Re: Prefer non-gender specific pronouns
On 6/5/21 10:49 PM, Léa Gris wrote: Le 05/06/2021 à 18:47, John Passaro écrivait : I can see a couple reasons why it would be a good thing, and in the con column only "I personally don't have time to go through the manual and make these changes". but I'd happily upvote a patch from somebody that does. I can see so many reasons why it would be a bad thing to let the cancel culture adepts slip in here, rewriting bash documentations with their custom grammar. This is not "cancel culture," no matter how you define the term. -- ``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer ``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates Chet Ramey, UTech, CWRUc...@case.eduhttp://tiswww.cwru.edu/~chet/
Re: Prefer non-gender specific pronouns
On 6/7/21 2:37 PM, Dima Pasechnik wrote: Then there is no need to change anything. yes, there is a pressing need. How? Where? And who the fuck are you? This is your first message on this list and it's total libtard bullshit, why should we even take you seriously? I'm going to assume this was originally sent via private email, but keep stuff like this off the list in the future, please. -- ``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer ``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates Chet Ramey, UTech, CWRUc...@case.eduhttp://tiswww.cwru.edu/~chet/
Re: Prefer non-gender specific pronouns
Hi, I agree to write the user manual in a gender-neutral way. Let's also remember that "he/she" and "his/her" are not valid solutions, because they leave out non-binary people. It seems to me that both proposed patches are fine and solve the problem. Andrea Monaco
Re: Prefer non-gender specific pronouns
Hi, I agree to write the user manual in a gender-neutral way. Let's also remember that "he/she" and "his/her" are not valid solutions, because they leave out non-binary people. It seems to me that both proposed patches are fine and solve the problem. Andrea Monaco
Re: Prefer non-gender specific pronouns
On 6/7/21 3:06 PM, Oğuz wrote: 7 Haziran 2021 Pazartesi tarihinde Dima Pasechnik yazdı: Where have you been taught to address a CS lecturer at Oxford University, a PhD, who, age-wise, could have been your father, I suppose, with f-word? There's more where that came from, but I'd rather keep them off this list. I'm on vacation; I'm not going to get involved in an extended discussion about this, just stop. -- ``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer ``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates Chet Ramey, UTech, CWRUc...@case.eduhttp://tiswww.cwru.edu/~chet/
Re: Prefer non-gender specific pronouns
On 2021/06/06 04:48, Léa Gris wrote: Le 06/06/2021 à 11:33, Ilkka Virta écrivait : In fact, that generic 'they' is so common and accepted, that you just used it yourself in the part I quoted above. Either you're acting in bad faith, or you're so confused by your gender-neutral delusion that you don't remember that in normal people's grammar, "they" is a plural pronoun. Not in America: They has been officially recognized as correct by several key bodies such as the Associated Press. Similarly, the Chicago Manual of Style now notes that the singular "they" is common in informal communication (while acknowledging that it has yet to attain the same ubiquity in formal spaces). Merriam-Webster: a —used with a singular indefinite pronoun antecedent No one has to go if they don't want to.Everyone knew where they stood …— E. L. Doctorow b —used with a singular antecedent to refer to an unknown or unspecified person An employee with a grievance can file a complaint if they need to.The person who answered the phone said they didn't know where she was. c —used to refer to a single person whose gender is intentionally not revealed A student was found with a knife and a BB gun in their backpack Monday, district spokeswoman Renee Murphy confirmed. The student, whose name has not been released, will be disciplined according to district policies, Murphy said. They also face charges from outside law enforcement, she said.— Olivia Krauth d —used to refer to a single person whose gender identity is nonbinary (see nonbinary sense c) I knew certain things about … the person I was interviewing.… They had adopted their gender-neutral name a few years ago, when they began to consciously identify as nonbinary—that is, neither male nor female. They were in their late 20s, working as an event planner, applying to graduate school.— Amy Harmon APA endorses the use of “they” as a singular third-person pronoun in the seventh edition of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association. This means it is officially good practice in scholarly writing to use the singular “they.”Oct 31, 2019 3 different sources say 'they' is fine for use in a singular context. How many more authorities do you think it will take before most people are convinced "they" is the preferred sex-indefinite pronoun in current, or modern use? I remember back when I was in grammar school this not being the case, deary, the way this non-dead language, English, keeps changing. You certainly wouldn't find this happening in Latin! ;-)
Re: Prefer non-gender specific pronouns
On 2021/06/06 07:19, Alain D D Williams wrote: The important thing is that there is no intention to oppress/denigrate/... But it does _suggest_ that the default user is a male. or, speaking about historical use, that the default user was male. The problem comes when someone reads gendered language often and long enough, it becomes natural in one's speech and writing to follow that example.
Re: Prefer non-gender specific pronouns
7 Haziran 2021 Pazartesi tarihinde Dima Pasechnik yazdı: > > Where have you been taught to address a CS lecturer at Oxford University, > a PhD, who, age-wise, could have been your father, I suppose, with f-word? > There's more where that came from, but I'd rather keep them off this list. -- Oğuz
Re: Prefer non-gender specific pronouns
On Mon, Jun 07, 2021 at 08:37:53PM +0200, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > Where have you been taught to address a CS lecturer at Oxford University, > a PhD, who, age-wise, could have been your father, I suppose, with f-word? > In which well-respected madrasah did it happen, so that we know? Please lads: just cool it. We do not want a punch up on this list. Regards -- Alain Williams Linux/GNU Consultant - Mail systems, Web sites, Networking, Programmer, IT Lecturer. +44 (0) 787 668 0256 https://www.phcomp.co.uk/ Parliament Hill Computers Ltd. Registration Information: https://www.phcomp.co.uk/Contact.html #include
Re: Prefer non-gender specific pronouns
On Mon, Jun 07, 2021 at 08:58:08PM +0300, O??uz wrote: > On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 1:52 PM Dima Pasechnik wrote: > > > > On Sun, Jun 06, 2021 at 05:59:17PM +0200, L??a Gris wrote: > > > Le 06/06/2021 ?? 16:34, O??uz ??crivait???: > > > > > > > Then there is no need to change anything. > > yes, there is a pressing need. > > How? Where? And who the fuck are you? This is your first message on > this list and it's total libtard bullshit, why should we even take you > seriously? I used to use my work email address a while ago to post to this list, but of course you can't be bothered to check. And who are you, a paid shill of a well-known equality and democracy champion, R.T.Erdogan, I presume? Where have you been taught to address a CS lecturer at Oxford University, a PhD, who, age-wise, could have been your father, I suppose, with f-word? In which well-respected madrasah did it happen, so that we know? D. https://pasechnik.info http://www.cs.ox.ac.uk/people/dmitrii.pasechnik/
Re: Prefer non-gender specific pronouns
On Sun, Jun 6, 2021 at 10:28 AM Greg Wooledge wrote: > Out of these 5 choices, the one that seems to suck the *least*, according > to observed usage patterns in current written and spoken English, is > "they". I agree with Greg, *they* has become the dominant gender neutral pronoun in English. I prefer *they* over his/her as the latter is difficult to parse and makes for awkward reading. Also, as Greg mentions, there is historical precedent for the singular form of *they*.[1] [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they
Re: Prefer non-gender specific pronouns
On Mon, Jun 07, 2021 at 12:52:08PM +0200, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > I know a number of French female academics, who would just laugh at the > latter claim. > To start with, they, married, but retained their maiden surnames, say, X, > cannot even manage to get > them addressed by official instances and businesses as Mme X, > and not "housewife of the house of Y" (which is what one French way > to addrress a married woman roughly means, IMHO). > One of them tells a "nice" story about her attempts to rent a flat in > Marsielle, > where she has a job (while her spouse was based in CERN, Geneve, so she had > to commute for years). > Of course a married woman trying to rent a flat in her name is a huge no-no > in 21st century France... What has renting a flat in France got to do with the bash manual page ? No one disputes that the sexes are treated differently but tying completely unrelated things together is not the way to address matters and change things. Ms Gris wrote she "take no offense when a documentation ...". I accept that some others might take offence. However it does not seem to be a major issue, if you want to make a change address things like renting flats in France. Also: please stop promoting the meme that it is always women who are disadvantaged. That is not true: have some kids, get divorced and look to see where the kids go. The kids see dad if mother wants to. If mother does not obey court orders they are not enforced (in many countries, eg UK). -- Alain Williams Linux/GNU Consultant - Mail systems, Web sites, Networking, Programmer, IT Lecturer. +44 (0) 787 668 0256 https://www.phcomp.co.uk/ Parliament Hill Computers Ltd. Registration Information: https://www.phcomp.co.uk/Contact.html #include
Re: Prefer non-gender specific pronouns
On Sun, Jun 06, 2021 at 05:59:17PM +0200, L??a Gris wrote: > Le 06/06/2021 ?? 16:34, O??uz ??crivait???: > > > Then there is no need to change anything. yes, there is a pressing need. > > Exactly. > As a woman, I take no offense when a documentation illustrate a fictive male > character. (and as I will illustrate below, in French pronouns are tuned in > gender and number with the object). I am not offended by the wording of the > current English Bash documentation either. I am more annoyed by the > over-abundance of children's stories in which women are depicted as 1950's > good, dedicated and submissive housewives, cooking diner and taking care of > kids. > > But seriously, in the few Bash manual sentences giving a male gender to the > illustrative user character. This is light-years away of a worthy concern to > me. > > I even predict this would get fixed with consensus if when more women will > be involved in IT. With the present techbro "culture", it might be going the opposite way. It has to be fixed if one wants more women to be involved in IT, CS, and exact sciences (STEM). As an academic, involved for many years in undegraduate and graduate admissions, and high school outreach, in Singapore and UK, I see a huge self-bias of females against being involved in IT and STEM, in no small measure due to these little things like using male pronouns in various relevant texts and materials. All of this has litle to do with the latest "cancel culture" events (which are on the other hand a result of the pressure cooker getting to the point of exploding - if gender etc equality was taken seriously in the past 30 years these explosive things were not as explosive...) > > Interestingly for the story: In the 1960's and 1970's, when we were more > widely seen as housewives, we were more represented in IT, science and > engineering overall than of today, that gender equity and equality are > accepted modern standards. I know a number of French female academics, who would just laugh at the latter claim. To start with, they, married, but retained their maiden surnames, say, X, cannot even manage to get them addressed by official instances and businesses as Mme X, and not "housewife of the house of Y" (which is what one French way to addrress a married woman roughly means, IMHO). One of them tells a "nice" story about her attempts to rent a flat in Marsielle, where she has a job (while her spouse was based in CERN, Geneve, so she had to commute for years). Of course a married woman trying to rent a flat in her name is a huge no-no in 21st century France... > > And no, I can't believe rewriting Bash documentation with gender neutral is > a good thing or that it can contribute to evening the balance of gender > representation in IT either. And as an academic, I am certain that it is a small step in the right direction, using either gender neutral pro-nouns, or only female pronouns, or (ugly) her/his. > > > > What word(s) are used in translations of the manual into languages other > > > than > > > English ? Do similar problems exist. > > > > In mine, no. Turkish has only one pronoun for male, female, and inanimate. > > In mine, possessive pronouns are gendered to the possessed target. > Example with current Bash documentation place that have been subject to > these gender-neutral changes, translated to French: > > > in a non-writable directory other than his home directory after login, > > dans un r??pertoire autre que son r??pertoire HOME apr??s connexion, > ^^^ > French "son" (his) is male because "r??pertoire" (directory) is male in > French. User character's gender is not even mentioned. I could tell you details of Russian grammar in that respect, where even verbs might have different conjugactions depending on the geneder of the subject. But this is all beside the point: languages and societies are conservative, and changes towards fairness are difficult and even schokingi at times. Yet they are needed. Dmitrii Pasechnik https://pasechnik.info > > > -- > L??a Gris > >
Re: Prefer non-gender specific pronouns
On Sun, Jun 06, 2021 at 05:00:21PM +0300, Ilkka Virta wrote: > On Sun, Jun 6, 2021 at 2:49 PM Léa Gris wrote: > > For the second person, there's of course "thou", but for some reason, > I've never heard anyone suggest using that in practice. Hast thou never been to Yorkshire or Lancashire? :-) One can still occasionally experience thee/thy/thou/thine in all their glory. Some of us could cope with 'thou art' rather than 'you are', but it does tend to feel a bit archaic. DF
Re: Prefer non-gender specific pronouns
Le 06/06/2021 à 16:34, Oğuz écrivait : Then there is no need to change anything. Exactly. As a woman, I take no offense when a documentation illustrate a fictive male character. (and as I will illustrate below, in French pronouns are tuned in gender and number with the object). I am not offended by the wording of the current English Bash documentation either. I am more annoyed by the over-abundance of children's stories in which women are depicted as 1950's good, dedicated and submissive housewives, cooking diner and taking care of kids. But seriously, in the few Bash manual sentences giving a male gender to the illustrative user character. This is light-years away of a worthy concern to me. I even predict this would get fixed with consensus if when more women will be involved in IT. Interestingly for the story: In the 1960's and 1970's, when we were more widely seen as housewives, we were more represented in IT, science and engineering overall than of today, that gender equity and equality are accepted modern standards. And no, I can't believe rewriting Bash documentation with gender neutral is a good thing or that it can contribute to evening the balance of gender representation in IT either. What word(s) are used in translations of the manual into languages other than English ? Do similar problems exist. In mine, no. Turkish has only one pronoun for male, female, and inanimate. In mine, possessive pronouns are gendered to the possessed target. Example with current Bash documentation place that have been subject to these gender-neutral changes, translated to French: > in a non-writable directory other than his home directory after login, dans un répertoire autre que son répertoire HOME après connexion, ^^^ French "son" (his) is male because "répertoire" (directory) is male in French. User character's gender is not even mentioned. -- Léa Gris
Re: Prefer non-gender specific pronouns
On Sun, Jun 06, 2021 at 05:12:21PM +0300, Oğuz wrote: > If that really is a problem that has to be addressed and not > bike-shedding, let's compromise and say "his/her" instead of "his" or > "their". *sigh* I probably shouldn't do this, but let's dive into this just a bit, because apparently it's too late to turn back now. As background information, I was born in 1970 and was educated in the public school system in the United States. I supply this background information because how one responds to this discussion depends greatly on WHEN and WHERE one learned English grammar. That's why there is such incredible divisiveness on this topic. In the grammar classes that I took in school, we were taught that "they" and "their" are plural pronouns, and should always be used as such. I believe at least one other person on this list was taught a similar thing, and has not updated his or her standards. We all know the person to whom I'm referring. It's the really loud, angry one. Now, I'm not an expert on the entire history of English grammar education around the world, but it's my understanding that this ironclad insistence on the plural-ness of "they" was prevalent mostly in the United States, in the mid to late 20th century. Thus, it was how many of us were raised, but not all of us. The issue, just for the record, is the lack of an acceptable gender-neutral singular pronoun set in the current English language. There are a few choices, all of them bad: 1) "It". This is considered offensive, because it implies a lesser status (an inanimate object rather than a person). 2) "Him or her". This is awkward and long, and nobody likes it. 3) "Sie" and other non-English words. These were suggested in the 1990s but never caught on. 4) "They". Some people strongly dislike this because it conflicts with the grammar rules they were taught. 5) "Him". One of the older style guidelines suggested that when a person's gender is unknown, one should default to the masculine pronoun set, and the reader will understand that this is being used as a placeholder. So, English gives us 5 choices, and they all suck. Bash's documentation is using choice number 5, which was (as I understand it) commonly taught prior to the mid 20th century. It's basically 19th century usage, and reflects and reinforces the patriarchal societies of that time period. It's quite understandable that someone would dislike this choice strongly enough to offer a patch to undo it. Out of these 5 choices, the one that seems to suck the *least*, according to observed usage patterns in current written and spoken English, is "they". Personally, I've been trying to update my usage to embrace "they". It's not easy, and sometimes I forget and fall back into older patterns, but at least I'm trying. This is the way the language is evolving. If you refuses to embrace it, you will be left behind. (Unless of course a massive popular usage shift occurs and some other choice becomes the new front-runner. I've seen no signs of this happening.)
Re: Prefer non-gender specific pronouns
6 Haziran 2021 Pazar tarihinde Alain D D Williams yazdı: > On Sun, Jun 06, 2021 at 05:12:21PM +0300, Oğuz wrote: > > > If that really is a problem that has to be addressed and not > > bike-shedding, let's compromise and say "his/her" instead of "his" or > > "their". > > Possible, but it detracts from the clarity of the sentence that it is in. So does "their". > > > Though I don't think women who read the manual and burst into tears out > of > > oppression when they see "his" actually exist. > > The important thing is that there is no intention to oppress/denigrate/... > women by the use of 'his'. Then there is no need to change anything. > What word(s) are used in translations of the manual into languages other > than > English ? Do similar problems exist. In mine, no. Turkish has only one pronoun for male, female, and inanimate. > > -- > Alain Williams > Linux/GNU Consultant - Mail systems, Web sites, Networking, Programmer, IT > Lecturer. > +44 (0) 787 668 0256 https://www.phcomp.co.uk/ > Parliament Hill Computers Ltd. Registration Information: > https://www.phcomp.co.uk/Contact.html > #include > > -- Oğuz
Re: Prefer non-gender specific pronouns
On Sun, Jun 06, 2021 at 05:12:21PM +0300, Oğuz wrote: > If that really is a problem that has to be addressed and not > bike-shedding, let's compromise and say "his/her" instead of "his" or > "their". Possible, but it detracts from the clarity of the sentence that it is in. > Though I don't think women who read the manual and burst into tears out of > oppression when they see "his" actually exist. The important thing is that there is no intention to oppress/denigrate/... women by the use of 'his'. What word(s) are used in translations of the manual into languages other than English ? Do similar problems exist. -- Alain Williams Linux/GNU Consultant - Mail systems, Web sites, Networking, Programmer, IT Lecturer. +44 (0) 787 668 0256 https://www.phcomp.co.uk/ Parliament Hill Computers Ltd. Registration Information: https://www.phcomp.co.uk/Contact.html #include
Re: Prefer non-gender specific pronouns
6 Haziran 2021 Pazar tarihinde Ilkka Virta yazdı: > > I do wonder, though, what the gender-neutral delusion here would be? That > there exist women > who use computers and Unix-like systems, and not just men? Even I know, in > real life, some > female Linux users, and while I haven't asked about shells, I expect they > might use Bash at > least to some extent. So I don't think it's unrealistic to accept the fact > that not all users of Bash > might be "he". That may of course have been different 30 years ago, but > then, the times do > change. > If that really is a problem that has to be addressed and not bike-shedding, let's compromise and say "his/her" instead of "his" or "their". Though I don't think women who read the manual and burst into tears out of oppression when they see "his" actually exist. -- Oğuz
Re: Prefer non-gender specific pronouns
On Sun, Jun 6, 2021 at 2:49 PM Léa Gris wrote: > Either you're acting in bad faith, or you're so confused by your > gender-neutral delusion that you don't remember that in normal people's > grammar, "they" is a plural pronoun. > Argh, no, that's just an example of the fact that I can't read. Sorry. I do agree, it would be useful if English did have separate singular pronouns, both for "you" and "they". But since it doesn't, we have to work with what we have. For the second person, there's of course "thou", but for some reason, I've never heard anyone suggest using that in practice. I do wonder, though, what the gender-neutral delusion here would be? That there exist women who use computers and Unix-like systems, and not just men? Even I know, in real life, some female Linux users, and while I haven't asked about shells, I expect they might use Bash at least to some extent. So I don't think it's unrealistic to accept the fact that not all users of Bash might be "he". That may of course have been different 30 years ago, but then, the times do change.
Re: Prefer non-gender specific pronouns
Léa, I see that in the section Ilkka quoted you were using it in the
plural. However Ilkka is exactly right; despite "they" being technically
plural, using it for somebody of undetermined gender has been in the
mainstream since long before inclusive language. "Someone left *their*
book, there's no name and I don't know who to call."
The AP and Chicago style guides, hardly reckless proponents of any
progressive vanguard, endorse this usage, though they recommend working
around it if possible ("Somebody left *a* book"). However they do
unequivocally endorse using it for somebody who declares "they" to be their
pronoun (though for now that may not have much bearing on the manual).
On Sun, Jun 6, 2021, 07:49 Léa Gris wrote:
> Le 06/06/2021 à 11:33, Ilkka Virta écrivait :
> > In fact, that generic 'they' is so common and accepted, that you just
> used
> > it yourself
> > in the part I quoted above.
>
> Either you're acting in bad faith, or you're so confused by your
> gender-neutral delusion that you don't remember that in normal people's
> grammar, "they" is a plural pronoun.
>
> --
> Léa Gris
>
>
>
Re: Prefer non-gender specific pronouns
Le 06/06/2021 à 11:33, Ilkka Virta écrivait : In fact, that generic 'they' is so common and accepted, that you just used it yourself in the part I quoted above. Either you're acting in bad faith, or you're so confused by your gender-neutral delusion that you don't remember that in normal people's grammar, "they" is a plural pronoun. -- Léa Gris
Re: Prefer non-gender specific pronouns
On Sun, Jun 6, 2021 at 5:50 AM Léa Gris wrote: > Le 05/06/2021 à 18:47, John Passaro écrivait : > > I can see a couple reasons why it would be a good thing, and in the con > > column only "I personally don't have time to go through the manual and > make > > these changes". but I'd happily upvote a patch from somebody that does. > > I can see so many reasons why it would be a bad thing to let the cancel > culture adepts slip in here, rewriting bash documentations with their > custom grammar. > Using 'they' for a generic, indefinite person, like the user here, one who could be anyone, is totally normal use of the language, and not even a very new invention. It's not the same as calling a definite person of known gender 'they'. In fact, that generic 'they' is so common and accepted, that you just used it yourself in the part I quoted above.
Re: Prefer non-gender specific pronouns
6 Haziran 2021 Pazar tarihinde L A Walsh yazdı: > On 2021/06/05 08:35, Oğuz wrote: > >> 5 Haziran 2021 Cumartesi tarihinde Vipul Kumar < >> kumar+bug-b...@onenetbeyond.org> yazdı: >> >> >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Isn't it a good idea to prefer non-gender specific pronoun (like "their" >>> instead of "his") at following places in the reference manual? >>> >>> >> >> >> No it's not. >> >> > > Perhaps you would be more comfortable saying 'her'? > I don't know what you mean. -- Oğuz
Re: Prefer non-gender specific pronouns
> On Jun 5, 2021, at 12:47 PM, John Passaro wrote:
>
> I can see a couple reasons why it would be a good thing, and in the con
> column only "I personally don't have time to go through the manual and make
> these changes".
There don't seem to be many instances in the Texinfo source.
#1, already pointed out by OP:
% ripgrep -w -g '*.texi' 'he|his|him'
doc/bashref.texi
7848:in a non-writable directory other than his home directory after
login,
Not relevant, as these refer to specific individuals:
doc/oldbash.texi
178:manual. Brian and Diane would like to thank Chet Ramey for his
9138:# The alternative explanation is that his frequent use of the
#2, from readline:
lib/readline/doc/rltech.texi
1654:exceptional events, like a user pressing the interrupt key on his
terminal,
#3, from readline, already pointed out by OP:
lib/readline/doc/rluser.texi
342:commands in an @dfn{inputrc} file, conventionally in his home
directory.
From GNU termcap (I think), so out of scope:
lib/termcap/grot/termcap.texi
1477:specify what type he really has. One example of a generic type
That's three. Pretty tractable for anyone so inclined. (Didn't
look at source code comments or anything.)
--
vq
Re: Prefer non-gender specific pronouns
Le 05/06/2021 à 18:47, John Passaro écrivait : I can see a couple reasons why it would be a good thing, and in the con column only "I personally don't have time to go through the manual and make these changes". but I'd happily upvote a patch from somebody that does. I can see so many reasons why it would be a bad thing to let the cancel culture adepts slip in here, rewriting bash documentations with their custom grammar. These insidious gender neutral rewrites of manuals, books and so many reference texts, movies, songs, is a cancer spreading everywhere. I can't see anyone decently take offense because the fictive user character in a Bash manual that was written 30+ years ago is of a defined non neutral fictive gender. With less heated reaction statements; I argue against changing bash documentations to use gender neutral because: - This change brings no additional value to the meaning, quality, or intelligibility of the Bash documentation. - Moreover, it could likely cause damages, by offending people who don't recognize gender neutral applied to characters, even fictive rhetorical ones. Please do not mix cleaving, clearly still non consensual, still heavily hot debated and politically loaded changes into technical projects like Bash. -- Léa Gris
Re: Prefer non-gender specific pronouns
On 2021/06/05 08:35, Oğuz wrote: 5 Haziran 2021 Cumartesi tarihinde Vipul Kumar < kumar+bug-b...@onenetbeyond.org> yazdı: Hi, Isn't it a good idea to prefer non-gender specific pronoun (like "their" instead of "his") at following places in the reference manual? No it's not. Perhaps you would be more comfortable saying 'her'?
Re: Prefer non-gender specific pronouns
I can see a couple reasons why it would be a good thing, and in the con column only "I personally don't have time to go through the manual and make these changes". but I'd happily upvote a patch from somebody that does. On Sat, Jun 5, 2021, 09:24 Vipul Kumar wrote: > Hi, > > Isn't it a good idea to prefer non-gender specific pronoun (like "their" > instead of "his") at following places in the reference manual? > > > leaving the user in a non-writable directory other than his home > directory after login, [1] > > > his home directory. The name of this file is taken from the value of > the shell variable [2] > > [1]: > > https://www.gnu.org/software/bash/manual/html_node/The-Restricted-Shell.html#The-Restricted-Shell > [2]: > > https://www.gnu.org/software/bash/manual/html_node/Readline-Init-File.html#Readline-Init-File > > > Cheers, > Vipul >
Re: Prefer non-gender specific pronouns
5 Haziran 2021 Cumartesi tarihinde Vipul Kumar < kumar+bug-b...@onenetbeyond.org> yazdı: > Hi, > > Isn't it a good idea to prefer non-gender specific pronoun (like "their" > instead of "his") at following places in the reference manual? No it's not. > > > leaving the user in a non-writable directory other than his home > directory after login, [1] > > > his home directory. The name of this file is taken from the value of the > shell variable [2] > > [1]: https://www.gnu.org/software/bash/manual/html_node/The-Restr > icted-Shell.html#The-Restricted-Shell > [2]: https://www.gnu.org/software/bash/manual/html_node/Readline- > Init-File.html#Readline-Init-File > > > Cheers, > Vipul > > -- Oğuz
