Re: [boost] Gender neutral documentation
Angus Leeming wrote:
Returning to the original example: This means for example that the client can completely discard Bind if she does not need it. I'd suggest rewriting it as: This means that the user can discard Bind completely if it is not needed.
That would get rid of a split infinitive too, but that's a whole other ball game :)
a) I don't see a split infinitive in the original. b) Your rewrite has transformed a clause in the active voice ("she does not need it") to the passive voice ("it is not needed"). The problem with documentation in the passive voice is that it doesn't make clear /who/ doesn't need Bind. My rewrite would be: This means, for example, that the client can completely discard Bind if they don't need it. -- Martin Bonner Martin.Bonner@Pitechnology.com Pi Technology, Milton Hall, Ely Road, Milton, Cambridge, CB4 6WZ, ENGLAND Tel: +44 (0)1223 441434
Martin Bonner wrote:
My rewrite would be: This means, for example, that the client can completely discard Bind if they don't need it.
Great. FWIW isn't "can completely discard" a split infinitive in the same way as "to boldly go" is? A.
Some Boost documentation author X could introduce a variable Y to use instead of a pronoun, so that X could refer to Y in the documentation without specifying a gender ;) -Jason
Martin Bonner <martin.bonner@pitechnology.com> writes:
Angus Leeming wrote:
Returning to the original example: This means for example that the client can completely discard Bind if she does not need it. I'd suggest rewriting it as: This means that the user can discard Bind completely if it is not needed.
That would get rid of a split infinitive too, but that's a whole other ball game :)
a) I don't see a split infinitive in the original. b) Your rewrite has transformed a clause in the active voice ("she does not need it") to the passive voice ("it is not needed"). The problem with documentation in the passive voice is that it doesn't make clear /who/ doesn't need Bind.
My rewrite would be: This means, for example, that the client can completely discard Bind if they don't need it.
Angus' version is better. This means that if Bind is unneeded the user can discard it completely. Of course, "this" needs an antecedent :) For example, if Bind is unneeded the user can discard it completely. is much more to the point. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
David Abrahams wrote:
Angus' version is better. This means that if Bind is unneeded the user can discard it completely. Of course, "this" needs an antecedent :) For example, if Bind is unneeded the user can discard it completely. is much more to the point.
I wonder if this discussion indicates that I'm willing to be a "documentation editor/pain" to the Phoenix-2 library? If not, then I'll be explicit: I am willing. One thing that I don't think that Rob discussed in his "Documentation Wizard" missive is just how to go about starting... Regards, Angus
Angus Leeming wrote:
David Abrahams wrote:
Angus' version is better. This means that if Bind is unneeded the user can discard it completely. Of course, "this" needs an antecedent :) For example, if Bind is unneeded the user can discard it completely. is much more to the point.
I wonder if this discussion indicates that I'm willing to be a "documentation editor/pain" to the Phoenix-2 library? If not, then I'll be explicit: I am willing.
Aha! Definitly a yes! Dan Marsden helped me in the docs. He also did some proofreading, but not (yet?) in the scope and depth that you guys are doing. Oh man! That will be godsend :) Dan and I are working on the Fusion docs right now. Might as well push it: will you also be documentation editor there too? Ahem.. ahem ;)
One thing that I don't think that Rob discussed in his "Documentation Wizard" missive is just how to go about starting...
This is definitely a good direction. I'm very very pleased! Regards, -- Joel de Guzman http://www.boost-consulting.com http://spirit.sf.net
Joel de Guzman wrote:
Angus Leeming wrote:
David Abrahams wrote:
Angus' version is better. This means that if Bind is unneeded the user can discard it completely. Of course, "this" needs an antecedent :) For example, if Bind is unneeded the user can discard it completely. is much more to the point.
I wonder if this discussion indicates that I'm willing to be a "documentation editor/pain" to the Phoenix-2 library? If not, then I'll be explicit: I am willing.
Aha! Definitly a yes! Dan Marsden helped me in the docs. He also did some proofreading, but not (yet?) in the scope and depth that you guys are doing. Oh man! That will be godsend :)
Excuse the silence, Joel. First child... Angus
Martin Bonner wrote:
Angus Leeming wrote:
Returning to the original example: This means for example that the client can completely discard Bind if she does not need it. I'd suggest rewriting it as: This means that the user can discard Bind completely if it is not needed.
That would get rid of a split infinitive too, but that's a whole other ball game :)
a) I don't see a split infinitive in the original. b) Your rewrite has transformed a clause in the active voice ("she does not need it") to the passive voice ("it is not needed"). The problem with documentation in the passive voice is that it doesn't make clear /who/ doesn't need Bind.
My rewrite would be: This means, for example, that the client can completely discard Bind if they don't need it.
How does a singular client become a plural they ? I do care that the sentence be gramatically correct but I care even more that it be good English. I doubt the above is good English.
My personal preference is to use "they" as the first person singular gender-neutral pronoun. This will be /intensely/ irritating to grammar purists, but does seem to be the way the language is evolving.
"They" is /not/ a singular pronoun, and to me it just makes it look as though the writer is ignorant. The grammatically correct pronoun for third person singular of unknown gender in English is "he", since despite what some people claim. Living in Quebec, where French is common--a language that requires many more adjustments to change pronoun gender than English--one common compromise is to add a small notice at the bottom stating something along the lines of "The use of a particular gender in this document is purely for the author's convenience and should not be construed as excluding the other." - Scott McMurray
| -----Original Message----- | From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org | [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of me22 | Sent: 04 November 2005 19:04 | To: boost@lists.boost.org | Subject: Re: [boost] Gender neutral documentation | The grammatically correct pronoun for third person singular of *** unknown gender*** | in English is "he"... Agree - and I really have got english English as my first language ;-) |-one common compromise is to add a small notice at the bottom stating | something along the lines of "The use of a particular gender in this | document is purely for the author's convenience and should not be | construed as excluding the other." I'm bored with this - at least can't we just add something like this somewhere and get on with much more important matters? Paul -- Paul A Bristow Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal, Cumbria UK LA8 8AB Phone and SMS text +44 1539 561830, Mobile and SMS text +44 7714 330204 mailto: pbristow@hetp.u-net.com www.hetp.u-net.com
On 11/4/05, me22 <me22.ca@gmail.com> wrote:
My personal preference is to use "they" as the first person singular gender-neutral pronoun. This will be /intensely/ irritating to grammar purists, but does seem to be the way the language is evolving.
"They" is /not/ a singular pronoun, and to me it just makes it look as though the writer is ignorant.
There are some historical examples of singular they. For the interested, see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they Also, in case there's any remaining who is curious, Wikipedia does a good job of summing up gender-neutral pronouns at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-neutral_pronoun which includes mention of the obscure Spivak pronouns, as well as sie and hir, xe, and ve -- though I'm not suggesting any of them be used. Ben
participants (9)
-
Angus Leeming -
Benjamin Higgins -
David Abrahams -
Edward Diener -
Jason Hise -
Joel de Guzman -
Martin Bonner -
me22 -
Paul A Bristow