Gender neutral third person pronoun

[TheStatutoryApe]

And then, as now, it is a grammatical error.

Lol... are you the sort of person that will tell people they are misspelling slang words too? Grammar is supposed to reflect use. Langauge is organic, it's not a science.

 

[vociferous]

Lol... are you the sort of person that will tell people they are misspelling slang words too? Grammar is supposed to reflect use. Langauge is organic, it's not a science.

Languages have very specific rules that you are supposed to follow, at least, all the languages I have studied. Langauge does change, and it is certainly possible that grammar could change, but the specific usage you have referred to is still a plurality error, and it has been for centuries. It is also something that publishers will look at. If you do not, or cannot use the basic rules of English grammar, you work may be rejected out of hand.

 

[D H]

And then, as now, it is a grammatical error.

Maybe in the minds of pedants who can only criticize how others abuse language. Singular they, particularly generic they and epicene they, are widely accepted as correct grammar.

Singular they is http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/austheir.html#X1a", Geoffrey Chaucer, Edmund Spenser, William Shakespeare, the King James Bible, The Spectator, Jonathan Swift, Daniel Defoe, Frances Sheridan, Oliver Goldsmith, Henry Fielding, Maria Edgeworth, Percy Shelley, Lord Byron, William Makepeace Thackeray, Sir Walter Scott, George Eliot [Mary Anne Evans], Charles Dickens, Mrs. Gaskell, Anthony Trollope, John Ruskin, Robert Louis Stevenson, Walt Whitman, George Bernard Shaw, Lewis Carroll, Oscar Wilde, Rudyard Kipling, H. G. Wells, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Edith Wharton, W. H. Auden, Lord Dunsany, George Orwell, and C. S. Lewis.

Singular they is acceptable according to http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/they" :

usage They, their, them, themselves: English lacks a common-gender third person singular pronoun that can be used to refer to indefinite pronouns (as everyone, anyone, someone). Writers and speakers have supplied this lack by using the plural pronouns <and every one to rest themselves betake — Shakespeare> <I would have everybody marry if they can do it properly — Jane Austen> <it is too hideous for anyone in their senses to buy — W. H. Auden>. The plural pronouns have also been put to use as pronouns of indefinite number to refer to singular nouns that stand for many persons <'tis meet that some more audience than a mother, since nature makes them partial, should o'erhear the speech — Shakespeare> <a person can't help their birth — W. M. Thackeray> <no man goes to battle to be killed. — But they do get killed — G. B. Shaw>. The use of they, their, them, and themselves as pronouns of indefinite gender and indefinite number is well established in speech and writing, even in literary and formal contexts. This gives you the option of using the plural pronouns where you think they sound best, and of using the singular pronouns (as he, she, he or she, and their inflected forms) where you think they sound best.​

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Languages have very specific rules that you are supposed to follow, at least, all the languages I have studied.

In the Politics & World Affairs section there is a thread entitled "Speculation mounting of an attack on Iran". It is locked, so I cannot use the referencing quote feature on it. On page 5, message #80 of that thread is a post of yours which I quote in part.

If Israel had the ability to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities with a single air strike, they probably would have taken it already.

There are rules to languages. In English you can't say "Up the ball over my bat with throw". But the kind of rules you are talking about are not linguistic at all, they are merely tools in the hands of autocrats that use a particular dialect to exclude people who use a different one. It has been said that a language is a dialect with an army.

 

[Chi Meson]

It has been said that a language is a dialect with an army.

I like that one! Whoever it was that said it first, they have my respect!

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I like that one! Whoever it was that said it first, they have my respect!

It was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_language_is_a_dialect_with_an_army_and_navy" , whoever he is. Apparently, he was quoting someone else, but no one seems to know who.

 

[LowlyPion]

Our library has a set of lectures on audio CD, "The Story of Human Language" by John McWhorter from the Teaching Company.

I caught this series "The Adventure of English" on BBC America I think some time back and found it quite interesting certainly as regards the waves of vocabulary incorporations through the various influences of history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Adventure_of_English

 

[cristo]

Good point. I used to speak French fluently but I totally forgot about that.

Hold on.. you used to speak fluent French, but now you forget the fact that nouns have a gender in French?

 

[ehrenfest]

Hold on.. you used to speak fluent French, but now you forget the fact that nouns have a gender in French?

No. I meant I didn't make the connection between that and what I wrote about in my opening post at first.

 

[WarPhalange]

My personal preference is to use s/he. Of course, that doesn't help if I then need to refer to s/he as her or him.

Hmer.

 

[D H]

Hmer.

Hrrmph.

 

[rewebster]

My personal preference is to use s/he.

I use 'it'.

and then, there's always the possibility of combining the two.

 

[Moonbear]

You should look into a book on the history of language or something of the like. I have been planning on reading something like that myself, if I ever get the time. I think you'd find it to be an interesting read.

Just look at the usage of English in Britain vs. the United States and you'll get some sense of how quickly language can evolve. For that matter, look at the different usages of the language in regions of the U.S. In the Northeast, if someone is referring to the second person plural, it's "you." In the South, it's "y'all."

and then, there's always the possibility of combining the two.

 

[OAQfirst]

Today, we adopt a language that has been carefully constructed to avoid offensive slight, completely void of sexism, racism, etc.

Tomorrow, the language changes senses, meanings, idioms, words to accommodate the underlying prejudices/attitudes -- and so becoming the same base language we spoke before.

Do whatever you want to make a perfect language. But without a change in attitudes, people will just revert/mutate their language to accommodate their unchanged attitudes. You've got to look at the underlying issues and change those problems before the surface issue (our language) can reflect a healthier, more respectful language.

Sexism in our language has nothing to do with the words. Our language is perfectly equipped to suit those who want to avoid offending others. It's not the language that's the problem. Change the language, the sexism remains. And those people will find new ways to express it.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

In the Northeast, if someone is referring to the second person plural, it's "you." In the South, it's "y'all."

Here in the People's Republic it's 'youse'.

 

[Chi Meson]

It was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_language_is_a_dialect_with_an_army_and_navy" , whoever he is. Apparently, he was quoting someone else, but no one seems to know who.

"But no one seems to know of whom." Come on, wilst thou please speak as intended by language its creator?

 

[rewebster]

Here in the People's Republic it's 'youse'.

The singular form is, of course, 'ya'--


---as in, 'Get youse you ya's out'

 

[LowlyPion]

Langauge seems to me to evolve in a more Darwinian way through usage - that in some cases may be a reaction to previously considered proper usage even - or in the case of y'all or youse expresses some subgroup or regional identity in addition to it's literal meaning.

Perhaps Spivak would be succumbing to hubris in thinking to get in front of such a parade with his own form of Intelligent Design?

 

[LowlyPion]

On the bright side at least Spivak might expect that Louisiana will permit the teaching of his pronouns though.

 

[vociferous]

In the Politics & World Affairs section there is a thread entitled "Speculation mounting of an attack on Iran". It is locked, so I cannot use the referencing quote feature on it. On page 5, message #80 of that thread is a post of yours which I quote in part.



There are rules to languages. In English you can't say "Up the ball over my bat with throw". But the kind of rules you are talking about are not linguistic at all, they are merely tools in the hands of autocrats that use a particular dialect to exclude people who use a different one. It has been said that a language is a dialect with an army.

I think this would qualify as a "tu quoque logical fallacy. I believe that I was probably making a grammatical error, although not the specific one you mention. I was probably thinking "they" as in, "the leaders of Israel" and thus creating a pronoun without a proper antecedent.

I am not an expert on English grammar, but I do believe this was wrong in any case. There is some question as to how strictly one must adhere to the rules. Charles Dickens began his most famous book with a paragraph long run-on sentence, but, he was a well-respected author by that time.

There is no question that the level of grammatical correctness in published works has been declining precipitously. Just look at the average daily newspaper and compare it to one written 50 or 75 years ago. Publishers are certainly more tolerant of those who do not adhere to strict grammatical rules.

 

[DaveC426913]

We could also use a second person pronoun that distinguishes singular from plural. You is ambiguous. Youze or y'all sound trashy.

 

[out of whack]

We could also use a second person pronoun that distinguishes singular from plural. You is ambiguous. Youze or y'all sound trashy.

Good catch! Also, a plural form for "it", a third person plural for non-persons. And for completeness, distinct plurals for "he" and "she", the third person plural forms for male and female genders. So what do we have now?

I
You
It, He, She, Ey
We
Yall
Ti, Hey, Shey, They

Yesss!

 

[D H]

So what do we have now?

I
You
It, He, She, Ey
We
Yall
Ti, Hey, Shey, They

Shey-it! All of y'all are crazy.

 

[LowlyPion]

All of y'all are crazy.

That's redundant.

 

[D H]

No, it is not. A real southerner knows the distinction between y'all and all of y'all. Y'all is you plural. It might mean just a few people in a crowded room. All of y'all (or all y'all, for short) means everyone in the room.

Think of it this way: all of y'all means exactly the same thing as the Spanish phrase todos ustedes.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I think this would qualify as a "tu quoque logical fallacy.

And unashamedly so. But your position had already been demolished by correct arguments. What is the name of the fallacy that says "No matter how bad my argument is, the fact that you used a fallacious argument gives it a luster it would not otherwise have."

 

[vanesch]

I use 'it'.

In Germanic languages with a neutral gender, a neutral pronoun is never used to refer to persons, unless you really want to formulate an insult, because the neutral gender usually refers to objects, and to diminutives. In fact there is even something strange about it, because the German and the Dutch for "girl" is "das Maedchen", or "het meisje", both neutral. However, the pronoun that refers to it is feminine: sie or ze. You never refer to a person as "es/das" or "het", unless you really want to formulate an insult.

In French, if you want to be gender-neutral, you can use "la personne", and then the pronoun that goes with it is necessarily feminine: "elle", while it is understood that it can be a male or female person, and it doesn't even pose a problem if you know the gender. I think in English, "the person" is referred to by he or she according to a gender choice, no ?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I think in English, "the person" is referred to by he or she according to a gender choice, no ?

Very often when 'choice' is a part of the determination people have a tendency to use 'it' to refer to said person.

 

[DaveC426913]

Today, we adopt a language that has been carefully constructed to avoid offensive slight, completely void of sexism, racism, etc.

Tomorrow, the language changes senses, meanings, idioms, words to accommodate the underlying prejudices/attitudes -- and so becoming the same base language we spoke before.

Do whatever you want to make a perfect language. But without a change in attitudes, people will just revert/mutate their language to accommodate their unchanged attitudes. You've got to look at the underlying issues and change those problems before the surface issue (our language) can reflect a healthier, more respectful language.

Sexism in our language has nothing to do with the words. Our language is perfectly equipped to suit those who want to avoid offending others. It's not the language that's the problem. Change the language, the sexism remains. And those people will find new ways to express it.

We're not trying to force language use, we are identifying that we have a need for a gender-neutral 3rd person pronoun and we don't currently have one.

 

[rewebster]

We're not trying to force language use, we are identifying that we have a need for a gender-neutral 3rd person pronoun and we don't currently have one.

That is a problem for those that see it as a problem for them.

 

[DaveC426913]

That is a problem for those that see it as a problem for them.

I think that goes without saying. It doesn't require unanimous buy-in.

 

[OAQfirst]

We're not trying to force language use, we are identifying that we have a need for a gender-neutral 3rd person pronoun and we don't currently have one.

I sorry, I don't see where you get "force" out of my post. I did use some exaggeration but only for illustration.

 

[DaveC426913]

I sorry, I don't see where you get "force" out of my post. I did use some exaggeration but only for illustration.

"Today, we adopt a language that has been carefully constructed to avoid offensive slight, completely void of sexism, racism, etc. Tomorrow, the language changes senses, meanings, idioms, words to accommodate the underlying prejudices/attitudes -- and so becoming the same base language we spoke before. Do whatever you want to make a perfect language."

This passage led me to believe that you were suggesting that we thought (erroneously) that a change in language would bring about a change in behaviour, while you were argung that the change in behaviour had to come first.

I was pointing out that our behaviour has changed, thus bringing about the need for a new word.

 

[OAQfirst]

Ah, okay. My perspective does differ, though. I don't see the change in behavior as you say. At least not enough to bring about a change in the majority of our population.

But still, there is no "force" intended. Offer a new word to fill the gap, but I doubt sufficient willingness in the majority to accept it. Which is why I was pointing to attitude first. Pursue a change there, and the majority should be more willing to accept that change in language.

 

[Dale]

English has a perfectly good third-person singular neuter pronoun: "it". Anyone who claims that "it" cannot refer to a person obviously led a sheltered childhood devoid of games like "hide and seek" or "tag". My deepest condolences to you.

(Sorry if this point has already been made)