APG-L Archives

Archiver > APG > 2001-04 > 0987875938


From: "Mills" <>
Subject: Fw: [APG] PC Genealogy
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 13:05:58 -0500



>>She grew weary of the topic, and wondered if They had nothing better
>>to do....He was saying, She was saying, it was all She could do to stay
>> awake.....!
> Bravo! I do think there are some candidates here for the next
Bulwar-Lytton
> bad writing contest.

Gee, I feel like a medieval monk, debating how many angels can dance on the
head of a pin <g>. But may I have just one more dance?

If our writings are only "research reports" or if they dwell entirely in the
ancestral or historical realm, then the s/he problem may seldom be
encountered and may have little consequence to us. But many professional
genealogists write for a larger audience on "professional" issues (*real*
issues, not just pinhead matters <vbg>). In this regard, we can undermine
our own efforts by disregarding the viewpoints of others.

For example, many years ago, when "s/he" was just emerging as an issue, I
was asked to write an article on genealogical standards for a national-level
learned-society publication in another field. I was ecstatic. Ego aside, it
was a wonderful opportunity for genealogy to have a "voice" in a realm that
more often denigrates our field.

I labored mightily on the piece and was proud of it. When it was published,
I received more than a few barbed letters from readers in that sister
discipline -- all protesting my use of the generic "he." (The editor,
being male, had not excised it <g>.)

I learned a lesson. My real message -- the issues that are dear to *me and
the field for which I tried to speak* -- were lost on all those who were
offended by the way I handled an issue that was dear to *them.*

The same principle applies to the issue of whether "their" agrees in number
with "he" and "she." As Brian pointed out, among "experts" in word usage,
there may be a 50-50 split over whether this careless verbal usage is
appropriate for formal writing. To me, as a professional writer and editor,
those odds aren't good enough. Am I willing to risk offending the 50% of my
readers who think that usage is still wrong. Rewriting a sentence is a lot
simpler.

It all boils down to the old saying, "Pick your battles." As professional
genealogists who write for publication in many forums, if we want people to
be receptive to our views and concerns, we should make an effort not to
needlessly offend them on points that aren't intrinsic to the real ones we
want to make.

----------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Shown Mills, CG, CGL, FASG
Editor, National Genealogical Society Quarterly



This thread: