So instead of saying "They were walking their down down the street", when you are talking about one person, and who you don't know is male or female, you would say ""Zhe was walking zher dog down the street " which would mean "He/she was walking his/her dog down the street."
Common-gender pronoun
A good example is the British Telecom way of letting you know about unanswered callers to your number. "You were called today at ten thirty two - the caller with-held THEIR number".
Attempts at pinning the singular non-gender-specific "they/their/them" on the modern feminist movement ring hollow, as such usage was documented in the written language two to three centuries ago, obviously predating modern feminism. Serious language change is rarely if ever fickle enough to follow linguistic prescriptions, whether they be from stuffy old grammarians or ultra-PC idealists.
Without any touch of sexism, I'd find "his" very appropriate in Damian's example - at any rate, the caller's sex is irrelevant in this case, therefore "his" could be used as an unmarked, neutral pronoun. In general, I don't find it incorrect if persons of unspecified sex are referred to as "he" in speech or writing - for example "A child will learn more from the example rather than the words of HIS parents". "She" may as well be used in this context as well, it's all a matter of convention, only this pronoun is clearly marked for most people (they will not perceive it as neutral). Of course, if the context indicates that the child in the above sentence is a girl, then it is obvious what pronoun should be used.
Let me take another example, just to show the absurdity of using "he or she" all the time (what follows is not Christian propaganda, I have taken the example for the strict purpose of illustration). The Bible says at one place: "If any man be in Christ, he is a new creation". A PC version of this sentence would sound something like "If any man or woman be in Christ, he or she is a new creation". Another, less clumsy PC version would be: "If any person be in Christ, they are a new creation". Both versions sound rather odd to me (the latter one less so, but it is rather flavourless compared to the original). Instead, I simply take "man" in the original example to be generic, referring to all people, including women as well, so there is no need for all the fuss.
The only case I think "he or she" is appropriate is when you are not sure of the sex of the person you are adressing or referring to. I used to meet very odd first names when my work involved business correspondence. The oddest cases were not those where you had to address the person (you can always use Dear Sir/Madam, as Damian said), but when you had to quote what the person in question said to a third party. Then the only thing you could do is to write or say: "Mr/Ms so and so said that he or she ...". I think such cases couldn't be handled in any other way, given the limitations of English, so you need not fear that you will come off impolite. At any rate, you're not supposed to know in each case if a name belonging to a different culture is male or female.
Let me take another example, just to show the absurdity of using "he or she" all the time (what follows is not Christian propaganda, I have taken the example for the strict purpose of illustration). The Bible says at one place: "If any man be in Christ, he is a new creation". A PC version of this sentence would sound something like "If any man or woman be in Christ, he or she is a new creation". Another, less clumsy PC version would be: "If any person be in Christ, they are a new creation". Both versions sound rather odd to me (the latter one less so, but it is rather flavourless compared to the original). Instead, I simply take "man" in the original example to be generic, referring to all people, including women as well, so there is no need for all the fuss.
The only case I think "he or she" is appropriate is when you are not sure of the sex of the person you are adressing or referring to. I used to meet very odd first names when my work involved business correspondence. The oddest cases were not those where you had to address the person (you can always use Dear Sir/Madam, as Damian said), but when you had to quote what the person in question said to a third party. Then the only thing you could do is to write or say: "Mr/Ms so and so said that he or she ...". I think such cases couldn't be handled in any other way, given the limitations of English, so you need not fear that you will come off impolite. At any rate, you're not supposed to know in each case if a name belonging to a different culture is male or female.
"Attempts at pinning the singular non-gender-specific 'they/their/them' on the modern feminist movement ring hollow, as such usage was documented in the written language two to three centuries ago, obviously predating modern feminism. Serious language change is rarely if ever fickle enough to follow linguistic prescriptions, whether they be from stuffy old grammarians or ultra-PC idealists."
Well put, Kirk!
As you've pointed out, the use of "they" as a singular epicene pronoun has a well-attested history in English.
Well put, Kirk!
As you've pointed out, the use of "they" as a singular epicene pronoun has a well-attested history in English.
The future of personkind* is uncertain with a lot of this crap balls* stuff......some loony loopy councils have loony loopy councillors who put forward loony loopy proposals......like calling the city Personchester* and covered access point in pavements personholes* and that old guy on TV was personhandled* out of the Labour Party conference for shouting out "nonsense". That's what PC is....nonsense.
*Surely "person" is non-PC? It contains nasty male "son". Any other non-gender specific suggestions? People is plural isn't it? Peoplechester and peopleholes and peoplehandling? No? Weird I reckon.
I don't give a s**t! I'll go to Manchester if I ever feel like it, and if I fall down a manhole...that's ok as long as I'm not manhandled.....
.......well second thoughts.........
*Surely "person" is non-PC? It contains nasty male "son". Any other non-gender specific suggestions? People is plural isn't it? Peoplechester and peopleholes and peoplehandling? No? Weird I reckon.
I don't give a s**t! I'll go to Manchester if I ever feel like it, and if I fall down a manhole...that's ok as long as I'm not manhandled.....
.......well second thoughts.........
och nae probs JJM..... it's not persondatory to follow the rules of PC to such lengths as that is it? I'm all for complete freedom of speech and action within the bounds of the law of the land and total respect for people whatever their creed, colour, belief, gender or sexual orientation....all that sort of stuff you see at the bottom of all job advertisements. I live in Liveandletliveland. Some of my best mates are mega whacky to say the least.
But any "-isms" that verge on the ridiculous Nicholas are just awfie daft, as we say up here.....insanity in plain English.
But any "-isms" that verge on the ridiculous Nicholas are just awfie daft, as we say up here.....insanity in plain English.
>>Without any touch of sexism, I'd find "his" very appropriate in Damian's example - at any rate, the caller's sex is irrelevant in this case, therefore "his" could be used as an unmarked, neutral pronoun. In general, I don't find it incorrect if persons of unspecified sex are referred to as "he" in speech or writing - for example "A child will learn more from the example rather than the words of HIS parents". "She" may as well be used in this context as well, it's all a matter of convention, only this pronoun is clearly marked for most people (they will not perceive it as neutral). Of course, if the context indicates that the child in the above sentence is a girl, then it is obvious what pronoun should be used.<<
Of course, the problem with this is that it seems that many English dialects do not allow for such a usage of "he"/"him"/"his"; for example, in my dialect, such is *always* specifically masculine and *never* genderless. When I hear someone use "he" with someone whose gender I don't know, such to me automatically marks their gender as being male, rather than just serving as an epicene pronoun. From all the people whom I've asked about this myself or whom I have otherwise read what such indicates in practice for them, of which most to all are NAE-speakers, pretty much all have agreed that "he"/"him"/"his" is not genderless at all but rather specifically masculine. Hence, to me, to claim that "he"/"him"/his" is genderless in any cases at all stinks of prescriptivism in itself, even if one does not insist its use over "they"/"them"/"their", which is what appears to be natively used today in actual everyday speech for such in most NAE dialects that I know of, which would be even more prescriptivist.
Of course, the problem with this is that it seems that many English dialects do not allow for such a usage of "he"/"him"/"his"; for example, in my dialect, such is *always* specifically masculine and *never* genderless. When I hear someone use "he" with someone whose gender I don't know, such to me automatically marks their gender as being male, rather than just serving as an epicene pronoun. From all the people whom I've asked about this myself or whom I have otherwise read what such indicates in practice for them, of which most to all are NAE-speakers, pretty much all have agreed that "he"/"him"/"his" is not genderless at all but rather specifically masculine. Hence, to me, to claim that "he"/"him"/his" is genderless in any cases at all stinks of prescriptivism in itself, even if one does not insist its use over "they"/"them"/"their", which is what appears to be natively used today in actual everyday speech for such in most NAE dialects that I know of, which would be even more prescriptivist.
My bad, I misunderstood the question. It wouldnt be a bad idea, but I've never heard of something like this being done before.
Travis,
I would say the traditional, "generic" use of "he" in the examples I have cited is not prescriptive, it is (or at least used to be) naturally perceived to include both men and women (such as "man" being used for all humans). Of course "he" is a male personal pronoun in itself, but why should it not be used in cases where the person's sex is irrelevant? Then you covertly assign male gender to the noun it refers to, with no relevance to the actual sex of the person. That, I guess, is a normal thing with languages which do have grammatical gender (German, French, Italian, etc.) - they may use a male-gender noun for persons of unspecified sex without anybody objecting to such practice as sexist. I think it is wrong to confuse grammatical gender with sex, we are talking about the former here.
My problem with "he or she" being used all the time is that it is rather clumsy, sounds like a person correcting themselves (!) all the time, and it prevents the style of the communicator to flow naturally. "They" being used as a gender-neutral pronoun seems to be a good alternative, but in some cases it sounds unnatural, especially if the subject is in the same clause with the pronoun. See: "A child will learn from the example rather than the words of their parents" (somebody could say: "Aaagh!" at hearing "they" being used with a singular noun). You can always reformulate the sentence using the plural instead of a singular ("Children will learn..."), but what about cases such as the "caller" example given by Damian? The best thing you can do is resort to an impersonal passive structure, such as "You were called today ... - the number has been withheld by the caller", but some other instances are not so easy to elude.
I would say the traditional, "generic" use of "he" in the examples I have cited is not prescriptive, it is (or at least used to be) naturally perceived to include both men and women (such as "man" being used for all humans). Of course "he" is a male personal pronoun in itself, but why should it not be used in cases where the person's sex is irrelevant? Then you covertly assign male gender to the noun it refers to, with no relevance to the actual sex of the person. That, I guess, is a normal thing with languages which do have grammatical gender (German, French, Italian, etc.) - they may use a male-gender noun for persons of unspecified sex without anybody objecting to such practice as sexist. I think it is wrong to confuse grammatical gender with sex, we are talking about the former here.
My problem with "he or she" being used all the time is that it is rather clumsy, sounds like a person correcting themselves (!) all the time, and it prevents the style of the communicator to flow naturally. "They" being used as a gender-neutral pronoun seems to be a good alternative, but in some cases it sounds unnatural, especially if the subject is in the same clause with the pronoun. See: "A child will learn from the example rather than the words of their parents" (somebody could say: "Aaagh!" at hearing "they" being used with a singular noun). You can always reformulate the sentence using the plural instead of a singular ("Children will learn..."), but what about cases such as the "caller" example given by Damian? The best thing you can do is resort to an impersonal passive structure, such as "You were called today ... - the number has been withheld by the caller", but some other instances are not so easy to elude.