I'd decided it was probably for real, but gave up somewhere around section 2.3 because it was all too barking mad. The bizarre use of "eir", "ey", "em", etc. as a gender-neutral third person singular was also quite distressing.
The really weird bit about ey/eir is that they agree in the singular, i.e. like he/his rather than they/their; so "he is, they are, ey is", for instance. Which (given the similarity to they/their) reads rather oddly.
"Their", followed by plural agreement, is a perfectly acceptable and long-established way to refer to a single person of indeterminate gender.
If thou dost not like it, I suggest to thee that the "proper" second person singular might also be thy preference. Thine, but not mine.
A lot of the time, I write sentences so that there's no need for a gender-neutral third person singular at all. Where that fails, I use the plural. My one personal oddity is that I will then deliberately use "themself" rather than "themselves". I know this is considered unacceptable by a few "authorities", but English is a living language, and I consider myself sufficiently well versed in established usage that I'm competent to push the boundaries a little from time to time.
My comment was intended along the lines of "I agree. Not only is ey/eir cruddy, it's also unnecessary because we have a perfectly good long-established alternative."
I think other people tend to use "e is" which doesn't suffer from that problem (though it's equally ungainly as a proposed solution to the gender-neutrality problem).
I read the first few paragraphs, got bored, read a bit from the middle, skipped to the end. The conclusion didn't really work for me.
The introduction read to me like that of a spoof; later on it looked like it was probably serious, and then at the end it was of course spoof again.
I was particularly at a loss to understand why allism, apparently defined as `the inability to independently experience emotions,' should have any bearing on whether one can use a computer.
I was particularly at a loss to understand why allism, apparently defined as `the inability to independently experience emotions,' should have any bearing on whether one can use a computer.
It's that "the more 'autistic' you are, the better you are as a geek" fallacy yet again. Some circles see social disfunction as a cause for celebration. If these people were seriously autistic, they wouldn't give a shit about what other people think about them (or indeed understand that other people could think about them). Instead, HFA/Aspergers (and often a relatively mild form) is taken to be the be-all and end-all of autism, rather as if bolshie articles about blindness were written by people who wore glasses and were unwilling to accept that their impairment might be trivial compared to other people's.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ewx
(no subject)
Date: 2004-04-28 04:33 pm (UTC)Is it for real or a spoof?
(no subject)
Date: 2004-04-28 04:39 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-04-28 05:01 pm (UTC)I'd decided it was probably for real, but gave up somewhere around section 2.3 because it was all too barking mad. The bizarre use of "eir", "ey", "em", etc. as a gender-neutral third person singular was also quite distressing.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-04-29 01:28 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-04-29 02:40 am (UTC)If thou dost not like it, I suggest to thee that the "proper" second person singular might also be thy preference. Thine, but not mine.
A lot of the time, I write sentences so that there's no need for a gender-neutral third person singular at all. Where that fails, I use the plural. My one personal oddity is that I will then deliberately use "themself" rather than "themselves". I know this is considered unacceptable by a few "authorities", but English is a living language, and I consider myself sufficiently well versed in established usage that I'm competent to push the boundaries a little from time to time.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-04-29 04:03 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-04-29 04:44 am (UTC)My comment was intended along the lines of "I agree. Not only is ey/eir cruddy, it's also unnecessary because we have a perfectly good long-established alternative."
(no subject)
Date: 2004-04-29 03:44 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-04-28 11:40 pm (UTC)The world gets a teensy bit smaller yet again.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-05-05 02:48 am (UTC)It gets better than that -![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
perdita_fysh has just posted a pointer to this back to the fysh list, which is where it all started...
Ah, Zefram...
Date: 2004-04-29 01:48 am (UTC)He used to work for the same company I do; produced good but obscure and largely uncommented code...
(no subject)
Date: 2004-04-29 03:59 am (UTC)The introduction read to me like that of a spoof; later on it looked like it was probably serious, and then at the end it was of course spoof again.
I was particularly at a loss to understand why allism, apparently defined as `the inability to independently experience emotions,' should have any bearing on whether one can use a computer.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-04-29 06:13 am (UTC)It's that "the more 'autistic' you are, the better you are as a geek" fallacy yet again. Some circles see social disfunction as a cause for celebration. If these people were seriously autistic, they wouldn't give a shit about what other people think about them (or indeed understand that other people could think about them). Instead, HFA/Aspergers (and often a relatively mild form) is taken to be the be-all and end-all of autism, rather as if bolshie articles about blindness were written by people who wore glasses and were unwilling to accept that their impairment might be trivial compared to other people's.
someone else's opinion
Date: 2004-04-29 06:32 am (UTC)Re: someone else's opinion
Date: 2004-04-29 06:40 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-05-05 02:49 am (UTC)Either that, or they have a bit of a chip on their shoulder and weren't willing to see it for the spoof it was.