Lore talk:Confessions Of A Khajiit Fur Trader

Book Summary

The previously-standing description of this book was as follows: "A Khajiit Fur Trader writes about his profession". This description was recently changed to "his or her", on the basis of the author's gender being unknown. "His or her" is typically used to avoid language bias when describing hypothetical or abstract people (e.g., "someone", "everyone"), so using it in this context sounds odd, since the author is a specific person whose gender is definite (just not known to the reader). This was then revised to "A Khajiit Fur Trader writes about their profession" (emphasis added), which makes it sound like a single person is writing about a profession shared by multiple people rather than the experiences of one person.

Several American English style manuals discourage the use of plural pronouns for singular antecedents, though there seems to be some disagreement on that particular rule here. One common solution to pronoun difficulties is to reword a sentence so that pronouns aren't necessary; consequently, I would like to propose that the summary of the book be changed to something like the following: "A Khajiit's memoir of the black market fur trade." I feel this is a good compromise between using "his" and "their", as it eliminates the point of contention entirely and provides the same amount of information. Are there any objections? Zul do onikaan^{Laan tinvaak} 16:19, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I think that your proposed solution is fair enough because, like you said, it completely removes the problem. However, I may not be studying English/language arts, but I'm pretty certain that "their" is an acceptable pronoun for situations where gender is unknown, whereas using "his" implies that the gender of the author is male. One of my German professors talked about this a little bit, and if I remember right, "their" is a very English thing because we like to, more or less, be politically correct, unlike other languages which don't really have a word and/or use for "their" and would use (I believe) "his". Of course, don't take my word for it, but that's just my thought on the matter.

Tl;dr solution=good. •WoahBro^►talk 16:34, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

There is no contention, "their" as a replacement for "his or hers" or equivalent is a basic English concept, and has been almost since the conception of the English language (William Shakespeare will attest to this). Anything that says otherwise is misinformed at best, and has no relevance to actual English grammar. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 16:36, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

You and I are, at the time of writing, in disagreement over whether it's technically a grammatical flub to use plural pronouns for single referrents, so it is by definition a point of contention between us - one which I hope to resolve with this discussion. I'm aware that it's common in everyday usage for "their" to be used when referring to single people of unknown gender, but I was always taught (and the aforementioned style manuals agree; I can provide direct examples if desired) that, if you want to be technical about it, pronouns and antecedents should agree in number. It is a very formal rule, yes, but is encyclopedic writing not supposed to be formal in nature?

Regardless, you do bring up a good point: Language use is so subjective that whether or not it's technically correct isn't terribly relevant. My main concern is one of clarity. Until today, the article used the singular pronoun "his", and nobody seems to have taken serious enough issue with it before to get to the point that reverts are getting reverted (on both sides). Now, I have no problem with changing the wording for clarity, but it should still be written in a way that doesn't leave room for multiple interpretations. Since we can't seem to agree on which of our versions should go on the page, the logical solution would be to find a third version that both of us think is appropriate. If you would like to propose such a version, I would be open to discussing it. Zul do onikaan^{Laan tinvaak} 17:02, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreement is irrelevant, if you cannot agree that the English language is not subject to the whims of some obscure university's website and that over 1000 years of usage is completely negatable by a few words on the internet then I question every single edit you've ever made based on grammatical or other related basis. Did you even read my link? Its just one of many that debunk these myths about the language that so many people allow themselves to be fooled into thinking. It is not just common usage, its been used that way for centuries. I've already referenced Shakespeare, now let me refer to the Bible, which also uses it. I don't contest changing it so it doesn't need it, just that your argument against "their" has no relevance to the English language in any form. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 17:15, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

There's no need to get angry or question my competence as an editor, I just wanted to find a version we could both agree on. Since you seem to be okay with it, I'll go ahead and make the change unless anyone else has any concerns. Zul do onikaan^{Laan tinvaak} 17:28, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

What are you insinuating, I am not angry, and I have every reason to call your competence into question if you cannot follow a basic rule of English grammar. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 17:35, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Since book descriptions are not in-game data, I agree that it would be best to come up with a phrase that does not provoke disagreements. I like Thuum's reworded version.  ~Shuryard (talk) 17:39, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

(←) I would just like to point out that 'their' instead of 'his or her' is common in English (read: British) writing but is heavily discouraged now in American writing. I would suggest that we simply use the one without the pronoun in it at all. We do, however, follow American grammar and spelling unless the game uses different (for instance Coldharbour). Jeancey (talk) 17:45, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Discouraged is not the same as incorrect. For one thing the use of 'he' rather than 'they' was the source of some disagreement eventually concluding that the usage of 'he' was in reference to the gender and not its previous non-controversial usage as gender-neutral (Nerevarine and Neloth). The usage of 'they' should not be discouraged simply because of some recent developments that offer no alternative except to go back to a word that is no longer accepted as gender-neutral. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 18:00, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Jeancey describes my reasoning perfectly. Debates about the subjective usage of language aside, we all seem to be in agreement that the version I proposed is acceptable, so I've added it to the page. Zul do onikaan^{Laan tinvaak} 18:25, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Regarding that [sic]...

I made an edit that removed a [sic] near the end of this article. It was rather promptly reverted. I still believe my edit was correct, so I'll make my case here.

Near the end of the text is a sentence that, as written, reads, "I had to employ an alchemist and a master craftsman for a couple odd requests, but I didn't ask questions when the gold piled up." (Emphasis mine.) A [sic] on the bolded "I" suggests that the sentence should properly read, "I had to employ an alchemist and a master craftsman for a couple odd requests, but they didn't ask questions when the gold piled up." (Emphasis again mine.) This significantly changes the meaning of the sentence.

The version with "I" could be paraphrased as, "On a couple occasions clients made such odd requests of me that I had to subcontract some of the work, but since those clients paid very well I did not question their requests." Whether the subcontractors found the Trader's requests of them odd, or whether they might have felt inclined to raise questions, or whether they were paid more than usual for their work, are not mentioned. The sentence is about odd requests from clients who are willing to pay a great deal.

The version with "they" could be paraphrased as, "On a couple occasions I had to make some odd requests of some subcontractors, but I paid them well enough that they did not question my requests." This version does not mention whether it was odd requests by clients that led the Trader to make odd requests of the subcontractors. The sentence is only about dealings with subcontractors.

While both the "I" and "they" versions work as English sentences, the latter version is only valid for the context of this book if it is presupposed. The sentence only works with "they" if you take it to mean something other than what the author wrote. Without strong evidence that the author made an error, it must not be changed.

So could the author have made an error? There are a couple ways this could be the case, but neither is likely:

One way would be that the Bethesda writer intentionally wrote the sentence as an unintentional error by the in-game author, the Fur Trader. This device has been used in other books, such as Alduin is Real, and He Ent Akatosh, but usually to show that the in-game author is a sub-standard writer. As the rest of the Fur Trader's writing is fairly highly articulate, this is unlikely to be the case.

The other way would be that the Bethesda writer him- or herself made an error in the sentence. While this is possible, there is no evidence to support it, and so even on that basis the sentence should be left as the author wrote it. However, I said this possibility was not just unknown, but unlikely. There is, in fact, evidence against it. In the source code for this article are a couple switches that take effect in this wiki's Elder Scrolls Online namespace. (One changes the phrase "less traveled roads" to the hyphenated "less-traveled roads" and the other involves a subtle change to the author's signature.) If these switches are correct (I can't verify -- I don't have ESO), then it indicates that Bethesda reviewed and revised this text since its publication in Dawnguard and left that "I" intact.

There should not be a [sic] on that "I". Thank you for reading all that.

99.36.122.114 18:36, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I re-read the book bearing in mind that the author is a person who sold his (her?) brother's "skin", and it feels like the book is all about "I", not "them". I think you are right and the sic should not be there.  ~Shuryard (talk) 19:14, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I disagree. The sic does indeed change the author's meaning, but the original meaning is illogical in that context. The alchemist and craftsman would be the ones asking questions, since the trader is fully aware of what he is selling, no matter how odd the specific requests are. The ESO revision is definitely a strong argument, but really I think we have no other choice than to assume that the original version and the revised edition are incorrect. Perhaps labelling it a "misspelling" is inaccurate, but that can be changed. —Legoless (talk) 19:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Judging by the tone of the book, why would the Trader even care if the subcontractors asked questions? Why would that be even worth mentioning in this confession? It seems that the Trader learned "standard" for each race preferences, including "completely skinned and tanned", "thick, waterproof leather of the Argonians", "tails and ears". But some of the requests were so out of it, that the Trader did not even bother to ask questions.  ~Shuryard (talk) 19:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

When I first read the sentence, I thought "they" was the more appropriate term, though it could go either way. On reading the entire book, however, I'm inclined to agree with the IP and Shuryard's reasoning. While the author does mention working with other people, it's really a fairly self-centered book. Adding in the meaning I understand, it becomes "I didn't ask questions when the gold piled up (maybe I should have) and now I'm in prison". I don't entirely disagree with "they", but like the IP says, unless we have strong evidence that that's what was intended, I don't think we should assume that.

On the flip side, I do disagree with the IP's last bit of reasoning. We've seen multiple corrections made to books between Morrowind, Oblivion, Skyrim, and ESO. They don't always catch all the mistakes from one version to the next. – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 20:06, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Wow, I am quickly falling behind trying to reply to this.
I disagree with Legoless that the original meaning is illogical. I take it to mean that the Trader, already fully aware of how odd his/her own trade was, suspected that the clients intended even further oddities for their purchased wares. As for the alchemist and craftsman, perhaps they were indeed suspicious of the requests they received and were shut up with money, or perhaps the Trader was skillful enough to disguise the requests to them as something innocent, but it doesn't matter since the original does not mention their reactions -- only that they did the work. I will grant that the sentence reads more smoothly with "they", but "This sentence could be better" is hardly reason to change an author's meaning.
To Robin's point on Bethesda's review, that fact probably is, indeed, less significant than I first thought (there's still an instance of mixed present and past tense earlier in the text). Even if the review is disregarded, however, that can only move the possibility of a Bethesda error to neutral, at most, based on what is known here. And, again, that is not sufficient reason to label this writing as an error.
99.36.122.114 20:28, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Also I'd like to clarify that I wasn't basing my original argument on which meaning felt more correct. I meant to point out that both versions of the sentence have valid English meanings but that only one of them is what the author actually wrote.
99.36.122.114 23:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Any further input? If there's nothing more over the weekend I'm going to take that [sic] out.
99.36.122.114 03:36, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd agree with removing it. While I first interpreted it as a sic as well, I can see the argument that the original sentence was what the author intended to write. As such, it's too sketchy to suggest that this is a sic and it should be removed from the article. Forfeit (talk) 03:55, 11 July 2015 (UTC)