I have been wondering why "it" can't be used. He considered himself a tool anyway
I have been wondering why "it" can't be used. He considered himself a tool anyway
I assume you mean in the past, since if Narita uses "he/him" in the present that should just be kept as is.Originally Posted by jennajayfeather
Narita uses 彼, which defaults to he/him but isn't gendered by definition. 彼->them is a perfectly valid translation in the contexts of Enkidu and Berserker Jack.
That's a japanese concept, I assume you mean it usually means him, but doesn't always have to by definition. While "they" is also correct, "him" seems a better option to me because it's much more pleasant to read if both apply. Using "they" to refer to a single person is always better avoided if at all possible IMO, since it's almost always used for plurals.
Not really? Enkidu is genderless, so why should a male pronoun be used? "They" is perfectly fine in the singular form and has been in use for about 500 years, so I don't get where this "more pleasant to read" comes from, since it clashes with the explicit depiction of Enkidu.
Because it’s a justifiable translation. Enkidu seems to identify as either a male or a tool, so even it would be more appropriate.
Yes, in cases where the person is unknown (Somebody forgot their bag, can you return it to them).
Because Them/They as singular is pretty much not used for a character. It comes across as both extremely weird and unnatural. It can be used for Enkidu before he gained reason (like “it”) though.
A genderless person is not justification for him/her, unless you've decided English rules and common sense are now complete nonsense. You must have missed people using they/them for those who are gender neutral nowadays I guess. It's fine for Enkidu throughout SF like Comun says, no need to nitpick it for fitting your imagination.
Enkidu isn’t a person, he’s a lump of clay. So “it” would be most appropriate looking at it that way. If you go by how he identifies, it’s either man (like it was in the myth) or tool.
Nope. But name one popular novel where that’s used, or even the actual science to back that up (which is Biology BTW, I don’t care about either the opinions or the feelings of people when it comes to describing reality, neither qualify as scientific evidence. Also note that Enkidu isn’t intersex, he’s a lump of clay. And intersex people are usually a variation of male or female anyway.)
It has nothing to do with imagination. It’s technically possible like the other options, it just seems like the inferior option to me.
So they're a tool then. Doesn't really break anything.
Idiocy and denial doesn't change the point. When you have more than feelings, there might be a point to this, since right now it's whinging.
Using a male pronoun for someone with no gender is the inferior option, unless messing with grammar is somehow something to be praised.
Why is biology the relevant science to a linguistics discussion?
It's just an excuse, since you can't back up feelings with logic.
Manners are cheap, you know. You’re seem unreasonably upset by a difference of opinion over a minor detail.
Tools are refered to by “it”, not they.
Exactly my rebuttal to you, since you refuse to use facts or even look at the definitions of what you discuss. Your entire argument seems to be “some people have recently decided to use this pronoun”, regardless of whether it makes logical sense to apply it here, if at all.
Not if he identifies as such. But even going by your reasoning, “it” is the correct option, not” they” since Enkidu isn’t a person by definition.
Now I have something else to do, come back if you have any actual facts to back up your reasoning. Or not, it’s not up to us anyway, and OSoS should just pick whatever he thinks is best, regardless of what we think.
Because “they” as singular is only recently being used by people who consider themselves non-binary. It is not widely accepted as correct english at all (linguistics). In fact, the very existence of agender has no basis in observed reality or any scientific proof to back it up at all (Biology). I wanted to stop the “gender” discussion before it starts, because this isn’t the place for it and social science inability to prove such claims renders such a discussion meaningless anyway. However, Biology can provide evidence for its claims. That's why it can be discussed in a meaningful way.
Last edited by RCM9698; August 16th, 2020 at 08:53 AM.
I don't know why you're getting so bent over getting corrected, but the singular form of they has been in use since the 14th century, and while it's gotten traction in the past few years, it's not exactly some alien term.
http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/200700
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they#cite_note-3
So this is just idiocy and denial, like I stated. You have nothing other than whinging that he/him sounds pleasing. When you have actual logic get back, otherwise don't bother posting nonsense please.
To weigh in on this briefly: I feel that "it" is completely unsupported by the text, as all pronouns used by the narrator in any context are personal pronouns. The only case where "it" could be justified is for Ishtar's "アイツ," which is normally personal but can be used for inanimate objects.
My Japanese dictionaries list gender-neutral "彼" as an outdated usage (before an effort was made to adopt gendered third-person pronouns in the early-20th century). That doesn't necessarily negate "they" as a valid translation, but it does complicate the question.
The specific singular "they" is a well-documented English usage of relatively recent origin and is now accepted by most standard style guides. (The use of "they" to refer to an unknown single person is of course much older.) It was accepted style to use he/him/his for unspecified persons for a long time, but this usage has slowly fallen out of favor in a lot of places in the past few decades (similar to how "man" is more specifically masculine in most contemporary forms of English than in any earlier period).
Either way, I'm not going to change anything in my translation until I've finished the chapter and had a chance to reread some earlier sections and make some notes.
That's fine. I'm just the rando commenting while you actually TL SF.
When 'it' is used for tools, it is usually under the assumption that they aren't alive or sentient and therefore have no thoughts or feelings of their own
so, y'know
As already said multiple times, only for unknowns. Even your own link doesn’t provide an example older than 2009 for the agender use we’re discussing. It’s not the universially accepted use either.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dic...y/english/they
So once again you fail to check your own arguments, and have no facts or logic to back up what you say.
Pretty much my point, “they” as singular is a recent addition and not universally accepted.
That’s good, as already said you should just pick whatever you think is best, it’s your TL.
True, because there are no such tool IRL. When you encounter an advanced AI or artificial life form in fiction, I have only seen he/she or it used, never “they” though.
While this is true, context and nuance might change things. Like say, an abnormal who self-deprecates could label themselves 'it' instead of he/she. Not saying Enkidu does this, but his interludes in FGO suggests he lacks self-esteem and individuality. It wouldn't surprise me if he did, but based on TLs, Enkidu just seems to not care what people call him.
It's been recognized by Merriam-Webster and the American Dialect Society in recent times, so I don't see the point in debating universal acceptance. Accusing me of just going by feelings is rich when you decide that English rules and usage stopped existing or evolving and that "they" can only work for plurals, even to the point of debating it with Biology (as if that matters to one's gender). This isn't logic, it's idiocy that you pretend is logic because he/him sounds better.
Because those are the only ones that exist, right? And you don’t see the point of using an universally accepted option over one that’s not? That says it all.
No, unlike you I actually do follow them.
Wrong again, it is also accepted for unknowns, as I have already stated multiple times.
I see that part flew over your head too. The point is that there’s no point debating gender in the first place, as it is an concept from social science without any basis in actual ( or "hard") science. It’s about people’s feelings, which makes discussing it meaningless since no actual scientific evidence is involved. The closest you can come is discussing the difference between brains.
While I do think he him sounds better, unlike you I actually back my reasoning up with facts and definitions. All you have is “I feel this is better”. So “this isn’t logic, it’s idiocy” does a great job at describing your attempt at an argument.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
