|
View Poll Results: Do you want English to have a genderless pronoun? | |||
No. | 37 | 48.05% | |
He works for me. | 7 | 9.09% | |
She works for me. | 0 | 0% | |
He/she works for me | 0 | 0% | |
Alternating he and she in example works for me. | 1 | 1.30% | |
Yes. | 32 | 41.56% | |
Voters: 77. You may not vote on this poll |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
07-20-2012, 02:58 PM | #31 |
Philosopher
Posts: 2,034
Karma: 18736532
Join Date: Jan 2012
Device: Kindle Paperwhite 2 gen, Kindle Fire 1st Gen, Kindle Touch
|
We have genderless pronouns that can be applied to people. "I" is genderless, I have a gender, but the word "I" doesn't convey this information. Likewise "we" and "they" (the latter referring to the plural usage). A genderless pronoun doesn't imply that the person has no gender, only that it is unknown. It's going to be impossible to stuff the singular they genie back in the bottle, and in a few decades, using "he" for a person of unknown gender is going to seem downright laughable.
I can imagine the English classes, children would be reading old books from the mid 20th century, and go to their teacher because they are puzzled about using "he" to refer to someone of an unknown gender. The teacher will tell them that that was just a strange, archaic usage. Rather than "today" being "to-day" or "to day". |
07-20-2012, 10:41 PM | #32 |
occasional author
Posts: 2,314
Karma: 2064403292
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Wandering God's glorious hills, valleys and plains.
Device: A Franklin BI (before Internet) was the first. I still have it.
|
I am a little surprised no one has brought up the old "thou," "thee," or "thine."
I am not so surprised that there was only one slight attempt to address my real question above which is about that group of people that don't obviously identify directly as male or female and cause difficulties when people attempt to speak or write about them. An example: In the last few days Warren Beatty and Annette Bening's daughter turned son (transgender son) spoke in an interview. During the interview this person identified as a "q." Actually said in the interview "I identify as a "Q." That is one of those words that draw criticism if some people say them though others can use them with no problem. (Note please that I didn't spell it out.) Those words fall into a category that vexes some, white straight males in particular. i.e. rappers and African Americans use the "n" word all the time but I dare not lest I be attacked and my business boycotted. All that though is another thread and I will leave it at that. Beatty's original daughter/now son This young person has not had physical transformation surgery yet, and speaks of having babies, but is referred to in the article as a male. The question I am raising is how do we indicate officially in a "short definitive manner" that a person who acts or looks like one type is actually not that type. How do we indicate that there could be an issue if some assumptions are made. There is the categorization problem as indicated below. "Unknown" isn't exactly right if you know know what the person is physically and how they act. Still others might not. "Undecided" isn't quite right either for the person may have strong beliefs and detailed plans." "Difficult" might be considered an insult. Likewise "muddled" and complicated. "Other" isn't too bad. Then there is the pronoun. One way is to substitute an "x" for the "h" in he. This is kind of scientific in a way. "xe" Then she becomes: "sxe" but that looks like a parody or a play on "sex." My next thought was taking the neutral word "person" and modifying it. "per" works pretty good, I think. You can pronounce it, and it is pretty indefinite and gives everyone an idea that there is more there than appears to the eye. So my vote is for "other" - category "per" - pronoun |
Advert | |
|
07-21-2012, 02:23 AM | #33 | ||
cacoethes scribendi
Posts: 5,809
Karma: 137770742
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Australia
Device: Kobo Aura One & H2Ov2, Sony PRS-650
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
07-21-2012, 03:36 AM | #34 | |||
occasional author
Posts: 2,314
Karma: 2064403292
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Wandering God's glorious hills, valleys and plains.
Device: A Franklin BI (before Internet) was the first. I still have it.
|
Quote:
The article I showed above had words, used by a young person to describe that person, that could not be used by a more normal person without some people being incensed, yet some would claim that there is not a "more normal" person, that everyone is normal. Confusing? Yes. I find when descriptions become confusing or overly complicated then there are going to be problems. Basically when people become exposed to these kinds of confusing, complicated, and difficult things they have a tendency to withdraw, stop associating, or separate themselves and that has the tendency to make things worse. And finally your statement: Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
07-21-2012, 07:54 AM | #35 | |
Wizard
Posts: 3,418
Karma: 35207650
Join Date: Jun 2011
Device: iPad
|
Quote:
In the case when the gender is not known because the person that fits the pronoun is not known, then the choice of "they" appears to be what American English is adopting. For example: If someone gets sick, they should see a doctor. instead of If someone gets sick, he should see a doctor. which was the proper way not all that long ago. The case of a gender switcher is different. Lets say Pat was born with a healthy physical girl body, including all girl parts. Then any time we speak about Pat we would use "she." That is obvious. Now Pat for <insert reason> decides she is a boy and starts dressing like a boy, and dating girls. At this point she still is a girl, just dressing up, so I would imagine most would still use "her." At some point she decides to start hormone therapy, and other medical treatments to change her physical body into a male. Then I think many would start using "he" for Pat's pronoun. The point of that little story about Pat is that Pat's gender is a known condition, so you would use the matching gender based noun to it. In our modern day, some have changed the gender they are, but they still have a gender. It is not an unknown. If you are to be respectful, you would go with the gender pronouns that match the gender that the person choose, otherwise you would go with the gender at birth (assuming you knew this). Now there is the case where a person is born with both parts, but as I understand it that is exceedingly rare, and one set of parts does not work. It is way out of my experience or knowledge so I would not speak with any authority on it, but my guess is that person has an inclination towards one gender or the other and would choose to take on that gender. In that case, that would be the proper gender pronoun to use. So in short, I think the language can already handle all the cases, and does not need new words. |
|
Advert | |
|
07-21-2012, 08:34 AM | #36 |
The Dank Side of the Moon
Posts: 35,872
Karma: 118716293
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Denver, CO
Device: Kindle2; Kindle Fire
|
So the definitive answer is NO.
|
07-21-2012, 08:45 AM | #37 |
Bah, humbug!
Posts: 39,073
Karma: 157049943
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Chesapeake, VA, USA
Device: Kindle Oasis, iPad Pro, & a Samsung Galaxy S9.
|
I thought it interesting that in Star Trek: The Motion Picture all officers, regardless of gender, were addressed as 'Sir'. I believe this carried forward for a while but was later dropped.
|
07-21-2012, 04:00 PM | #38 | |
Grand Master of Flowers
Posts: 2,201
Karma: 8389072
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Naptown
Device: Kindle PW, Kindle 3 (aka Keyboard), iPhone, iPad 3 (not for reading)
|
Quote:
Even when used to mean the singular, "they" takes the plural form. "Can I bring a friend to the play?" "Sure, if they like Shakespeare." (Not *"If they likes Shakespeare.") I think that "they" will inevitably become the 3d person singular pronoun we use for persons of indeterminate gender. It has a long history in English, including being used by Shakespeare, and it is already very common in non formal contexts. Aesthetically, I tend to prefer "he" or "his," since that is the form used in so much good writing, especially from the 19th C. (Jane Austen's use of singular they notwithstanding), but it's on the wrong side of history and is already losing out. At work, our manual requires "his or her," which is awkward and not the way people normally speak, either. Even though "their" doesn't sound quite right, it has less of a workaround feel to it. Note: we don't actually need a "genderless" pronoun - our first and second person pronouns (I/we, you/you) don't indicate gender, nor does our 3d person plural pronoun (them). And we already have a 3d person singular genderless pronoun (it). What we need, specifically, is a third person singular pronoun we can use to refer to persons (animals, too?) who have a gender, but whose gender is unknown. (And we need a possessive to go along with it). Off the top of my head, I can't think of a situation where using "they/them/their" would unavoidably cause ambiguity...but I suppose that might happen in rare cases. "My roommate and the football team are coming over for dinner." "Oh, I'm looking forward to meeting them." [Meaning the roommate, not the team]. But English is full of ambiguities; this would happen rarely enough that you could specify if necessary. But of course if we look just a little further ahead in the future, we can recognize what the real usage problem will be. "Do you still want to bring your friend on the hike?" "Yes" "Well, it might rain, so tell them to bring they're raincoat." :-) |
|
07-21-2012, 09:00 PM | #39 | |
Frequent Flier
Posts: 1,282
Karma: 2058993297
Join Date: Oct 2011
Device: KB kindle aboard, Galx Tab 7.0 Plus, trying out Droid 1 as mini-tab
|
Quote:
Admirals were likely to accept "Yes, God!" on a very casual occasion. |
|
07-21-2012, 09:46 PM | #40 | |
K. C. Lee
Posts: 584
Karma: 3652522
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: New Zealand
Device: Android phone
|
Quote:
"Thank you for your invite." or "Thank you for your invitation." I was taught at school "invite" is a verb, but now it's also used as a noun. |
|
07-23-2012, 03:30 PM | #41 | |
Grand Master of Flowers
Posts: 2,201
Karma: 8389072
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Naptown
Device: Kindle PW, Kindle 3 (aka Keyboard), iPhone, iPad 3 (not for reading)
|
Quote:
Since "Thank you for your..." is somewhat formal, I would tend to use "invitation." But "invite" isn't wrong. For "invite," I would tend to say "Thanks for the invite!" There is also (I think) a subtle difference between "Thank you for *your* invitation" and "Thank you for *the* invitation," with "your" expressing maybe more thanks and being a little more personal as well. I think that "Thank you for the invitation" is probably more common. But if you are declining the invitation, "Thank you for your invitation, [unfortunately,...]" seems more appropriate. (Maybe because since you aren't going, you want to make sure that they know that you really are happy that you were invited.) I'd be happy to hear other people's thoughts on this, though. |
|
07-23-2012, 04:12 PM | #42 |
Addict
Posts: 263
Karma: 1492476
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Scotland
Device: Kindle
|
Why not just use 'it' for a genderless pronoun. To the best of my knowledge I have never met anyone who is genderless, so can't see why I would need a pronoun for one.
Probably some people are getting too political correct and just trying to protect themselves. |
07-23-2012, 10:53 PM | #43 |
Enthusiast
Posts: 37
Karma: 620820
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: UK and Spain
Device: Keypad Kindle
|
I just love our language, it is full of subtitles and innuendos.
Our language is evolving continually, although I recently read a manuscript written in English over a thousand years ago, and I could still clearly understand the gist. It is a shame that the words 'thou', 'thee' and 'thine' have fallen out of favour. In mainland Spanish, 'thou', 'thee' and 'thine' are still used ('usted' and 'ustedes') when addressing someone you haven't met, or addressing someone through a business letter. South American Spanish have other rules for using 'usted' and 'ustedes' I believe. In 'Romantic' languages, plural nouns are matched to plural pronouns, e.g. "tu taza roja" (your red cup) / "tus tazas rojas" (your red cups). Pleased rules of the English language don't insist on this law. Writing styles are just so interesting. The more I read about writing styles, the more I realise just how much I have to learn! It is a continual fascination to understand the complexities of a 'so called rule', and wonder at how it's been implemented all along without me (us, everyone) knowing, or even being concious of it. |
07-23-2012, 11:13 PM | #44 |
écureuil secret
Posts: 41
Karma: 1851776
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: London but traveling
Device: iPad Kindle Touch
|
If you ask them, they will tell you that they already have a genderless pronoun, and if you ask for more detail they will tell you that the genderless pronoun is they.
|
07-24-2012, 02:26 AM | #45 |
Junior Member
Posts: 2
Karma: 10
Join Date: Jul 2012
Device: nook simple touch
|
......
Last edited by gohpdee; 07-24-2012 at 02:31 AM. |
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Telling time in U. K. English | SeaBookGuy | General Discussions | 424 | 07-26-2012 04:22 AM |
Spanish libraries adopt ebook lending | DMcCunney | News | 0 | 02-28-2011 09:17 PM |
Will Kindle ever adopt an ePub format? | tkingny | Which one should I buy? | 24 | 12-25-2009 09:38 AM |
Adopt a Word | Andybaby | Lounge | 1 | 01-31-2009 05:53 PM |
OverDrive to Adopt epub | jasonkchapman | News | 2 | 12-14-2007 02:38 PM |