Just on a side-note, it is interesting to compare the practice to avoid sounding sexist followed in English-speaking countries with that followed in German-speaking ones. A job advertisement in English would start as "International company seeks senior salesperson" (gender-neutral term used to include both men and women), while German would say "Internationale Firma sucht Leitende(n) Verkäufer(in)" (the ending in brackets after the noun signifies the female form, obviously to emphasize that both men and women can apply as potential candidates). The question is, whether both methods will prevent the glass-ceiling phenomenon to happen? I tend to think sexism is an attitude that is not principally manifested in language use...
Common-gender pronoun
Previous page Pages: 1 2 3
It seems to me that common-gender pronoun is not about avoiding sexist attitude, but gaining semantic transparency. But the question is whether or not a newly-coined pronoun could have it.
<<Well put, Kirk!
As you've pointed out, the use of "they" as a singular epicene pronoun has a well-attested history in English.>>
Thanks ;)
This whole topic is kind of pointless as there already exists a clear example of a singular non-gender specific commonly used by native speakers--"they." A new one doesn't need to be invented, as singular "they" has been around for several centuries and works just great. Nor would an invented one even catch on. People have already tried and it doesn't work.
As you've pointed out, the use of "they" as a singular epicene pronoun has a well-attested history in English.>>
Thanks ;)
This whole topic is kind of pointless as there already exists a clear example of a singular non-gender specific commonly used by native speakers--"they." A new one doesn't need to be invented, as singular "they" has been around for several centuries and works just great. Nor would an invented one even catch on. People have already tried and it doesn't work.
http://members.aol.com/intwg/trolls.htm
>>An Internet "troll" is a person who delights in sowing discord on the Internet. He (and it is usually he) tries to start arguments and upset people. <<
Why "He (and it is usually he) "? This implys that a strange person must be usually a man. This is sexism, isn't it? Or just a prejudiced usage of masculine pronoun?
>>An Internet "troll" is a person who delights in sowing discord on the Internet. He (and it is usually he) tries to start arguments and upset people. <<
Why "He (and it is usually he) "? This implys that a strange person must be usually a man. This is sexism, isn't it? Or just a prejudiced usage of masculine pronoun?
**This is sexism, isn't it? **
Yup...pure and simple....a one way street..21st C style
Yup...pure and simple....a one way street..21st C style
>>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.<<
And I was saying that at least for many English-speakers, "he" is *explicitly* male and *cannot* be used to include both men and women. I am not speaking about the word "man" or not-explicitly-female versions of words with explicitly-female counterparts, but just that particular pronoun. I also not speaking of German, French, or Italian here either, and whatever applies to them does not necessarily apply to English.
>>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.<<
"He and she" is rather clumsy in opinion as well. On the other hand, "they" does not seem unnatural at all, and rather, at least in my dialect, is *the* pronoun used for referring to individuals' who gender is unknown or irrelevant, not "he" or "he or she".
And I was saying that at least for many English-speakers, "he" is *explicitly* male and *cannot* be used to include both men and women. I am not speaking about the word "man" or not-explicitly-female versions of words with explicitly-female counterparts, but just that particular pronoun. I also not speaking of German, French, or Italian here either, and whatever applies to them does not necessarily apply to English.
>>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.<<
"He and she" is rather clumsy in opinion as well. On the other hand, "they" does not seem unnatural at all, and rather, at least in my dialect, is *the* pronoun used for referring to individuals' who gender is unknown or irrelevant, not "he" or "he or she".
Now I've done a little research of the subject, I realised I unintentionally sided into some prescriptivism. I've learned that it was the 18th century prescriptivists who declared that "he" is the only appropriate pronoun for person of unknown sex, although "they" used in such a way had been around beginning from the 14th century or so. So "omnia sponte fluant" ("let everything flow freely"), and let's hail "THEY", the common gender pronoun of all ages!!!
While English's lack of a common-gender pronoun might be awkward in some circumstances, inventing such a pronoun artificially is simply too bizarre to be acceptable. I cannot imagine "thon" ever catching on, it sounds totally unacceptable to my ears.
Interestingly, in my dialect it is possible to use "he" for an abstract person of undefined gender. For example in sayings such as "he who hesitates is lost", "he" does not necessarily mean a male. However, one cannot use "he" to mean a real person who's gender is unknown. For example, if one received a letter from a person with a name one does not recognise as either mail or female, one would not say "Who is he?"
However, one can refer to a baby of unknown gender as "it", for example: "The baby is crying for its mother" but one would not do the same for an older child or adult. It would sound odd to say "the bus driver bought a present for its mother".
Interestingly, in my dialect it is possible to use "he" for an abstract person of undefined gender. For example in sayings such as "he who hesitates is lost", "he" does not necessarily mean a male. However, one cannot use "he" to mean a real person who's gender is unknown. For example, if one received a letter from a person with a name one does not recognise as either mail or female, one would not say "Who is he?"
However, one can refer to a baby of unknown gender as "it", for example: "The baby is crying for its mother" but one would not do the same for an older child or adult. It would sound odd to say "the bus driver bought a present for its mother".
>>While English's lack of a common-gender pronoun might be awkward in some circumstances, inventing such a pronoun artificially is simply too bizarre to be acceptable. I cannot imagine "thon" ever catching on, it sounds totally unacceptable to my ears.<<
It *does* have a common-gender pronoun, and it is "they". It is just that the prescriptivist types refuse to accept that, but rather arbitrarily insist on the use of "he" for such things.
>>Interestingly, in my dialect it is possible to use "he" for an abstract person of undefined gender. For example in sayings such as "he who hesitates is lost", "he" does not necessarily mean a male. However, one cannot use "he" to mean a real person who's gender is unknown. For example, if one received a letter from a person with a name one does not recognise as either mail or female, one would not say "Who is he?"<<
Many such uses of "he", though, could considered to be fixed expressions and like, and fixed expressions often tend to act in a rather special-cased fashion in practice.
It *does* have a common-gender pronoun, and it is "they". It is just that the prescriptivist types refuse to accept that, but rather arbitrarily insist on the use of "he" for such things.
>>Interestingly, in my dialect it is possible to use "he" for an abstract person of undefined gender. For example in sayings such as "he who hesitates is lost", "he" does not necessarily mean a male. However, one cannot use "he" to mean a real person who's gender is unknown. For example, if one received a letter from a person with a name one does not recognise as either mail or female, one would not say "Who is he?"<<
Many such uses of "he", though, could considered to be fixed expressions and like, and fixed expressions often tend to act in a rather special-cased fashion in practice.
I think you are imagining prescriptivists under the beds now Travis. It would have been better if I'd said "English's lack of a *unique* common-gender pronoun" because I agree that "they" can be used and it is not incorrect. However, it is not *entirely* satisfactory and there are some cases where the use of "they" would sound awkward or ambiguous. For example the BT message "You were called today at 15:34, the caller witheld their number" is OK if slightly unsatisfactory sounding, but "They who hesitates is lost" would be unnatural.
> Many such uses of "he", though, could considered to be fixed expressions and like, and fixed expressions often tend to act in a rather special-cased fashion in practice.
This is true, but one can create sentences that are not fixed expressions in the same way. You could get around the problem by means of circumlocution, for example "a person who hesitates is lost" or "You were called today at 15:34, the number of the caller was withheld" but again these are slightly awkward.
> Many such uses of "he", though, could considered to be fixed expressions and like, and fixed expressions often tend to act in a rather special-cased fashion in practice.
This is true, but one can create sentences that are not fixed expressions in the same way. You could get around the problem by means of circumlocution, for example "a person who hesitates is lost" or "You were called today at 15:34, the number of the caller was withheld" but again these are slightly awkward.
Previous page Pages: 1 2 3