Phillip Susi wrote: > Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget wrote: > >> From: Derrick Stolee <dstolee@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> > >> Technical writing seeks to convey information with minimal friction. One > >> way that a reader can experience friction is if they encounter a > >> description of "a user" that is later simplified using a gendered > >> pronoun. If the reader does not consider that pronoun to apply to them, > >> then they can experience cognitive dissonance that removes focus from > >> the information. > > Why should the pronoun apply to the reader? If the documentation wants > to refer to the reader, it should use "you". If it's using "he" then > it's referring to someone else previously mentioned in the > documentation, not to me. Indeed, and the patches don't apply exclusively to the reader. Here [1] the relevant person is somebody else who rebased a branch. It is unclear what kind of "cognitive dissonance" would a reader experience when she reads that that somebody happens to be a she. > > You can use "nucular" if you want (many people do). I will use > > "nuclear". > > You can use "nucular", but you will look stupid. I do think so, but that doesn't stop people from using it. Such is the nature of language. > > Both can be valid, and we shouldn't demand the use of one over the > > other. > > Sure we can; one is not valid. You also may not "axe" me a question, or > drink an "expresso". According to some dictionaries "nucular" is valid [2]. Plus, I don't think "valid" is the right word. Some people have a descpritive view of language, and in that view all words are valid, or rather: no word is invalid. What makes words land in a dictionary is simply how much people use them. The word "cute" used to mean "clever" [3], and it was "invalid" to use it as we use it today. But people didn't care, and the meaning of the word was forced to change. Dictioaries simply recorded the will of the people. > Also you argued against using they because it is not standard English, > but then argued that it is fine to use non standard English. I didn't argue either of those things. Yes, I did argue that "single they" isn't part of standard English (with a semantically singular antecedent), that doesn't necessary mean we shouldn't use it. And I did argue "nucular" is part of standard English (many people use it), that doesn't mean we should use it. Basically whether or not a word is part of "standard English" is orthogonal to the fact that we should use it. In my view. Let me be clear on what I do argue: we shouldn't ban perfectly standard words such as "she" and "he". Cheers. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/git/fb7a7573782ae8ba3bc5341d6aaee704af88fdcf.1623246878.git.gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx/ [2] https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/nucular [3] https://slate.com/human-interest/2015/02/cute-etymology-and-history-from-sharp-keen-or-shrewd-to-charming-and-attractive.html -- Felipe Contreras
