Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: On "consensed" [was Request from Manzanita Village in Arizona: How does your community handle members who abuse the community e-mail?

[Elizabeth Magill (pastorlizm]

Holy moly! The goal of language is to communicate. There will always
people holding back from change, but luckily, "correct" language is
determined by looking at what people say, not not the other way
around.

In my community there are many people who are anxious about having
policies, so I always ask us to "consense on this agreement". An
agreement is a thing we are agreeing to follow, do, set boundaries
around.

Consensing is the strategy we use to ask people to buy into
agreements. We have a formal policy with steps to take (which make our
decisions more like "consent" as the sociocracy folk care about.)

And we do it all without worrying if someone said the word the wrong way.
The idea that there is one right way to say things is a piece of how
privilege maintains itself. We can always not listen to the folk who
"don't speak correctly"--even though we know exactly what they mean.

Liz
Mosaic Commons Cohousing in Berlin, MA.

On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 6:28 PM Chuck Harrison <cfharr [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I have found "consense" creeping into usage in our cohousing group over the
> last few years and I have no problem with it.
>
> As used in this community, "to consense on" means "to reach consensus on";
> it is useful jargon in the context of a group using formal consensus
> decisionmaking. (In such a context, "consensus" itself is a jargon word.)
>
> Note that grammatically a *group* will "consense on", while *individuals*
> "consent to".
>
> In local usage I also hear "let's consense on this topic" to mean "let's
> discuss this using the consensus process", without there being a specific
> proposal seeking consensus; this feels clear enough if a bit sloppy to me,
> but I am not prone to agitation about orthology.
>
> Chuck
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 10:36 AM Sharon Villines via Cohousing-L <
> cohousing-l [at] cohousing.org> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 16, 2021, at 11:29 PM, Melanie G <gomelaniego [at] gmail.com> 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > My post was very specifically about the term "consensed on".  Not about
> > > consensus being original to occupy... at ... all.  I personally am not a
> > > fan of such neologisms.  To me they muddy the process of consensus, and
> > the
> > > meanings of words.  It is absolutely not the same to me to "agree to"
> > > something as to give one's consent.
> >
> > I agree. To consent is not to agree but only to consent. Although
> > “consented to” is much less thuddy. Making up words sometimes does add
> > clarity but "consensed on” I don’t find one of them.
> >
> > I belong to a list of copyeditors and writers to whom I regularly query
> > for advice on word usage. I posted my question at 10:56 and immediately
> > started getting responses.
> >
> > My question: In speaking of group decisions, “consensed on” is rapidly
> > taking the lead over “consented to.”  I know in my heart that “consensed
> > on” thuds on the ear, and my spell checker doesn’t accept it, but what is
> > technically wrong with it?
> >
> > > "Thud" seems to me to be too kind. Outside of this group of users
> > (business jargon?), the verb "consense" doesn't exist, and I sincerely hope
> > it doesn't catch on.
> > >
> > > Barf. Ugly and useless back-formation, surely just corporate jargon
> > trying to sound smart.
> > >
> > > ACK, YUCK, PTUI! It will never survive in anything I work on, if I can
> > possibly help it.
> > >
> > > It’s just plain ugly. There’s no need for it. "consented to" or "reached
> > consensus" on are just fine.
> > >
> > > There is no such verb as “consense.” Even visually, it goes against
> > common sense. :)
> > >
> > > I think “on” is the problem. Better to "consense about” or even
> > “consense around.”
> > >
> > > Congeal? Coalesce? Converge? Asymptotically approach?
> > >
> > > The use of consense is clearly not consensual here! :)
> >
> > There will be more — that was just the first 30 minutes on a Sunday
> > morning. I don’t think “consensed” is going to make it onto a copyedited
> > print page anytime soon.
> >
> > Sharon
> > ----
> > Sharon Villines
> > Takoma Village Cohousing, Washington DC
> > http://www.takomavillage.org
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at:
> > http://L.cohousing.org/info
> >
> >
> >
> >
> _________________________________________________________________
> Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at:
> http://L.cohousing.org/info
>
>
>


-- 
-Liz
(The Rev. Dr.) Elizabeth Mae Magill
Pastor, Ashburnham Community Church
Minister to the Affiliates, Ecclesia Ministries
www.elizabethmaemagill.com
508-450-0431