Reminding Starbucks that Beautiful Code Should Make Beautiful Language
1–10 of 44 posts
Re: Reminding Starbucks that Beautiful Code Should Make Beautiful Language
#2"Matt Hofstadt wanted to make your day so Matt sent you..." is uglier and less pleasant to read than the version with "they've". I don't see any argument in the article for what's actually wrong with using "they" - sure, it violates one of English's alleged rules, but the author acknowledges that those rules don't actually matter.
(Personally I think women should insist on being called "he" - "she" is a grammatical diminutive which implies inferiority - but given that they haven't, singular they is the best approach available).
Re: Reminding Starbucks that Beautiful Code Should Make Beautiful Language
#3"Matt Hofstadt wanted to make your day so Matt sent you..." is uglier and less pleasant to read than the version with "they've". I don't see any argument in the article for what's actually wrong with using "they" - sure, it violates one of English's alleged rules, but the author acknowledges that those rules don't actually matter. (Personally I think women should insist on being called "he" - "she" is a grammatical d…
I'm not sure one person not representing more than one person is a rule of English. I think that might be more along the lines of physics.
Re: Reminding Starbucks that Beautiful Code Should Make Beautiful Language
#4As a grammar nerd, I call bullshit. "They" as gender-neutral singular pronoun has been part of the English language for centuries, and it's only in the last hundred years or so (give or take a bit, I don't have time to look it up right now) that prescriptivists have started freaking out about it. Yeah, it's a little awkward, but modern English NEEDS a gender-neutral singular pronoun, and "they" is the best we have.
It was good enough for Shakespeare, and it's good enough for me.
Re: Reminding Starbucks that Beautiful Code Should Make Beautiful Language
#5You could have called Starbucks out for things a lot worse than using a singular 'they'.
Re: Reminding Starbucks that Beautiful Code Should Make Beautiful Language
#6I dislike the premise of this article.
All the alternatives have worse disadvantages:
- repeating the name "Matt" is awkward
- gender is an awkward requirement for sending a giftcard
- assuming someone is male unless they are known to be female is awkward
- "he/she" is awkward
And, crucially:
- singular they is widely used and understood and has significant historical precedent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they
Re: Reminding Starbucks that Beautiful Code Should Make Beautiful Language
#7Asking for a gender on a signup form with binary choice is a good way to end up at the center of a protest from the perpetually aggrieved. Repeating the sender's name in consecutive clauses is clunky and jarring. It would be much easier to just reconstruct the sentence slightly:
"Matt Hofstadt wanted to make your day by sending you..."
Re: Reminding Starbucks that Beautiful Code Should Make Beautiful Language
#8This would require either a whole new field on the checkout form (gender) or some incomplete database lookup for gender-name mappings; neither is a good option. Using 'they' is pretty common practice to refer to someone gender neutrally.
Re: Reminding Starbucks that Beautiful Code Should Make Beautiful Language
#9I don't understand the outrage over singular "they". I agree that it's not particularly logical, but what part of the English language is?? It sounds natural, at least. It's certainly widely used, and will likely become a "correct" form within a few decades.
The OP suggests guessing gender from names. There are too many unusual cases and gender-neutral names to be able to guess gender from a name alone. Even ignoring non-english-speaking world, I know several guys named "Kelly" and "Kim" and I have a female cousin named "James" (she goes by "Jill", though).
Adding a gender field is often not feasible and a bad idea for other reasons (gender identity, etc). It's far better to sidestep the issue with commonly-used-but-not-quite-formally-correct grammar, i.m.o.
Re: Reminding Starbucks that Beautiful Code Should Make Beautiful Language
#10I dislike the premise of this article. All the alternatives have worse disadvantages: - repeating the name "Matt" is awkward - gender is an awkward requirement for sending a giftcard - assuming someone is male unless they are known to be female is awkward - "he/she" is awkward And, crucially: - singular they is widely used and understood and has significant historical precedent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_…
+1. This article is rubbish. Singular "they" is fine.