Does (American) English have a gender-neutral pronoun?

[ChairOne]

I can guess what 90%+ of the responses will be, but I just want to see them in actuality... Unfortunately, I'll be of the minority opinion....

EDIT: So much for my prescience - LOL

[kiraboo]

1. I use "one" if possible. I don't know of another word in common usage.

[cheezus]

6. One can voice their opinion and remain genderless.

there's also "they", which is different than "They" (you know, "Them")

[rbnyc]

22. one can voice one's opinion... (nt)

[immoderate]

170. One cannot voice their opinion with only one tongue.

--IMM

[DireStrike]

7. Hrm... is that technically a pronoun?

I thought it had to be a direct stand-in. "One" is kind of generic, like "someone."

[ChairOne]

13. "One" is close, but not quite sufficient...

... you can't use it anaphorically.

Example:

Billy went to the store. Then he died.

Gloss: "he" is used anaphorically, ie, referring to whoever "Billy" refers. The point is that "he" is *bound* to "Billy".

By contrast (different example to make the grammar smooth):

One might think that gdub sucks. One might like pumpkin pie.

Gloss: even if it be granted that "one" refers to anyone, there's absolutely no reason to think that the two "one"'s refer to the SAME person.

It's essential to being a pronoun that the use exemplified by the first example be available.

[DireStrike]

2. Is this an issue of opinion?

I thought it was one of fact... oh well.

I know of no gender-neutral pronoun in english.

[ChairOne]

21. I'm ok with it being an issue of fact.....

... but it's still arguable... many matters of fact do get argued about, after all.....

[GiovanniC]

45. One Walks Into a Bar and the Bartender Asks, "What's Your Poison?"

"I would like a scotch, neat," one replied.

"Hey!" piped up one patron. "I will have what one is having."

[ChairOne]

54. As your example shows....

... even getting ignoring the possibly ungrammatical usage of your 2nd "one", there's no guarantee that the 2 "one"'s are the same person.

Maybe *context* leans one to suppose they are, but the function of pronouns (anaphora more generally) is logical-structural - pronouns guarantee the same referent as the "real" noun on which the pronoun is based.

Bob went to the store, and then he died.

The context here is irrelevant - it's a matter of structure that "he" refers to whatever "Bob" refers to.

That's the difference between "true pronouns", and "one". Like someone else said, "one" is more like "someone". If you use "someone" several times in a sentence, it's clear that there's no reason to believe that they are referring to the SAME someone.

[GiovanniC]

56. I Was Attempting to Prove Your Point While Also Pointing Out

That it sounds ridiculous.

[ChairOne]

59. ooooooooo - gotcha - lol - my bad /eom

[GiovanniC]

77. Just Edited To Make It Even More Absurd

n/t

[ChairOne]

79. Bam - "one" cannot be used anaphorically... /eom

[lapislzi]

92. Another problem with "deliberately" gender-neutral construction

as illustrated by Giovanni's hilarious example above, it that it undercuts your neutrality by drawing attention to it. An invented word would have the same problem, at least until the usage became standardized.

[Worst Username Ever]

3. There are two schools of thought

One sit that "one" is the gender neutral. As in, "What does one do."

The other is not PC, but generally the gender-neutral is the masculine pronoun. Similar to how it is in most european languages, when referring to a non-specific individual, the english language uses "he."

[ChairOne]

23. "One" doesn't work....

Doesn't function anaphorically.

I am in fact on what you termed the non-PC side... this thread turns out to have gone very differently than I thought it would - kewl!

[K-W]

145. There are more than two schools of thought.

And nobody thinks that One is the answer. One is simply not grammatically correct to serve such a purpose. We could start using one in that role until it sounded right, but nobody is really doing that now.

The schools of thought are:
Always using He.
Always using She.
Alternating he and she in all cases where the gender is non-specific.

[DrWeird]

4. Are gender pronouns a problem?

I wonder how people who have problems with gender specific pronouns would deal with a language such as German, which has gender specific pronouns for inanimate sex-less objects.

[undergroundpanther]

8. When you are androgynous

It's a problem

I hate being called a she or he,
Cause I'm ME!

[eShirl]

16. gender-specific pronouns for inanimate objects?

you mean they have a masculine "it" and a feminine "it" ?

[DrWeird]

31. He or she or it, for any given object.

Mark Twain wrote a funny story about it when he toured Germany. He was down at the docks when he was a woman catch on fire. She pointed to various parts on of her anatomy and screaming that it was on fire. She'd point to her elbow and yell "she is on fire" then point to her chin and yell "he is on fire!" and so on and so forth.*

* I don't actually know which pronouns go for which parts of the anatomy, this is just an example.

[jdj]

163. only Mark Twain could find the humor in that.

I use they. I know it's not correct gramatically, but since as a culture we are moving toward accepting the humanity of both genders, i think they is appropriate.

[UncleSepp]

32. More like using "he" and "she" where English uses "it"

"er" = he, "der" = the for a masculine noun
"sie" = she, "die" = the for a feminine noun
"es" = it, "das" = the for a neutral noun

"man" = one, not the counting number but the pronoun
ex. "Man tut das nicht!" = "One does not do that!"

The noun for an animate or inanimate object can be masculine, feminine, or neutral. The gender of the noun corresponds in the case of some, but not all, animate objects. As you would expect, the word for woman is feminine, for man is masculine, but the word for child, is neutral (das Kind) whether the child in question is a boy or a girl.

If you look at German classified ads for jobs, you'll see ads for something like Schauspieler/in, which in English would be something like "Actor/ess" and indicates that the posting is for either a male or female actor. You might also see Schauspieler(m/w) which would be Actor (m/f).

Old Church Slavonic had something like six genders. Russian still has more than one form for feminine nouns. :-)

[Igel]

156. No, OCS had the canonical 3, masc./fem./neut.

But they had more declension classes. More than six ... o- and jo-stems (masc. or neut.), a- and ja-stems (which could be masc. or fem.), C-stems (masc. or neut.), nt-stems (all neuter, I think), i-stems (mostly fem.), long i-stems (mostly fem.), long u-stems (all fem.), u-stems (masc.) ... yikes, haven't had to think of this for many a year.

Russian has ona for 'she', but in standard Russian only oni 'they'. Dialectally you could see one (ah-NYE) for 'they, fem.' from time to time in older literature.

[UncleSepp]

160. I didn't mean pronouns

What I meant with regard to Russian femnine nouns is that you have different ways of forming feminine nouns (like the mat'-doch' class of feminine nouns with that weird materi, dochermi) which then decline differently. Same with OCS, not that there were different pronouns for them. Basically the idea I was getting at - poorly - was that the gender of nouns is more about how nouns are formed, declined, modified, etc. than about any sort of biological gender.

It's been a while for me too :-)

[Karenina]

35. No, it's much more complicated than that

Der (masculine)
Die (feminine)
Das (neutral)

Das Mädel, Mädchen, Fräulein ALL references to FEMALES and all "neutral."

Der Bus, das Auto, die Bahn... All stuff running on wheels. :wtf:

Das Haar, Die Haare... HAIR. Much too complex for someone unfamiliar with Grammatik. :evilgrin:

[ChairOne]

39. Aren't das, die, der all versions of "the"?

I was after pronouns, recall... or mebbe I'm not understanding what you said properly... Spanish is the only other language I'm familiar with (and thereby Italian, I suppose...)

[Karenina]

103. The TRIP is the "the"

affects EVERYTHING. Adjectives included! Gender and number must agree. The forms change willy-nilly.Die wird der in Dativ,u.s.w.
MAKAMENUTS!!!!! Ich spreche D'englisch. Wer will verstehen, versteht.

[Stop_the_War]

128. Spanish has that too..

When you are talking about a feminine noun, the word for "it" is "la". When you're talking about a masculine noun, the word for "it" is "lo".

For example:

Ayer vi una pulsera hermosa. La compré. (Yesterday I saw a beautiful bracelet. I bought it.)

Ayer vi un carro maravilloso. Lo compré. (Yesterday I saw a wonderful car. I bought it.)

[ChairOne]

17. They are for people who think that sexism is built into our language...

... for example, some people question the use of examples in educational settings, to wit, "Why is it always a "he" that is an engineer, and a "she" that is a homemaker?"

EDIT: And yah - people with such worries think even less of Romance and Germanic languages.

[lukasahero]

34. You cite a perfect example of why

people question the use of examples in educational settings. I don't necessarily care if someone uses "he" as a truly gender neutral pronoun. However, when "he" is the only pronoun used to describe someone as an example of an engineer and "she" is the only pronoun used to describe someone as an example of a homemaker, then it's not really gender neutral any more, is it? If "he" is to be used as a gender neutral pronoun then "he" should be used to describe both the engineer and the homemaker. (Yeah, like that'll happen.)

[ChairOne]

36. That is the essence of my point/the debate.... /eom

[lukasahero]

41. Gotcha.

I wasn't exactly sure what you were trying to say there. Get it now.

[ChairOne]

44. lol - I was trying to broach the issue free of biases...

... folks might have in regards to the application of the issue... We see how well that worked... LOL

[lapislzi]

43. That has more to do with the bias of the speaker

(or writer) than any inherent gender bias in the language.

As a writer, I will use "he" if I absolutely cannot construct the sentence in both a gender-neutral AND an elegant way. I admit it--I will sacrifice gender neutrality on the altar of style. It is one of my pet peeves that people say things like "everyone has their own opinion" when such sentences can easily be reworked to be both gender neutral and grammatically correct. As in, "everyone's entitled to an opinion."

You do what you can to be aware of it and avoid it if possible. Otherwise, it's not worth fretting over. The bigger issue, as you point out, is the bias of the speaker.

[ChairOne]

48. Sure - and racism isn't a big deal for white people....

So the people who "fret" over this sort of issue would be quick to retort.

And then they would follow-up with something like "why don't you use "she" if you "absolutely cannot construct the sentence in both a gender-neutral AND an elegant way"? Per your comments, is "she" less stylish?

[lapislzi]

57. Actually, yes

It's nonstandard. The standard for gender neutrality is the masculine pronoun.

However, there are cases when you can interchange the masculine and feminine pronouns without sacrificing style, as when you are writing about people who could be either gender (like, in an article about kids, when you get down to citing specific examples of children, either pronoun will work). We have to work with the language we have; ironically we must use the same language to change the language. I wish there was a truly gender-neutral pronoun, but there isn't, so we must make do with the pronouns we have.

I don't know if I'd put pronoun bias on an equal footing with racism, though. That would be a stretch for me.

[ChairOne]

64. wow - I didn't think I'd be able to get anyone on DU to actually say it...

lol - bravo!

sexist language is ok, because it's *stylish*, and it's *stylish* because it's *standard*.

wow.

[lapislzi]

67. You're saying it's sexist. I'm saying it's neutral

or the closest thing we have to neutral in English. When I say "everyone is entitled to his opinion" does that mean I am only referring to men? Do you assume that? Then maybe you're the one with the bias.

[ChairOne]

69. No, that's specifically *not* what you said...

... else the following, which you *did* say, makes absolutely no sense:

"I wish there was a truly gender-neutral pronoun"

[lapislzi]

72. Not truly gender neutral, no

but it's the best we have and I think it functions as such. Let's not forget about context, either, shall we?

*I* don't assume that when someone uses "he" that speaker/writer automatically only means men, unless the context suggests same.

(See? I kept that totally gender-neutral. It's not that hard.)

[MadLinguist]

82. I don't think ChairOne said that fretting over pronoun usage and racism

were the same. It's that both sexism and racism show up in accepted norms of language use. For an example of how racism is reflected in language use (not language itself) that might be on a par with the default pronoun being the masculine one, think of a description given like "I saw a guy leaving just a minute ago." If this exchange takes place between two whites, the assumption between them is that "a guy" does not refer to a non-white guy, or the speaker would have specified the color of "the guy".
"Fretting" is what is done by the people who are compelled to deal with the down-the-last-detail results of being out of power.

[lapislzi]

83. You are probably right...but...

Skin color and gender are usually observable phenomena. It's natural to notice and remark on them, especially for purposes of identification or description--and even more especially if the one being described is the Other. Your hypothetical comment between the two white guys could just as easily have transpired between two black guys, right? What about between a black guy and a white guy? Or a white woman and a black woman?

The fact that no truly gender-neutral pronoun exists in English is, I would say, a vestige of linguistic patriarchy (if you will). Guys ruled the world for a long time. Guys still run a lot of it. Guys wrote the history, and the books. So they took the pronouns.

So the language has sexist pronouns. It doesn't automatically make you a sexist if you use them, however.

[MadLinguist]

96. You know, that's funny. My scenario involved two "whites", not "white guys

So an assumption about the gender of the conversants crept in.

[lapislzi]

106. OK, point taken

but I arrive at this point every time I get into a discussion about bias. I have them. Many of us have them. Is being aware of them enough to counterbalance their effect on our thinking and behavior? If not, then what?

Yes, I assumed your speakers were males. Unconsciously, even. What does that say about me? And what can be done about it?

[ChairOne]

112. Um, how about fixing the language? sheesh. lol

Instead your complacent <throws hands up in the air> "What are ya gonna do?"

How about actually *trying* to fix structural problems, rather than wallowing in pessimism? Is there a guarantee that our attempts will be successful? Of course not. But so what?

[lapislzi]

113. You misread me

I am making an honest effort to address my OWN bias. You forget that we are on the same side of this issue. How about an answer to my question, which was not rhetorical? What is appropriate to do when you recognize your own bias? I think that is a fair question and deserves an answer.

As for "wallowing in pessimism," can we skip the hyperbole?

[ChairOne]

124. lol - no I didn't

"The fact that no truly gender-neutral pronoun exists in English is, I would say, a vestige of linguistic patriarchy (if you will). Guys ruled the world for a long time. Guys still run a lot of it. Guys wrote the history, and the books. So they took the pronouns.

So the language has sexist pronouns. It doesn't automatically make you a sexist if you use them, however."

That's completely dismissive, and it would be perfectly in line with those statements to shrug one's shoulders and say "wutrya gonna do?"

Moreover, you, in those comments, specifically give up on the idea of fixing the *language*, falling back instead to the weaker idea that although the language is messed up, the USERS of the language may not be - and that's good enuff, so the line of thought is best concluded.

There was no hyperbole - there was merely the uniquely natural interpretation of your own words.

To answer your pseudo-question head-on: Go see a Dr. Phil show. It's about recognizing flaws where they lie, and simply making a decision. There's no (or needn't be) any Munch-like angst involved.

LOL - I'm beginning to get a clear picture of what it means when someone tells me that they're on my side.....

[lapislzi]

130. Now who's being "dismissive?"

Yes, I am a flawed human being. I have biases. I know this, and I am not happy about it. I am making an honest effort to address my biases, get over them, compensate for them. Unlearning 40+ years of ingrained patriarchy, racism, sexism, whatever, is no easy thing. And no, that is not a "throw my hands up in the air" attitude. It's a statment of fact. I am not saying nothing can be done. I am saying that *I* don't know what to do about the biases that pop up, unbidden, in my thoughts and behavior. Please don't accuse me of disingenuousness. It's not true, and it's not fair.

I think recognizing and admitting the bias is a start. Give me a little credit here. What "decision" should I be making that I have failed to make?

As for solutions to the flawed language, I have expressed in several posts my wish that the singular "they" would become correct usage. Right now it's not, so I rarely use it.

And before I take issue where none was intended, what exactly does Dr. Phil have to do with it? I have never watched one of his shows, but he strikes me as a pop lightweight.

[ChairOne]

133. I neither misread your, nor was hyperbolic in my statements....

... and, more recently, nor did I accuse you of being disingenuous.

You and/or your flaws are quite irrelevant to my concerns - ie, I am/was only concerned with the digital words you put down. That's why, for example, I took pains to provide textual evidence of my claims, rather than, say, undertaking some sort of psycho-linguistic analysis of your sexist propensities.

Both on the object- and meta- levels, my only concern in this thread is language.

Give *you* a little credit? LOL - *You* can take all the credit *you* want. It's your *words* I'm concerned with here.

This personalization of the issue appears to me just another attempt to slink away from the what-do-we-do-when-confronted-with-a-defective-language problem. The tactic is roughly of the same form as what you did earlier, to wit, a defective language doesn't mean the *person* is defective.

EDIT: Corrected typo in subject

[lapislzi]

142. I don't believe words can be "divorced" from context OR the speaker

or in this case, writer. Your approach to the problem comes across as curiously hollow. Words are not disembodied bits of data floating around in the ether. They are spoken by humans, humans with biases. Words take on the meanings we assign to them, either as speakers or listeners.

To wit: your use of the word "slink." I find it insulting, and we can unravel why if you want, but I don't think that's necessary. Perhaps you didn't mean it that way at all. I don't believe I have backed away from the problem; I am trying to address it using the only means we have: the words themselves. Philosophically, we run the risk of descending into sollipsism, but I'm willing to go down that road a little ways.

To return to the pronoun problem (from which I earlier apparently slunk without my knowledge): some people hear "he" as a politically charged pronoun. Some don't. I'm one of the ones who doesn't, although I can understand why people do. That is why I pay attention to the speaker as well as the words coming out of someone's mouth. It's a holistic package.

Peace to you.

[ChairOne]

147. lol - I applaud your nigh-psychic ability to read-between-the-lines...

And because of that, I can well understand the equanimity with which you accept a structural defect of English. It doesn't matter to you, because you have comprehension abilities that go far beyond what people actually say.

I can also understand now why you take issue with me focussing on what you actually say - I, too should have the ability to gauge what a person means independently of what they say. My apologies.

That you think the problem is of the "some people hear" variety says quite enough. My apologies again - you didn't slink away from the problem, you were never there in the first place. No different than typical non-apology apologies for racist or sexist remarks: "I'm sorry of some people interpreted my words in that way" - LOL

[Karenina]

97. Riddle me this...

What does one call a cardiologist in the deep south?

[lapislzi]

109. Nibbling (tho' I don't know why)

Doctor?

[Karenina]

120. Just another nigger.

[ChairOne]

125. LOL - I think you misstated the setup then... no?

Should have been:

What do you call a *black* cardiologist in the deep south.

else I'm much mistaken....

[Karenina]

134. The set-up is INTENTIONAL

The TRICK is the IMMEDIATE UNCONSCIOUS ASSUMPTION that a cardiologist could not be BLACK. White Americans NEVER get it, many of my young German friends have IMMEDIATELY. "Is it REALLY THAT BAD?" is what I've often been asked.

[ChairOne]

140. oooooooooo - lol - I'm with ya now - LOL /eom

[ChairOne]

115. Do we get an answer? /eom

[Karenina]

138. ChairOne, PLEASE

Read this essay by Samuel Clements. It is the FUNNIEST SHIT I have EVER read (no less than 25 times) and I once again DOUBLED OVER LAUGHING just skimming the first few paragraphs as I pulled up the link.

http://eserver.org/langs/the-awful-german-language.txt

It's even FUNNIER for bi-lingual folks, the more grammar I learned, the more his turns of phraseology had me clutching my sides, wiping the tears of laughter from my eyes while trying to catch my breath.

[ChairOne]

141. Ok - gonna take a nap first tho......

my head is BUMPIN! (gettin over the flu).

it's on my screen tho, and will be the first thing i look at when i wake up

[Karenina]

144. Gute Besserung, Du!

:loveya:

[ChairOne]

148. Sweet dreams? - Guessing - can't think of a cognate for "Besserung"...

[Karenina]

151. Feel better, Sweetikins!

And THAT's an ORDER! Ve hav our vays!!!

[UdoKier]

5. its

"Today president Bush described its plan to loot and destroy social security. It is well known by progressives to be the worst president ever, but its wife, Laura, is a decent First Lady despite its penchant for boxy burlap dresses."

Sure, it exists, but it's not very clear...

[ChairOne]

10. Exactly - let me be more specific then.....

... a non-gendered PERSONAL pronoun... lol

[SmokingJacket]

114. I was reading a children's book from the turn of the century...

and the author uses "it" to refer to her characters (who are children, not animals).

Ex.: "Each child put on its coat, so that it wouldn't get cold."

I have to say, once you get used to it, "it" seems to fill a real niche. Wonder why we stopped using it??

[AlienGirl]

154. I've always thought it was rude to call animals "it"

Aside from sponges, oysters, earthworms, and other hermaphroditic or asexual animals, I've always considered it rude to refer to an animal as "it."

But if "it" became standard for anyone whose gender is unknown to the speaker, that'd be fine by me.

Tucker

[Hugin]

9. They, Them, We, I, Some, You, Others, One... etc. n/t

[ChairOne]

15. lol - fine, fine - specificity is always a good thing I suppose...

a gender-neutral third-person singular personal pronoun.

[WilliamPitt]

27. It

Are we looking to get into a fight with a grammar book?

Do you have examples of gender-neutral third-person singular personal pronouns from other languages?

This is an odd thread.

[ChairOne]

30. I don't understand where "it" is coming from....

... it isn't a personal pronoun.

EDIT: It's a sexism issue, typically come across in educational settings where teachers give hypothetical examples of various things. Some thing that those examples are almost invariably sexist: he is an engineer, while she is a maid, for example. It is thought by some that the presence of a gender-neutral 3rd person personal pronoun could help alleviate this.

Odd thread for an odd fellow, I suppose... lol

[Hugin]

37. Yes, I know what you're talking about...

Over the years there have been many suggestions...

Most of them were for the written word though.

Combining "She" and "He" written as "S/he" was
popular for awhile.

I think the new understanding of this problem has
been solved thusly...

"he is an engineer, while she is a maid"

is now degendered (Ouch!)

"An engineer, a maid"

Because knowing the gender of who is talked about
is irrelevant (in most cases) to what is being said.

[ChairOne]

50. Doesn't fix the problem....

As often than not, one doesn't merely want to say ONLY ONE thing about one's example-engineer, but rather SEVERAL things. Moreover, it is commonly desired that it be clear that it is the SAME example-engineer in both situations.

An engineer came into the coffee shop. After reading the paper for awhile, XXXX ordered a latte.

It should be clear that substituting "an engineer" into the blank is completely insufficient.

[Hugin]

68. No, it still works...

Because, if you are describing the actions of a
specific engineer or maid you provide the gender
information up front.

"An engineer came into the coffee shop. After reading the paper for
awhile, XXXX ordered a latte."

becomes...

"A male engineer came into the coffee shop. After reading the paper
for awhile, he ordered a latte."

Your example isn't a good way to illustrate this concept. A
pronoun is used as a place holder for the more specific information.

My example would be...

"A maid sat in the coffee shop. An engineer came into the coffee
shop. Upon finishing her coffee, she went to the cashier and paid.
After reading the paper for awhile, he ordered a latte."

Now... To untangle that one.

"A male maid sat in the coffee shop. A female engineer came into
the coffee shop. Upon finishing her coffee, she went to the cashier
and paid. After reading the paper for awhile, he ordered a latte."

So, here we see a case of identifying the genders of both the
maid and engineer. Also, a cashier of undetermined gender is
mentioned.

So, it works.

[ChairOne]

74. There should be no need for the gender information.....

for example, I MAY NOT KNOW the gender of the engineer who came into the coffee shop - maybe I'm hearing the story 2nd hand, and the gender wasn't given to me.

Better yet, think of the ubiquitous textbook examples of various things. "First, the phyicist will attempt to visualize the problem, then XXXX will attempt to model it"....

Not only is gender information not provided, IT'S NOT SUPPOSED TO BE. All the example depends on is that we be talking about a physicist (whose gender is irrelevant). So some say, our pronouns hold us back from this goal.

Or, going the other way, imagine if English had to sets of pronouns - one for white folks, the other for black folks. (In some specific circumstances, something close is actually the case. For example, there aren't simply quarterbacks that play football - there are quarterbacks, and then there are black quarterbacks. Sigh.)

[Hugin]

86. I don't see why the XXXXs need to be filled in...

"First, the physicist will attempt to visualize the problem, then
will attempt to model it"

Makes perfect grammatical sense.

"there aren't simply quarterbacks that play football - there are
quarterbacks, and then there are black quarterbacks."
There aren't? I don't watch enough sports to know if they are
identified separately.

However, personally, I rarely use race to identify someone. In fact
the only case I can think of where I would is, if I were directing
someone to find a particular person in a group. Race would be in
a group of identifiers... along with gender, hair color, Name,
the clothes they are wearing and any other information I knew
about the person they were trying to find.

[ChairOne]

105. Because sooner or later, ur gonna wanna start another sentence...

... and in that sentence, u'll need something that meets two criteria: (1) can occupy the grammatical place of a noun, and (2) is guaranteed to refer to whatever was referred to in the previous sentence.

Generally speaking, that's the "reason" why pronouns exist. Even proper name don't satisfy (2), in general.

EDIT: But on the specific example you were referring to, you're right - the sentence can be re-worded to avoid anaphor. That's why I ask you to think of multi-sentence situations.

[ABaker]

165. try

a maid sat in the coffee shop. An engineer came in, drank a coffee, paid the cashier for it and left. The maid ordered a latte and read the paper for awhile

[MadLinguist]

84. It's a bit clunky but using "that" in article position is anaphoric.

An engineer walked into the cafe and looked around with a dissatisfied grimace, and then that engineer sat gingerly down.

[Hugin]

87. Read on in the thread where I address that problem. n/t

[ChairOne]

101. This thread has gotten large-ish - can you be grab a link? /eom

[MadLinguist]

117. what does 'be a grab link' mean?

[ChairOne]

99. Not "really" it isn't....

... cuz you had to repeat the info that the person was an engineer. A "true" anaphor picks up the *entirety* of the previous reference - no need for add-ons

My car died yesterday. Then it exploded.

"true" anaphor

My car died yesterday. Then that car exploded.

"mongrel" anaphor

My car died yesterday. Then that car which was referred to in the previous sentence and which is still mine, and happens to be a 99 Acura Integra with aftermarket shocks.

complete bullshit, as far as anaphora is concerned.

lol

I use quotes here because I don't have a Grand Theory Of How Anaphora Functions in my back pocket to refer to on these issues - I'm just going with intuitions...

[MadLinguist]

116. yeah you're right. It's not too good. I was thinking of how "that" is used

when the antecedent is a quantifier. It seems to get the variable reading that pronouns do.

Every boy loves his mother
Every boy loves that boy's mother

Your counter-example is a bit off though. Substitute "it" in:

My car died yesterday. Then it which was referred to in the previous sentence and which is still mine, and happens to be a 99 Acura Integra with aftermarket shocks.

Not exactly lovely, even if you provide the missing predicate.
I wasn't really proposing "that X" as an answer to your question about a gender neutral singular third person pronoun. I just got interested in alternatives for anaphoric use. I sure in the hell dont think this contributes anything to the GTOHAF, either. I don't know that there is a definition in the GTOHAF that states that a "true anaphor" can repeat no information. Some languages (Malayalam for one) attach a syllable corresponding to "self" to the end of a name to get anaphoric reference to that name.

[ChairOne]

126. I dunno of such a definition either.... just pointing out a distinction...

If you're interested in alternative for anaphoric use, do a search for something like the "prosentential theory of truth". That takes alternatives to extremes. And in a very interesting way.

[ABaker]

164. try

An engineer came into the coffee shop, ordered a latte and read the paper for awhile

[ultraist]

90. Anonymous sources, scientific research, social science research...

all indicate a need for a gender neutral pronoun. I like "he/she" but s/he is often used as well.

Researchers and Statisticians are particularly concerned with bias (gender, race, age, etc). If their research or their articles on the research show bias, they are less apt to get published in reputable scholarly journals.

Great OP! I hadn't thought about this since I was in college! LOL!

[eShirl]

11. "one," or the singular "they"

after all, thou/thee was the original 2nd person singular

[lapislzi]

75. "They" gets a lot of airplay

It's almost becoming correct usage. I would be pleased if it did, but I'm not in charge of those things.

[fishwax]

104. you're in charge of those things more than most

you said earlier you were a writer, and it is writers (and editors, but there are more of us than them, though I've been on both sides of that wall) who shape and change the language, at least with (American) English. (Less so in other countries, where they might have committees with respect to such things.)

[lapislzi]

118. This goes in an interesting direction, fishwax

I can write whatever I want. Then it gets looked at by an editor, and likely changed (or in the case of "they" standing in for a singular gender-neutral pronoun, "corrected"). I then have the option of going over said editor's head to the publisher with my entreaty for gender neutrality. I'm skipping some steps here, but that's the general progression of published, printed matter.

Now, who owns the publisher?

There's a question.

I'd like to add here that the publishing company I work for will often allow the singular "they" to stand (because they are aware of gender bias and work to overcome it), but I think they're the exception at this time.

[fishwax]

162. It is an interesting kind of tug of war

when I was an editor, I would often go to bat for they and their in a singular sense. Sometimes I would win and other times (more often, I'm afraid, as it was a conservative company (grammatically as well as politically) I would be overruled. Of course, I have a much more descriptive approach to grammar and usage than most of the folks I worked with. Often times I found writers who wanted to use the word, but thought that I (or some other editor) would complain, but I usually encouraged them to give it a shot, if I thought it fit in with the sentence.

I think on the whole that editors tend to be less willing to accept such alleged indecencies than writers are to attempt them. Editors often see their role as guardians and gatekeepers, and in several cases will take grammar rules (even minor ones) VERY personally, and any violation thereof as almost an affront to their personal dignity. Not that I mean to slam editors here (after all, I've been on that side of the desk), I just think that fits more in with the editorial mindset for a lot of people.

Anyway, I'm really rambling here, because I find the language and the evolution of language and usage to be pretty fascinating. But my main point was just that writers have a tremendous power over the language. And if someone says a writer shouldn't use the singular they, you can point them to Jane Austen, for one. Don't let the editors and publishers get ya down, lapislzi! :D :hi:

[Career Prole]

12. Does (American) English have a gender-neutral pronoun?

Because Ann Coulter and Babs Bush need one. :evilgrin:

[ChairOne]

19. WHOA - lol /eom

[ultraist]

14. I had a professor...

that was particular about overuse of male gender pronouns. I would write my papers using "the individual," "one" or individuals/persons/people/ so that I did not have to use, he/she, as often.

I think it may be APA standard now to write in a gender balanced manner.

[ChairOne]

20. You mean like one example with "he"....

... the next with "she", and the example-types are "appropriately" distributed?

[ultraist]

55. No, actual use of the slash: he/she

This is fairly common in academic writings/research articles.

It's important not to show bias in research, thus scholars use words such as: subjects,cohorts,individuals, etc and then refer to them as he/she so that the gender is not revealed.

Think of it in the context of "blind study" where the researchers do not know the sex, race, etc of the subjects or info on who is receiving a placebo, etc. so not to taint their observations (the data) and the results.

Subjects are issued numbers and not refereed to by name (or gender identifying pronouns) for good reason.

Statisticians also have techniques to safeguard from bias as do Scientific and Social Science researchers. This issue is not just a feminist thing. This issue become glaringly apparent in the 80s, particularly in psychology studies.

[ChairOne]

58. Didn't mean to imply that the issue was "just a feminist thing"...

... if I did... I was just using one sort of example that I thought everyone could wrap their heads around easily...

[coffeenap]

18. I nominate "e" nt

[MadLinguist]

89. OK, "e" for the nominative singular third person pronoun. "er" or "im" for

the rest?
E brought e's problems to the table.
I saw e sitting by eself because nobody likes e.

This is one odd thread allright. I like e.

[Igel]

157. E was nominated years back. I forget by who(m). n/t

[Cleita]

24. English to me is one of the least sexist and most gender neutral

of the European family of languages. My other language, Spanish, describes almost everything in terms of gender, even down to inanimate objects like tables and trees. La Mesa (table)is feminine. El arbol (tree) is masculine.

[ChairOne]

29. Fine - but I wasn't asking for a comparison of linguistic sexism...

... I was only asking a question about one particular language...

[American Tragedy]

131. As do most Indo-European languages

Modern English is a rarity in that regard, as well as Finnish.

[IntravenousDemilo]

173. But then...

Finnish isn't an Indo-European language. It belongs in roughly the same family as Hungarian, which I mention below.

[LiberallyInclined]

25. they. or it.

that's what they said, anyway.

[WilliamPitt]

26. They, them, we, you, I, us, it

[ChairOne]

28. Earlier in the thread, more specificity on the ? was given.... /eom

[Cocoa]

38. someone mentioned the singluar they

which covers your clarification.

as in "everyone has their own style" or whatever.

[ChairOne]

42. ah - you mean using "they" as singular?

There are a variety of obvious things that make that a less than perfect candidate. But yah, that usage is basically an attempt at introducing a 3rd person singular personal pronoun into English...

[Cocoa]

49. reintroducing, actually

I think the disapproval of the singluar they is pretty recent. Now it has the additional benefit of the gender thing.

[fishwax]

100. Right. The singular they has been around since the days of Middle English

it wasn't apparently even criticized until the very late 18th century. It isn't a new construction at all, but it is only relatively recently that it became widely considered incorrect. I think the singular they is certainly worth rediscovering.

[Moochy]

70. Singular They

You cant attack this problem by inventing new words, I think that grammarians would need to seize on existing usages of singular they as the best candidate. This is due to the fact that it is already in use by many to indicate this. It's a better choice to re-adjust the grammar to account for the novel use of singular they.

Utopian Linguists in the 1970's suggested new words like "co" or "tey" but were doomed to fail before they were even published.
Truth be told those suggestions were merely meant to spark a debate on the priming effect of the generic masculine pronoun.

There are two schools in grammar, they are either descriptive (the modern view) or prescriptive. Those who feel that 'they' can't be used due to its' count, are on the prescriptive side of that grammar debate.

It's interesting to see what scientists do to solve this false attribution of sex to a subject through generic masculine pronoun he. They simply switch to another non-sexed noun which describes the individual as a participant, cohort etc. One level on indirection will solve almost any problem.

Describe what's going on in the living language, dont tell me that my useage is wrong. :)

[fishwax]

93. Nicely said. I prefer the descriptive model myself

and I think they is fine, as it is not usual a matter of genuine confusion. There are times, of course, when it could be confusing, but they can usually be written around without sounding stilted.

[ChairOne]

94. Sorry - not good enuff... sometimes there IS built-in wrong...

... a google search for "Dummett boche" will surely provide an excellent example of this.

[Moochy]

132. googling dummet boche made my head hurt

I followed google into a confusing land of philosophy and qed my head hurt.

A Philosopher, if *they* wanted to confuse me, would bring up a red herring like "dummet boche", yes *they* most certainly would.

[ChairOne]

139. ack - my bad - thought it would be easier than it in fact was....

I lapse into thinking everybody led the same former life I led.... my bad...

(deep breath) ok, here we go:

First, the name was supposed to be "Dummett" - my bad

Ok, so think of concepts like X is red, X is alive, X blows, etc in what I call a "sandwich" fashion. The meaning of such concepts is constituted by the inferential relations in which they stand. In particular, the meaning of *blows* (ie X blows), is made up of two things: (1) the things that "get you into" the concept - its circumstances of application - the fucker disagrees with me, perhaps, and (2) the things "you get out" of the concept - the consequences of application - I don't need to listen to what the fucker says, perhaps.

Without going into detail about just why this is a good way to think about concepts, let me just challenge you to find *2* concepts that have *identical* circumstances and consequences of application.

With the sandwich notion of concepts in hand, now consider the specific concept *Boche* (X is boche). It's a German pejorative, and its meaning (a la the above) is as follows:

Circumstances of Application: That the person be German

Consequences of Application: That the person be cruel, crass, etc.

That's the concept. It's another question whether or not it's a *good* concept. According to the framework used here, the goodness question can be put more precisely: do we language users want to license the inference from X is German to X is cruel?

All kidding aside, it's easy to see that this inference is not one we should endorse. But now the question arises: so how exactly do we go about stating our refusal to endorse this inference?

(1) Say that no one is boche.

Problem: Given the meaning of the concept, that suggestion is tantamount to saying that there are no Germans. And that's just silly.

(2) say that some Germans aren't boche.

Problem: This suggestion goes directly against what "boche" means. You may as well claim that words don't mean what they, um, mean.

The typical conclusion (which I endorse) goes as follows:

"Boche" is an example of a *defective concept*. They only, and proper way to register this disapproval is to refuse to use the concept at all. This is an example of what I call "fixing" the language.

I don't clearly recall how this all started, but I *think* it had something to do with my claiming that a language itself could be structurally defective - independent (in a certain sense) of the users of the language. I consider the boche example above to be a pretty clear example of what I mean.

phew. Sorry about the long post...

[Moochy]

143. Defective Languages

> ..don't clearly recall how this all started, but I *think* it had
> something to do with my claiming that a language itself could be
> structurally defective - independent (in a certain sense) of the
> users of the language. I consider the boche example above to be a
> pretty clear example of what I mean.

Certainly I could agree with this concept if we restrict our notion of defective, to be interpreted to mean having a particular quality of expressiveness. Namely lack of gender-neutral count-precise pronouns, or the inability to mark who said what in a he-said she-said dispute, as in your Hungarian example.

Some new Guinean languages have as little as four words for colors, whereas other languages have many many words for the colors between pale blue and green. The languages with only four words for all primary colors could be judged "defective" for use by say, an interior designer, or a graphic designer's work.

So do you dismiss the point that folks brought up about he (generic) priming subjects to believe that the subject is a man?

[ChairOne]

146. My Hungarian example? lol

I'm not sure what the phrase "he (generic) priming subjects to believe that the subject is a man" means - lil help? (ie dumb it down a lil plz)

Certainly if one thinks the person under discussion is male, one should use "he". That seems so obvious, and I've never once questioned it, that it can hardly be what you mean... For example, that's why I've tried to direct people's attention to examples from textbooks, which (a) are hypothetical, so there's no question of believing anything about the "actual" gender, and (b) illustrate a point that doesn't depend on the hypothetical gender anyhoo.

I'm not sure how I "restricted" the notion of *defective*. I meant to do two things with it: (a) disentangle the idea of intrinsic (structural) defect from extrinsic (bad users) defects, and (b) provide a reasonably clear example of type (a).

And more relevant to my boche example, the defect in English to have in mind isn't the lack of a gender-neutral pronoun per se, but rather the usage of "he" *as* that gender-neutral pronoun. But it's related, of course. "He" gets overloaded due to the basic problem of no neutral pronoun....

As I say that last bit, I've put the last nail in the coffin of the opinion I started this thread off with. LOLOL

[ultraist]

63. There is no singular personal pronoun that is neutral and can be used to

refer to humans. "It" doesn't work for humans we have only he or she. That's why you will see writers use: he/she

For example: A large percentage of persons in the United States are drug abusers. These individuals become addicted for a myriad of reasons. He/she may be predisposed genetically, a product of peer pressure, or self medicating due to a mental illness.

This ensures there is not a bias built in so that it is assumed that most drug addicts are either male or female. Sometimes one does want to weight it out by gender, but other times it creates a false bias.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v3.0
==================



This week is our first quarter 2005 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend almost entirely
on donations from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for
your support.

[dweller]

40. thanks for the input, IT.

dp

[DefenseLawyer]

46. I think the answer is "Y'all"

Seems our friends in the South have been leading the fight for gender equality for years.

[Hugin]

47. Ain't it the truth, y'all! :) n/t

[ultraist]

76. LOL! But that's plural...:)

[Igel]

158. No, "all y'all" is plural. y'all is frequently singular. n/t

[ultraist]

161. ummm...no, y'all is not singular. (You ALL)

Do you live in the South? Because I have never heard it used to mean one person.

[DefenseLawyer]

168. Yeah it is technically plural

and among well educated southerners that use the term you are correct. However, I went to college in New Orleans and I heard plenty of people use y'all to refer to one person. Of course I lived in a poor neighborhood and spent a lot of time in bars, so there you go.

[Igel]

169. I overstated the facts.

Maps I've seen show that it's spotty in the South. Some areas have just you/y'all, others y'all/y'all, others y'all/all y'all. I have a friend from E. Tennessee that's fairly consistent with y'all for the singular, all y'all for the plural. I saw a Tennessean and Louisianan arguing over it at a retreat once, and we nominal northerners at table with them thought they were both batty.

I've been in Houston for 6 months now (which, though Texan, shares its dialect with SW Louisiana), and the only actual Texan I've talked to for any length of time had an accent less southern than mine (I'm from just S. of Baltimore), so I don't know what the local norm is.

[Tactical Progressive]

51. Just use "she" alot more

to counter the prevalance of the commonly used "he".

What I do sometimes is use "she" in gender neutral references which are positive. 'She could treat more uninsured children for basic medical problems if ...'

And use "he" in gender neutral references which are negative. 'He wouldn't find it so easy to defraud Medicare if ...'

Weak examples, but you get the picture.

And of course there is always the eloquent "s/he".

[DefenseLawyer]

61. Maybe I am missing something

but unless everyone gets on board with your "she is positive he is negative" rule, won't you just be confusing the heck out of people calling "he a she" and "she a he"? And would it switch mid-sentence? "She was a really good employee until he killed all his co-workers". However, if you are saying you refer to an person whose gender is unknown as "she" as often as "he", I agree with that practice.

[ultraist]

66. What about research articles that refer to subjects?

Would you want to use only he when half of the subjects were female?

[DefenseLawyer]

73. No, and I edited my response to agree with that.

Referring to someone of unknown gender as "she" as often has "he" is a good practice. It is the She = positive and He = negative idea that seems to lead to confusion in my opinion.

[ChairOne]

78. But of course you maintain consistency within a sentence... /eom

[ultraist]

80. That's one good possible solution: use an equal # of he and she

Or use "he/she" or "s/he" if you want to blind the gender. For instance, if you had a source that had to remain anonymous, you would not want to reveal the gender, right? He/she would accomplish that.

[ChairOne]

85. You're not wrong, precisely, but the solution somewhat misses the point...

I don't deny, or even question that English is a comprehensive enough language to CONSTRUCT a gender neutral pronoun.

I was asking if one ALREADY EXISTED.

Essentially, all of these suggestions for fixes, implicitly answer my question in the negative (else why would we need a fix?)

[lapislzi]

88. If I may be so bold...

You knew the answer before you started the thread. If one existed (a sufficiently elegant one, not the clunky constructions utilized by necessity in scientific texts and cited elsewhere in this thread), I imagine that people would be tripping over one another to use it. At least I would hope they would. I would.

Can we be friends now?

[ChairOne]

102. Um, to the literal question I asked (specific version).....

... no I didn't know "the answer before I started the thread". I still don't.

I did, on the other hand, know the issues involved, and they've come out here over time...

btw - this occurred to me while reading Ask The Admins - someone asked about the gender neutrality of the GrovelBot - LOL

[Orangepeel]

172. he/she and s/he exist

:shrug:

I guess they were constructed rather recently, but so? All words and combinations of words have to be created sometime.

[sans qualia]

52. Yes... well, kinda

There are a couple of different versions, but they're usually only used within particularly gender-conscious subcultures. Some examples:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spivak_pronoun
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sie_and_hir

[gollygee]

53. I was going to mention "hir"

I've heard it and it sounds pretentious more than anything else.

I'd rather have people use "they" in a gramatically incorrect way than use that.

[ultraist]

81. Researchers are very gender conscious to avoid bias

[jpgray]

60. Why does the Italian language engage in misandry?

The pronoun for the formal "you" is the same as the pronoun for "she". How dare they!

:grr:

[ulTRAX]

62. I invented one......

s/he/it!

[ChairOne]

65. "shit" for short? lol

Someone came into the office today - and then shit ran off with the lollipops! Shit sucks!

ROFL

[ulTRAX]

122. I usually use it when

I usually use it when I'm debating an obnoxious RR'tard.

[ultraist]

71. he/she, s/he, " he or she"

excerpts
http://www.english.upenn.edu/~cjacobso/gender.htmlcerpts

General

The practice of assigning masculine gender to neutral terms comes from the fact that every language reflects the prejudices of the society in which it evolved, and English evolved through most of its history in a male-centered, patriarchal society. Like any other language, however, English is always changing. One only has to read aloud sentences from the 19th century books assigned for this class to sense the shifts that have occurred in the last 150 years. When readers pick up something to read, they expect different conventions depending on the time in which the material was written. As writers in 1995, we need to be not only aware of the conventions that our readers may expect, but also conscious of the responses our words may elicit. In addition, we need to know how the shifting nature of language can make certain words awkward or misleading.
---
He or She --Despite the charge of clumsiness, double-pronoun constructions have made a comeback: "To be black in this country is simply too pervasive an experience for any writer to omit from her or his work," wrote Samuel R. Delany. Overuse of this solution can be awkward, however.

Pluralizing--A writer can often recast material in the plural. For instance, instead of "As he advances in his program, the medical student has increasing opportunities for clinical work," try "As they advance in their program, medical students have increasing opportunities for clinical work."

Eliminating Pronouns--Avoid having to use pronouns at all; instead of "a first grader can feed and dress himself," you could write, "a first grader can eat and get dressed without assistance."

Further Alternatives--he/she or s/he, using one instead of he, or using a new generic pronoun (thon, co, E, tey, hesh, hir).

[Hugin]

98. Oh,ho... So that's the rules... eh?

Once I proposed using "person", but, was shouted down because
it contained the sub-word "son".

Now, I typically Eliminate Pronouns.

How about using "peep"... It's a cute word.

[enki23]

91. technically, "he" can be

but saying "their" has become common enough that it's pretty well accepted now, outside the circles of grammar lawyers.

[ChairOne]

95. whereof doth this "techinically" hearken? /eom

[enki23]

107. it hearkens from 'technique'

in this context, it means "with regard to technical knowledge and application of english grammar."

[ChairOne]

111. {shrug} I suppose that's one possible answer... /eom

[Karenina]

123. What a FABULOUS THREAD!!!!

Language is topic #1 at any pub, party or gathering I've EVER attended. It is always discussed. No one ever brings up abortion (not ONCE in a decade have I heard a discussion) but LANGUAGE and its intricacies...

I only began to understand the mentality of my adopted countrymen after learning the language. Within its construction are the answers to why people think as they do and cling to certain constructs. My punchline is "We need to dig up Duden and kill him again" which always elicits laughter before we move seamlessly into politics or religion or history.

[ChairOne]

127. lol - even the worst batter'll get a hit if he (!) swings often enuff /eom

[Karenina]

135. HALLO!!!

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! :toast:

[IntravenousDemilo]

108. Well, yes...

SINGULAR:
"It", to refer to a thing, genuinely gender-neutral;
"He" and "him", to refer to a person, intended to be gender-neutral, and the intention is everything. "He or she" and "him or her" are also perfectly fine, but cumbersome.

PLURAL:
"They" and "them", for both people and things.

By the way, you may have noticed that "they" and "them" appear in the PLURAL section. They are there for a reason, a reason that must not be fucked with by linguistic revisionists, unless they want to find another damn language, like Hungarian, whose pronouns have no gender whatsoever -- "he" and "she" are both the same to a Magyar.

[fishwax]

119. Why would having they in the singular

result in a language like Hungarian? :shrug:

The singular they has actually been around for a long time.

[IntravenousDemilo]

121. I didn't say it would result in a language like Hungarian...

...which is a beautiful language, by the way. I said people who don't wish to conform to the rules of English grammar should operate in another language instead. I only mentioned Hungarian because it has no gender. And I'm waiting for Fowler to say "they" singular is OK.

[fishwax]

153. that's rather reactionary

anyone not stamped with the fowler seal of approval is a "linguistic revisionist" who ought not "fuck with" the language? The singular they was around before fowler, and didn't meet with disapproval until the last few years of the 18th century.

But that aside, English (thankfully) is a language which evolves based on usage rather than by decree, either from left-leaning ivory tower linguistic revisionists or from tweed wearing superior linguistic reactionaries. By all means, feel free to lift the drawbridge, bar the door, and hide out by candlelight in the dungeon while rabble-rousers hurl flaming arrows of "they"s and "their"s from the untamed wilderness beyond the castle walls, but I'm quite comfortable using it now, thank you very much, provided meaning is not obscured.

(It's sometimes hard to convey the proper amount of jest in an online forum, so I must come out and say I'm only kidding and I mean no offense. To my surprise and amusement, I've found grammatical discussions to be among the most brutal flamefests I've seen in my time at DU. Welcome, by the way :hi:)

[Karenina]

155. A quote from Carlos

drummer from Guinea-Bissau...

Englisch she no one language, mon. She many, many language.

[IntravenousDemilo]

174. I tend to be more prescriptive than descriptive

That's partly because I want the stuff I write to be understood 700 years from now, unlike Chaucer today. I don't mind our adding foreign words to our ever-growing language when we bump up against a concept we don't have a word for. And I think we need to add the word "tu" to English (meaning both "too" and "to") for the sake of one sentence: "What spelling of tu did you mean here?" (That's because you can't write "What spelling of too?" since there IS only one spelling of "too".) Same with "ther" (meaning collectively "their", "there", and "they're") -- so that would be "What spelling of "ther" did you mean?"

But we already have a perfectly good neutral third-person singular pronoun set, and that's "he/him/his". Yes, I know it's not logical to refer to what may be a woman as "he", but that's the beauty of the language. There are almost no words in English that are spelled phonetically either, which is a pain for ESL learners and bad spellers in general. But the odd spellings and the exceptions to and illogicalities of grammar are part of what make our language cool, idiosyncratic, and most of all human. In most things, I would say I'm pretty far to the left of most of the people here, but in matters of language I'm fairly conservative, with the rationale that I'm trying to conserve the transcendently beautiful irrationality of English.

One thing I wish we hadn't got rid of is a separate familiar 2nd-person singular "thou/thee/thy/thine" set, retaining "you/your" for the plural. It's always meaningful in French when two people move from "vous" to "tu/toi", or in German from "Sie" to "du", as it signals a change in the relationship. I tried using "thou/thee/thy/thine" a couple times to see what would happen, but people mistook me for a Quaker.

[ChairOne]

159. You're right - you said another *damn* language... LOL

In any case, while I'm no fan of pressing "they" into service for singular usage, it's not for what seem to me to be your philistine views on what language is. I'm perfectly happy to acknolwedge that languages change and evolve over time - and that renders pretty much meaningless any idea of a Platonic notion of THE RULES OF ENGLIGH GRAMMAR. I'd be shocked if there exists any professional linguist anywhere in the world who thought of language in that manner. Hell, I'd be shocked if Bill Safire thought of language in that way...

Then again, it wouldn't be the first time I was shocked...

[IntravenousDemilo]

175. My linguistic views are anything but philistine

Conservative, maybe. In linguistic matters, conservatives tend to think of those who flout grammar as philistines and barbarians. One man's pedant is another man's purist is another man's barbarian is another man's lout. We are all on a sliding purism-loutishness scale.

My tendency, for instance, is to eliminate as many hyphens in my words as possible; for instance "email" rather than "e-mail" or "paraovarian" instead of "para-ovarian". Some people think that's barbaric, but those people also write "to-day" and "to-morrow". They have a perfect right to consider me a linguistic lout, and I have a perfect right to consider them impossibly hidebound (as opposed to hide-bound).

And I think this is a much more interesting topic than politics, frankly. Thanks for bringing it up.

[Moochy]

129. Gasp not Hungarian!! jk

Some people don't believe in the existence of Ebonics either, they think that the proper grammar of Standard American English is being ignored etc. "Bad English." The truth is more complex and involves societal frames and speech registers or context for speech.

In many ways BAE as it's known has a more rigorous and more "logical" grammar than does Standard American English.

In brazilian portugese there is the "ser" pronoun.

I agree with what others have said about the unfortunate side effect of marking the sex-neutral aspect of a pronoun by using s/he. It does look glaring. For technical documentation, I always fall back on using a stilted title for the person in question, like "The Adminisitrator" or "The User" and avoid pronouns altogether.

"The user moves the pointer over the link, and clicks the left mouse button"

[DistressedAmerican]

110. I Have A Friend That Is A Genetic Hermaphrodite

And always prefered He, She, and Ze. Sounded reasonable to me.

Does not settle between the zim vs. zer options. Maybe I'll e-mail zin/zer and see where ze stands these days on that one.

[readmoreoften]

137. we use robot

Vim, zee, sie, etc. etc. all seem so serious and hard to remember. Instead of a pronoun for my partner we use robot.

I saw "Chris" today and robot gave me a book and suggested that I read it. I gave it back to robot because I'd already read it.

[readmoreoften]

136. No. There isn't.

My partner is transgendered and neither 'he' or 'she' are suitable. This causes major problems every day. If you don't know what kind of problems he lack causes, then read a book like Stone Butch Blues or Transliberation or Gender Outlaw. I don't have time to go into it.

[jayctravis]

149. It's considered bad grammer...

but I've noticed people using "their"

[nemo137]

166. That makes my bones ache

It's just, ech, using a plural for a singular, not cool. My English teacher always recommended just choosing a grammar and sticking with it. Unsurprisingly, most of the guys used "he/his" and most of the young women used "her/hers." Why can't we just do that?

[Samurai_Writer]

150. It's acceptable to use They or Them

when referring to a person now, to make it gender-neutral. As an editor, it's a lot easier to deal with than "him or her" and "he or she" throughout documents.

[Roland99]

152. "It"..."One"..."They"..."Them"..."We"..."Us"..."You"

[ABaker]

167. As I showed in

posts #164 and #165, virtually any sentence can be rewritten to avoid using any pronouns at all.

I know this because I took a creative writing class in college and this subject came up. Our professor showed us (by citing many examples) how to rewrite sentences to avoid using pronouns.

[Hugin]

171. For the "official" rules see post #71...

It agrees with Elimination of Pronouns...

But, there's two other methods worth mentioning.