I've seen "thon" (along the derivatives thon's and thonself) proposed as a third person singular gender neutral pronoun. What do you think about it? I personally think singular they does the job just fine.
"thon", "thon's" and "thonself"
I totally agree with you. As you point out, English already has a perfectly good 3rd singular gender-neutral pronoun: singular "they", which has been in use for centuries.
I agree couldn't agree more.
"They" is just fine and I don't see the reason why we should find another one. Besides, "thon" and "thonself" makes me cringe. I have never heard a single person using this in real-life conversation. Does anyone use it?
What's the problem with 'they' anyways?
"They" is just fine and I don't see the reason why we should find another one. Besides, "thon" and "thonself" makes me cringe. I have never heard a single person using this in real-life conversation. Does anyone use it?
What's the problem with 'they' anyways?
I agree. This is the worst kind of prescriptivism. Instead of simply accepting the already widespread usage of singular 'they', someone invents a whole new ridiculous pronoun and proposes that we all use it instead. What annoys me most about this is that in the meantime, we still can't use singular they in formal contexts, like essays, without looking like we don't know the appropriate style. So while people debate the relative merits of 'thon', 'xe', and 'e' as gender-neutral pronouns, we are stuck with awkwardly-worded sentences with 'one' or repeatedly using the passive.
Sorry for the rant.
Sorry for the rant.
No probs, Josh. I completely agree with you there.
Well, passive is sort of okay, nevertheless, sometimes its slightly awkward or even inappropriate. Not to mention using "one" all the time...I have nothing against "one" as "you" sounds too colloquial to be used in formal essay. So, if I have to use one of them (those?) in this context, I definitely pick "one" .
BUT: What's bloody wrong with "they"? It's completely neutral just like "one", and as such doesn't invoke the feeling of intimacy (unlike "you"). On what grounds does *one* make a difference between the two? I fail to see the logic behind it.
Oh no...I did it, too! Sorry for the rant.
Well, passive is sort of okay, nevertheless, sometimes its slightly awkward or even inappropriate. Not to mention using "one" all the time...I have nothing against "one" as "you" sounds too colloquial to be used in formal essay. So, if I have to use one of them (those?) in this context, I definitely pick "one" .
BUT: What's bloody wrong with "they"? It's completely neutral just like "one", and as such doesn't invoke the feeling of intimacy (unlike "you"). On what grounds does *one* make a difference between the two? I fail to see the logic behind it.
Oh no...I did it, too! Sorry for the rant.
its=it's
Besides, sorry for my punctuation, which has always been rubbish.
Besides, sorry for my punctuation, which has always been rubbish.
Just one question:
Do you think it is widely accepted to use "thon" and "thonself" in academic / formal essays? I myself have never come across these forms, and I would certainly look askance at someone using them even in formal speech / writing.
So, don't they get a quizzical look when they use it?
Do you think it is widely accepted to use "thon" and "thonself" in academic / formal essays? I myself have never come across these forms, and I would certainly look askance at someone using them even in formal speech / writing.
So, don't they get a quizzical look when they use it?
<<do you think it is widely accepted to use "thon" and "thonself" in academic / formal essays?>>
No, I don't think I've ever seen it either. Maybe it occurs in some feminist literature, but I'm not really an expert on the subject...I suspect it occurs mostly (or entirely) in the works of whoever invented it.
No, I don't think I've ever seen it either. Maybe it occurs in some feminist literature, but I'm not really an expert on the subject...I suspect it occurs mostly (or entirely) in the works of whoever invented it.
"They" is plural, not singular.
Many people use it as a 3rd person singular gender-neutral pronoun, but it's not correct.
English doesn't have one.
Many people use it as a 3rd person singular gender-neutral pronoun, but it's not correct.
English doesn't have one.
Historically, there were two gender neutral pronouns native to English dialects, 'ou' and 'a', but they have long since died out. According to Dennis Baron's Grammar and Gender:
In 1789, William H. Marshall records the existence of a dialectal English epicene pronoun, singular "ou": "'Ou will' expresses either he will, she will, or it will." Marshall traces "ou" to Middle English epicene "a", used by the 14th century English writer John of Trevisa, and both the OED and Wright's English Dialect Dictionary confirm the use of "a" for he, she, it, they, and even I. This "a" is a reduced form of the Anglo-Saxon he = "he" and heo = "she". By the 12th and 13th centuries, these had often weakened to a point where, according to the OED, they were "almost or wholly indistinguishable in pronunciation." The modern feminine pronoun she, which first appears in the mid twelfth century, seems to have been drafted at least partly to reduce the increasing ambiguity of the pronoun system....
Baron goes on to describe how relics of these sex-neutral terms survive in some British dialects of Modern English, and sometimes a pronoun of one gender might be applied to a person or animal of the opposite gender.
-------------------
For a list of the other proposed ones, such as this one -
ze/mer
ze laughed/i kissed mer/zer head hurts/I am zer/ze feeds zemself
E
E laughed/ I kissed het /het head hurts/ I am hets /E feeds hetself
go here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thon_%28pronoun%29
wikipedia.org
In 1789, William H. Marshall records the existence of a dialectal English epicene pronoun, singular "ou": "'Ou will' expresses either he will, she will, or it will." Marshall traces "ou" to Middle English epicene "a", used by the 14th century English writer John of Trevisa, and both the OED and Wright's English Dialect Dictionary confirm the use of "a" for he, she, it, they, and even I. This "a" is a reduced form of the Anglo-Saxon he = "he" and heo = "she". By the 12th and 13th centuries, these had often weakened to a point where, according to the OED, they were "almost or wholly indistinguishable in pronunciation." The modern feminine pronoun she, which first appears in the mid twelfth century, seems to have been drafted at least partly to reduce the increasing ambiguity of the pronoun system....
Baron goes on to describe how relics of these sex-neutral terms survive in some British dialects of Modern English, and sometimes a pronoun of one gender might be applied to a person or animal of the opposite gender.
-------------------
For a list of the other proposed ones, such as this one -
ze/mer
ze laughed/i kissed mer/zer head hurts/I am zer/ze feeds zemself
E
E laughed/ I kissed het /het head hurts/ I am hets /E feeds hetself
go here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thon_%28pronoun%29
wikipedia.org
"thonself" gets about 400 googs.
http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&q=thonself&btnG=Google+Search
http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&q=thonself&btnG=Google+Search
Tavorian,
I guess the figure includes websites like this one... one that argues it's rediculous ;-)
I guess the figure includes websites like this one... one that argues it's rediculous ;-)
Well, we could all weigh in with suggestions. May I suggest "zygga" as a gender-neutral pronoun...
<< "They" is plural, not singular.
Many people use it as a 3rd person singular gender-neutral pronoun, but it's not correct.
English doesn't have one. >>
What determines whether something or not is "correct" is actual usage, not what some book (or teacher) says. Actual usage declares that a "singular they" does exist. It might not be appropriate in the most formal registers of speech/writing, but it does exist and is certainly more widely acceptable than, say, usage of "ain't".
Anyway, I've always hated the idea of introducing new pronouns. They sound unnatural and they'll never catch on. On the other hand, the use of "singular they" does sound natural (which is why it's widespread), and I think there's nothing wrong with it. Who says an old pronoun can't be adapted to a new use? The only problem is the form "themself", which sounds weird because it's normally ungrammatical, but using "themselves" does clearly suggest a plural... I'd be inclined to use "oneself" in such a case, myself.
- Kef
Many people use it as a 3rd person singular gender-neutral pronoun, but it's not correct.
English doesn't have one. >>
What determines whether something or not is "correct" is actual usage, not what some book (or teacher) says. Actual usage declares that a "singular they" does exist. It might not be appropriate in the most formal registers of speech/writing, but it does exist and is certainly more widely acceptable than, say, usage of "ain't".
Anyway, I've always hated the idea of introducing new pronouns. They sound unnatural and they'll never catch on. On the other hand, the use of "singular they" does sound natural (which is why it's widespread), and I think there's nothing wrong with it. Who says an old pronoun can't be adapted to a new use? The only problem is the form "themself", which sounds weird because it's normally ungrammatical, but using "themselves" does clearly suggest a plural... I'd be inclined to use "oneself" in such a case, myself.
- Kef
>>I agree. This is the worst kind of prescriptivism. Instead of simply accepting the already widespread usage of singular 'they', someone invents a whole new ridiculous pronoun and proposes that we all use it instead. What annoys me most about this is that in the meantime, we still can't use singular they in formal contexts, like essays, without looking like we don't know the appropriate style. So while people debate the relative merits of 'thon', 'xe', and 'e' as gender-neutral pronouns, we are stuck with awkwardly-worded sentences with 'one' or repeatedly using the passive.<<
Agreed completely.
Agreed completely.