MobileRead Forums - View Single Post - Is it time English adopt a genderless pronoun?

JohnGalt · 08-26-2012, 11:49 PM

Misuse of pronouns has rhetorical consequences. If you say "they," then your reader will conjur the plural in his mind, and then be forced to reform that initial image when he deduces by the context that your "they" is actually singular. The reader is not only jarred, but then he makes further inferences - that you're effecting a more casual conversational tone (as this is really a more common convention in conversation,) or that you're making a deliberate effort not to imply gender (which is different than simply not implying gender casually.)

Pronoun misuse is often forgiven in the case of trying to be PC, but to some of us, it is like nails on the chalkboard. I am embarassed to show my children Sesame Street as Elmo and Cookie monster's refusal to use pronouns insults kids' intelligence and teaches them to talk like idiots. On the other hand, I just finished reading "Anthem" by Ayn Rand, and her use of collective pronouns to describe a singular self had a powerful rhetorical effect (which was admittedly still annoying, but purposefull.)

Attempts to make up a new pronoun seem unneccessary to me, as everyone knows exactly how to read a genderless "he," but a new singular to me would be much clearer than using a plural or alternating between genders. The latter can be very confusing as the change from he to she implies a change in antecedent when no such change is actually occurring. The problem with a new pronoun, is how on earth to bring such a word into common use. I had a book once advocate the use of "s/he" which was to be read aloud as "she or he." Not only is it an eyesore, and the reading of it cumbersome, but what are the odds of everyone accepting and using such a term simply because a handbook used in a handfull of classrooms suggested it? Had I encountered that word in writing before I received that handbook, I'd have had no idea what that meant. This is the only solution that would have the intended rhetorical effect, but it seems very unlikely to be done. Ultimately, I say, "if it aint broke, don't fix it."

08-26-2012, 11:49 PM	#88
JohnGalt Enthusiast Posts: 35 Karma: 817528 Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: KY, USA Device: Onyx M92	Misuse of pronouns has rhetorical consequences. If you say "they," then your reader will conjur the plural in his mind, and then be forced to reform that initial image when he deduces by the context that your "they" is actually singular. The reader is not only jarred, but then he makes further inferences - that you're effecting a more casual conversational tone (as this is really a more common convention in conversation,) or that you're making a deliberate effort not to imply gender (which is different than simply not implying gender casually.) Pronoun misuse is often forgiven in the case of trying to be PC, but to some of us, it is like nails on the chalkboard. I am embarassed to show my children Sesame Street as Elmo and Cookie monster's refusal to use pronouns insults kids' intelligence and teaches them to talk like idiots. On the other hand, I just finished reading "Anthem" by Ayn Rand, and her use of collective pronouns to describe a singular self had a powerful rhetorical effect (which was admittedly still annoying, but purposefull.) Attempts to make up a new pronoun seem unneccessary to me, as everyone knows exactly how to read a genderless "he," but a new singular to me would be much clearer than using a plural or alternating between genders. The latter can be very confusing as the change from he to she implies a change in antecedent when no such change is actually occurring. The problem with a new pronoun, is how on earth to bring such a word into common use. I had a book once advocate the use of "s/he" which was to be read aloud as "she or he." Not only is it an eyesore, and the reading of it cumbersome, but what are the odds of everyone accepting and using such a term simply because a handbook used in a handfull of classrooms suggested it? Had I encountered that word in writing before I received that handbook, I'd have had no idea what that meant. This is the only solution that would have the intended rhetorical effect, but it seems very unlikely to be done. Ultimately, I say, "if it aint broke, don't fix it."