Talk:Pronoun game
| WikiProject LGBT studies | (Rated Stub-class) | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||||||||
|
|||||
Contents |
[edit] Chasing Amy
Why is Chasing Amy put at the bottom as a see also link? Seems like advertising to me, although I didn't see the movie. Does it relate?72.78.20.31 (talk) 10:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Hiding a controlling girlfriend
(e.g. "We decided to eat out," rather than "She decided that we would eat out."), seems to change more than pronouns! It seems to change also who made the decision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.31.146.218 (talk) 23:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- Which might be part of the speaker's intention. But then, I can imagine either expression being used when what is actually meant is "She proposed that we eat out, and I accepted". -- Smjg (talk) 11:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- "She decided that we would eat out" could be replaced with the phrase Smjg suggested, or with any number of similar phrases which don't change the meaning as much as the current rephrasing does: "We discussed our dinner plans, and she said she wanted to eat out, so we did," for example. For the sake of illustrating the point of the article, though, it might be best to change it so that it says, "(e.g. "We decided to eat out," rather than "She and I decided to eat out.")" Unless anyone objects, I'm going to make this change. Feel free to roll back if you have a better suggestion. I also corrected "circumlocution" to "amphilogism," which is apparently correct, at least as described in the target article. Please feel free to change if you know this is incorrect. Zminer (talk) 18:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
[edit] Singular they?
This seems to me to constitute drawing attention. Normally you would know your partner's gender, and so referring to him/her as "they" would show as an attempt to conceal. -- Smjg (talk) 11:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
[edit] Lying?
The last edit changed "deception without lying" to "lying by omission".
What constitutes lying by omission is a matter of debate. AISI, if you talk about your partner, lover or SO and there happens to be no gender-specific expression in there, you're not telling anybody anything about the person's gender or your orientation. Surely gays have as much right as straights to talk about such people without revealing which they are?
Moreover, the linked-to section gives as part of the meaning "deliberately leaving another person with a misconception", which contradicts the view that the intent may be not to deceive, but to avoid embarrassment or persecution.
You could argue over whether "deception" has the same implication of intent. Maybe "economy with the truth" or "incomplete truth" is the nearest we can get to a neutral expression.... -- Smjg (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
