disjointed sets of information.

kbp8y ago

> Even if you accidentally parsed "he" as referring to the male gender at first, the context surrounding the comment would quickly clarify that misunderstanding and reveal that the comment was written in a gender-neutral form.

I don't see why it isn't just as likely for someone, like the person who corrected the use of "he," to decide from context simply that the poster was mistaken about the person's gender, and to treat it like they'd treat any factual mistake. Language is about conveying messages to people, and part of the message that was received was that ratsimihah believed the author to be a man. Grammatically acceptable or not, using "he" as a gender-neutral pronoun here introduced confusion.

1 more reply

masklinn8y ago

> "They" is more modern

The singular "they" dates back to at least middle english and Chaucer, its proscription is the recent event (~18th century) and went mostly ignored by informal speakers: https://books.google.be/books?id=Lijcg3vt9yAC&pg=PA93&redir_...

randomdataOP8y ago

Precisely. The common usage of "they" is more modern than "he". "He" is considered quite outdated as it has fallen out of fashion. However, english doesn't care about fashion. "He" and "they" remain correct in this scenario. English allows you to use any combination of letters/sounds that you want as long as the message is conveyed, and, as shown in your original comment, "he" perfectly conveyed to you exactly who the original commenter was referring to.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

sdoering8y ago

@randomdata:

> The message was able to be conveyed, which is the only requirement of the english language.

One model of communication for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-sides_model

[Edit] Removed unnecessary quote markers.

randomdataOP8y ago

> I am not sure of your sources for your statements (1 to 3).

> Well technically speaking that is true. But aren't there always human beings part of every conversation? And imho our wetware isn't a purely logic parser for information.

kbp8y ago

1 more reply

masklinn8y ago

> "They" is more modern

randomdataOP8y ago

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse