|
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 |
08-30-2012, 11:12 AM | #121 |
Junior Member
Posts: 5
Karma: 10
Join Date: Aug 2012
Device: none
|
Genderless pronouns: one/that person and sometimes it in the case it refers to a baby we don't know the gender.
|
08-31-2012, 12:29 AM | #122 | ||||||
Fledgling Demagogue
Posts: 2,384
Karma: 31132263
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: White Plains
Device: Clara HD; Oasis 2; Aura HD; iPad Air; PRS-350; Galaxy S7.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I would argue that, while sexism encompasses gender segregation, its embedding in language (spec. gender-inclusive pronouns in English) precedes segregation. If (and I say this as an agnostic), "in the beginning, there was the word," wouldn't the presumption of gender separation be preceded by the presumption of gender dominance? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The problem with presuming that an historical precedent for they trumps the need for a gender-neutral pronoun is the absence of its systematic adoption in earlier times. I would suggest that varied use and substitution could imply an inconsistency bred of vacillation, intended variety, remnants of earlier grammatical forms or mere carelessness. But then again, that is an unsubstantiated theory based on what is perhaps my persnickety need for organization which comes from years of formal training as a classical musician. In absolute music, syntax is always as pure as the composer chooses to make it. * * * * * An aside: I've continued posting on this thread because, for the most part, the interaction has been impassioned but civil. I haven't felt the impress of an us/them agenda that blinds people to counterarguments here, as I often have on threads about copyright law and DRM. Why not savor a good point whenever someone makes it whether it serves your argument or not? I mention this only because the tone is to be commended, and it is the result of the contributions of nearly everyone here. Last edited by Prestidigitweeze; 09-01-2012 at 01:05 PM. |
||||||
08-31-2012, 04:10 AM | #123 |
eBook Enthusiast
Posts: 85,544
Karma: 93383043
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: UK
Device: Kindle Oasis 2, iPad Pro 10.5", iPhone 6
|
But no speaker of Spanish (or French, or German, or Italian) would think that grammatical gender has anything whatsoever to do with "natural" gender. It's totally separate. A young lady ("Fraulein") in German, for example, is a neuter noun, and you use the pronoun "it", not "her" to refer to a Fraulein, but that doesn't mean that Fraulein's aren't physically female.
|
08-31-2012, 04:15 AM | #124 | |
The Grand Mouse 高貴的老鼠
Posts: 72,160
Karma: 308792702
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Norfolk, England
Device: Kindle Voyage
|
Quote:
I think that it hasn't become more prevalent because of a systematic campaign against its use by English teachers over the past couple of centuries. Now that it's more accepted that they (etc.) can be used as a singular pronoun, their use will become far more common. And so become even more accepted. |
|
08-31-2012, 04:21 AM | #125 |
eBook Enthusiast
Posts: 85,544
Karma: 93383043
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: UK
Device: Kindle Oasis 2, iPad Pro 10.5", iPhone 6
|
English has, on the whole, lost the distinction between the informal/formal singular/plural second person pronouns "thou" and "you" (although "thou/thee" is still alive and well in some English regional dialects, such as the part of the country where I live). The same could perhaps happen with third person pronouns, although I personally doubt it.
|
08-31-2012, 04:44 AM | #126 | |
The Grand Mouse 高貴的老鼠
Posts: 72,160
Karma: 308792702
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Norfolk, England
Device: Kindle Voyage
|
Quote:
|
|
08-31-2012, 06:17 AM | #127 | |
Interested Bystander
Posts: 3,726
Karma: 19728152
Join Date: Jun 2008
Device: Note 4, Kobo One
|
Quote:
English is not included in the list of languages with some central regulator. Usage is ultimately the only definition. |
|
08-31-2012, 01:54 PM | #128 | |
Fledgling Demagogue
Posts: 2,384
Karma: 31132263
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: White Plains
Device: Clara HD; Oasis 2; Aura HD; iPad Air; PRS-350; Galaxy S7.
|
Quote:
----------- * (I hope it's apparent I'm kidding about a link to a list of regulators implying personal insult.) Last edited by Prestidigitweeze; 09-01-2012 at 01:06 PM. |
|
08-31-2012, 02:04 PM | #129 | |
Wizard
Posts: 3,418
Karma: 35207650
Join Date: Jun 2011
Device: iPad
|
Quote:
Joking aside, usage IS what defines English. Rules are written after the fact. Go read how any of our "standards" are created and you will see that came out of studying how words/etc were used. Teachers/etc help slow change down, and help teach the current state... but ultimately usage drives the rules, not the other way around. |
|
08-31-2012, 02:12 PM | #130 | |
Fledgling Demagogue
Posts: 2,384
Karma: 31132263
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: White Plains
Device: Clara HD; Oasis 2; Aura HD; iPad Air; PRS-350; Galaxy S7.
|
Quote:
But apart from the attempt at regulation by institutions like L'Académie française (and even they have had to accept new rules and exceptions for arbitrary reasons -- not, for example, because they found technical justification but because Proust invented and used unorthodox syntax convincingly), both elements are at play. Usage is crucial to English not because of the absence of regulators but because ours is an imperfect and, often, wildly illogical language. That (and the vocabulary of any country that ever invaded a certain green and pleasant land) adds to its expressive power but prevents us from relying on the grid of perfect syntax the way one can in French, for example. I would argue that that is why we're having this discussion: it hinges not on regulation or usage but rather on logic, which is necessary to counteract the chaos. Hence the factions divided on subject-verb agreement, literal ideas of sexism (see Harry's comment about grammatical vs. natural gender) and the potential awkwardness of inventing a new and neutral pronoun. Look down and you'll see we're all walking the tightrope toward grace. Last edited by Prestidigitweeze; 09-01-2012 at 11:59 AM. Reason: *From*, not *form*. |
|
08-31-2012, 03:57 PM | #131 | |
Evangelist
Posts: 409
Karma: 1244354
Join Date: Jan 2012
Device: Kobo Touch
|
Quote:
The same (neuter noun, it) is true for "girl" (Mädchen). We know that a girl is female, of course. Still we struggle with the similar problems. We currently use "er" (he) and "man" or jemand (for someone), but people are not really happy with that, either. In the 90s women started to use "frau" instead of "man" because man resembles "Mann" (man) and they wanted to show that a woman (Frau) could also do it, not only a man (Mann). But that was considered rather over the top. In German it's even more complicated. We have male and female versions of words like "friend". Female friend is "Freundin", male friend is "Freund". And if you were trying to write a note to your friends, male and female, you could either write "liebe Freudinnen, liebe Freunde" or "liebe FreundInnen"... which is awkward... We often use "er oder sie" (he or she) which is awkward, too. But the use of something similar to the singular they has been seen, too, though rather rarely. All in all nothing has been agreed upon in German, either. As a non native English speaker I quite like the singular they and have seen it so often that I never thought that it was not already considered to be "standard". |
|
08-31-2012, 06:09 PM | #132 |
The Grand Mouse 高貴的老鼠
Posts: 72,160
Karma: 308792702
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Norfolk, England
Device: Kindle Voyage
|
English also has several male and female versions of job descriptions or titles:
actor/actress waiter/waitress comedian/comedienne baron/baroness For some of these, there is a move away from using the female version to using only the male version. This is especially prevalent in the acting profession. I'm uncertain as to whether this is a good, bad or neutral thing. But from common politeness, if a female acting professional wants to be called an actor, I'll call her that. |
09-01-2012, 12:45 AM | #133 |
Connoisseur
Posts: 62
Karma: 640495
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Germany
Device: Kindle Touch, Android smartphone w/ FBReader
|
I just use "they". As English is my second language it does not violate my feel for language and with already more people speaking English as a second language than as a native language today, I'm pretty sure "they" will win out in the end. It's just the easiest leap from what's already there.
|
09-01-2012, 01:18 AM | #134 | |||
Philosopher
Posts: 2,034
Karma: 18736532
Join Date: Jan 2012
Device: Kindle Paperwhite 2 gen, Kindle Fire 1st Gen, Kindle Touch
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I expected that if I had not added that clarification, it would have been easy for someone to use a language such as Spanish to provide a counter-example to what I had said, and I expect you would have done just that. Last edited by QuantumIguana; 09-01-2012 at 01:56 AM. |
|||
09-01-2012, 12:46 PM | #135 |
Fledgling Demagogue
Posts: 2,384
Karma: 31132263
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: White Plains
Device: Clara HD; Oasis 2; Aura HD; iPad Air; PRS-350; Galaxy S7.
|
[This bracket space has been reserved for a response to QuantumIguana's last and well-reasoned post. At the moment, I have to concentrate on formulating questions for an interview and writing the intro -- all due on Monday -- and it would be too tempting to remain very active on this thread.]
Here's the other reason I wanted to post now: because a few ideas came to me suddenly. 1. I was thinking about VydorScope and others' idea of usage alone driving all grammatical rules. One thing we haven't discussed so far is the idea of levels of language, and that is another place where the de facto steering committee of English has its say. A word might be commonly used in a particular way, but there's another question, too: Will it remain in the vernacular or be accepted at the informal and formal levels? 2. To pdurrant, who mentioned using actor for actress (and other such male-gendered nouns) as an acceptable response to sexism in language: What's interesting is that, in such cases, people have decided that the least sexist thing to do is to favor the synecdoche of a single gender representing both. Which makes me wonder how correct our perception of sexism in language really is. The reason that actor strikes many of us as an acceptable compromise might be because there is no hint of subject-verb disagreement, and because -or doesn't have the same gendered charge as him, he and his. Moreover, the -ess form is sometimes taken to be dismissive (which might be part of the reason that -trix and -trice, along with their association with dominance, enjoyed an enthusiastic revival in the '90s). But if we're willing to defer to the male-specific gender there, then why not in the case of the pronoun he? Could it be we're overreacting to a red herring based on our mistaking secondary associations for the actual intention and function? Last edited by Prestidigitweeze; 09-01-2012 at 01:09 PM. |
|
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 |