"Hu," from "human," as a gender-neutral pronoun
Mikhail Epstein
a clipping from "human", as a 3rd person gender-neutral pronoun. It is
pronounced [hju:], like "hu" in "human". Its brevity and morphological
structure (one open syllable: a consonant + a vowel) make it similar to
other personal pronouns -- a typical, easily recognizable member of this
class: he - she - hu. It is truly neutral and has no artificial flavor, as some
other candidates to the rank of a NEW PRONOUN, such as "o, et, han, na,"
etc. The motivation -- the genderless HUman--is always implied in "hu"'s
usage. "Hu" belongs to the category of back-clippings, in which an element
or elements are taken from the end of a word: flu (influenza) lab(oratory),
math(ematics), ad(vertisement), piano(forte), and condo(minium). Endings
with an open syllable, like in "hu", are ordinary in such clippings as flu,
piano, condo...
As a sound pattern, "hu" is closest to the only other genderless, singular,
person-related English pronoun: the interrogative "who". Both pronouns are
naturally drawn to each other by rhyming and communicational contexts, as
a question and the answer: [hu:]? - [hju:]. "Hu" designates precisely that
generic, un-gendered HUman to whom the question "who?" is addressed.
Thus the answer is prompted by the question itself. Who? - Hu.
The derivative forms of "hu": reflexive "huself" [ [hju:self], possessive
"hu's" [hju:z], and objective "hu'm" [hju:m]. At the first stages of usage, an
apostrophe may be inserted to clarify the pronunciation, but then (') may
be conveniently dropped, as there is no "hus" in English, and it's difficult
to confuse contextually "hu'm" with "hum" [ham] (murmuring sound).
Examples:
Anyone who believes that hu has a conflict of interests should
not serve as an investigator.
When the lecturer arrives, hu will be speaking on the topic of
anonymity.
A hero is one who places huself at risk for another.
Someone who talks about killing huself will never actually do it.
An employee may choose to cover only huself and hu's child or
any number of children.
If a person introduces huself to you using hu's patronymic, use
it to address hu'm as a sign of respect.
Having received a response from your benefactor, you should
follow up with a polite, handwritten letter thanking hu'm for hu's
assistance.
Before a researcher receives a certificate for hu's invention, it
needs to be determined whether the invention was made in the
course of hu's normal duties or of duties specially assigned to
hu'm.
The vice-president shall support the president and take the
place when hu is in absence.
* * *
How does it sound to you? Ready to use it? Any pros and contras?
Mark Wallace
<snip to save bandwidth for all the viruses that are floating around, these
days>
> How does it sound to you? Ready to use it? Any pros and contras?
I'm hardly a terroristic rebel, so mark me down as a 'Nay', rather than a
'contra'.
--
Mark Wallace
-----------------------------------------------------
For the intelligent approach to nasty humour, visit:
The Anglo-American Humour (humor) Site
http://earth.prohosting.com/mwal/
-----------------------------------------------------
Dave Swindell
<mwal...@dse.nl> writes
>Mikhail Epstein wrote:
>
>
><snip to save bandwidth for all the viruses that are floating around, these
>days>
>
>> How does it sound to you? Ready to use it? Any pros and contras?
>
>I'm hardly a terroristic rebel, so mark me down as a 'Nay', rather than a
>'contra'.
>
--
Dave OSOS#24 dswindel...@tcp.co.uk Remove my gerbil for email replies
Yamaha XJ900S & Wessex sidecar, the sexy one
Yamaha XJ900F & Watsonian Monaco, the comfortable one
david56
> In our class on the future of the humanities (at Emory) we are using "hu",
> a clipping from "human", as a 3rd person gender-neutral pronoun. It is
> pronounced [hju:], like "hu" in "human".
Pronounced that way by some speakers of English.
> * * *
> How does it sound to you? Ready to use it? Any pros and contras?
It sounds terrible, as do most attempts to invent new parts of a
language.
--
David
=====
Wes Groleau
> The derivative forms of "hu": reflexive "huself" [ [hju:self], possessive
> "hu's" [hju:z], and objective "hu'm" [hju:m]. At the first stages of usage, an
> apostrophe may be inserted to clarify the pronunciation, but then (') may
> be conveniently dropped, as there is no "hus" in English, and it's difficult
> to confuse contextually "hu'm" with "hum" [ham] (murmuring sound).
Why should it be the only pronoun that uses apostrophes
for possessive (or that has a possessive written identically
to its contraction with "is")?
But perhaps this objection is irelevant since ...
> How does it sound to you? Ready to use it? Any pros and contras?
... I don't intend to adopt the form.
--
Wes Groleau
A pessimist says the glass is half empty.
An optimist says the glass is half full.
An engineer says somebody made the glass
twice as big as it needed to be.
Niall Leonard
Costello: Well then hu's on first?
Abbott: Yes!
Costello: I mean the fellow's name!
Abbott: Hu!
Costello: The guy on first!
Abbott: Hu!
Costello: The first baseperson!
Abbott: Hu!
Costello: The guy playing first!
Abbott: Hu is on first!
etc...
nl
dimestore
"When the lecturer arrives, [you] will be speaking on the topic of
anonymity."
Schultz
>
> In our class on the future of the humanities (at Emory) we are using "hu",
> a clipping from "human", as a 3rd person gender-neutral pronoun. It is
> pronounced [hju:], like "hu" in "human". Its brevity and morphological
> structure (one open syllable: a consonant + a vowel) make it similar to
> other personal pronouns -- a typical, easily recognizable member of this
Well, it's *obviously* a blend of "he" and "you", so it would serve well
as a non-specific 2d AND 3d person pronoun. Either he, or you, or both.
It would almost *always* be mis-heard as "you". Very bad choice.
\\P. Schultz
Schultz
> Why should it be the only pronoun that uses apostrophes
> for possessive (or that has a possessive written identically
It's not. "One's" does too. As do some of the others, historically.
\\P. Schultz
Eric Walker
[...]
>How does it sound to you?
Awful. And I mean literally: it _sounds_ awful. A word that
will be used with immense frequency needs a simpler sound.
>Ready to use it?
No.
>Any pros and contras?
Aside from the sound, deliberately constructed neuter pronouns
are vieux jeu, and never, ever catch on.
The word that is wanted, and long was used, is simple "man":
"Woman," superficial appearance to the contrary, does not
come from "man," but from the Old English "wif-mann," where
"wif" meant "female" and "mann" meant a human being of
either sex. As late as 1752, the philosopher David Hume
could use "man" in the original sense, when contending that
"...there is in all men, both male and female, a desire and
power of generation more active than is ever universally
exerted."
What is really wanted is not a new neuter pronoun, but a new
masculine pronoun, which would avoid the need to fiddle with
all the established "-man" compounds (which exhibit the old
neuter sense of "man"). Perhaps something based on "wer" or
"carl", OE terms for male humans, might suffice.
But, in reality, no "designed" fix is going to work. One will
evolve, or not. We can but watch and listen.
(This is curiously analogous to the seemingly never-ending
search for a new second-person-plural pronoun, when what is
really wanted is a new second-person-singular.)
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker
My opinions on English are available at
http://owlcroft.com/english/
Mark Wallace
> But, in reality, no "designed" fix is going to work. One will
> evolve, or not. We can but watch and listen.
Ok, am I the only one who doesn't believe the source of that statement?
Dr Robin Bignall
>Mikhail Epstein wrote:
>
>
><snip to save bandwidth for all the viruses that are floating around, these
>days>
>
>> How does it sound to you? Ready to use it? Any pros and contras?
>
>I'm hardly a terroristic rebel,
I'll need some convincing..
--
wrmst rgrds
Robin Bignall
Quiet part of Hertfordshire
England
Dr Robin Bignall
>Eric Walker wrote:
>
>> But, in reality, no "designed" fix is going to work. One will
>> evolve, or not. We can but watch and listen.
>
>Ok, am I the only one who doesn't believe the source of that statement?
Probably.
The way I see it, Eric was saying that no solution to a 'problem' of the
English language is able to imposed. Such solutions, if indeed there is a
'problem' in the first place, just grow on us like Topsy, but very much
more slowly.
You've said (or implied) the same thing yourself on a zillion occasions.
Maybe I exaggerate, and it was only about half a zillion, but it seemed
like a zillion at my last rough count.
Carmen L. Abruzzi
Walker at ewa...@owlcroft.com wrote on 10/14/03 9:17 PM:
> [...]
>
>
> Aside from the sound, deliberately constructed neuter pronouns
> are vieux jeu, and never, ever catch on.
>
> The word that is wanted, and long was used, is simple "man":
"Man" has never been a pronoun in English. German uses "man" as a pronoun,
but not in the way "hu" is proposed to be.
>
> "Woman," superficial appearance to the contrary, does not
> come from "man," but from the Old English "wif-mann," where
> "wif" meant "female" and "mann" meant a human being of
> either sex. As late as 1752, the philosopher David Hume
> could use "man" in the original sense, when contending that
> "...there is in all men, both male and female, a desire and
> power of generation more active than is ever universally
> exerted."
> What is really wanted is not a new neuter pronoun, but a new
> masculine pronoun, which would avoid the need to fiddle with
> all the established "-man" compounds (which exhibit the old
> neuter sense of "man"). Perhaps something based on "wer" or
> "carl", OE terms for male humans, might suffice.
Eh? You seem to be talking about a new noun or suffix, not a pronoun. "He"
has been the masculine pronoun for a thousand years at least.
>
> But, in reality, no "designed" fix is going to work. One will
> evolve, or not. We can but watch and listen.
Yeah. Cubs and Sox?
Mark Wallace
> On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 22:41:20 +0200, "Mark Wallace" <mwal...@dse.nl>
> wrote:
>
>> Mikhail Epstein wrote:
>>
>>
>> <snip to save bandwidth for all the viruses that are floating
>> around, these days>
>>
>>> How does it sound to you? Ready to use it? Any pros and contras?
>>
>> I'm hardly a terroristic rebel,
>
> I'll need some convincing..
Cheeky sod!
You'd better start checking under your car in the mornings!
Schultz
>
> On 14 Oct 2003 12:53:40 -0700, Mikhail Epstein wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >How does it sound to you?
>
Literally? So, you mean it fills you with awe.
\\P. Schultz
Eric Walker
[...]
I skip over content, as much of what I wrote was a brain fart,
which I may attempt to remedy later. But as to:
>Yeah. Cubs and Sox?
As we now know, not Cubs.
In terms of how the various teams actually played this year[1],
the only upsets were the Marlins over the Giants and the Cubs
over the Braves; all else went about as one might have expected
(which, in itself, is unusual in post-season play); the two
upsets notably occurred in the obscene best-of-five format.
If there is any justice--which is questionable--the A.L.
pennant winner ought to roll over the Marlins in 5, or at most
6, games.
[1] http://highboskage.com/DAILIES/TEAMS2.HTM
Dr Robin Bignall
>Dr Robin Bignall wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 22:41:20 +0200, "Mark Wallace" <mwal...@dse.nl>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Mikhail Epstein wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> <snip to save bandwidth for all the viruses that are floating
>>> around, these days>
>>>
>>>> How does it sound to you? Ready to use it? Any pros and contras?
>>>
>>> I'm hardly a terroristic rebel,
>>
>> I'll need some convincing..
>
>Cheeky sod!
>
Strictly hetero, dear boy. Cheek is entirely another matter.
>You'd better start checking under your car in the mornings!
With only 2 inches ground clearance I usually do, just to ensure that the
silencer (muffler for foreigners) is still there after those bumpy country
lanes.
Mikhail Epstein
preferable technique to avoid gender-biased pronouns is to
change the noun into plural. I find such a solution problematic
and even detrimental to the language's ethical and conceptual
capacity to deal with individuals. Compare:
A hero is one who places huself at risk for another.
Heros are those who place themselves at risk for others.
To convey this idea. I would like to imagine A HERO, a heroic
human being, rather than a group of heros, a mass of heros.
They-language successfully eliminates not only gender, but
individuality as well. Should we speak and think about people
only in terms of multitudes? I think it's important to talk
about a student, an emploee, an author, a doctor, a
physicist, a person, rather than to refer to faceless
students, authors, doctors, persons, etc.We need to
accommodate grammar to ethical concerns, not the other
way around. Gaining a gender-neutral grammar at the
expense of an individual reference is a self-defeating
achievement.
Robert Lieblich
<stifles yawn>
Has it occurred to you that the reason people use the label
"singular they" for the usage you are arguing against is that "they"
functions as a singular in such usage? Is "you" singular or plural,
and what of the use of "are" with singular "you"? Who says that
"they are" is plural in all contexts? Who says it dilutes the focus
on the individual -- isn't a singlt individual (the Hero) the
subject of your sentence?
Aside from the novelty of your proposed new pronoun "hu" (dead on
arrival, of course, like all such), you aren't saying anything that
hasn't been said in both this group and alt.usage.english over and
over again. The AUE FAQ specifically asks newcomers not to revisit
the issue of "singular they" because it only leads to reiteration of
the same old circular arguments. My responses above, though
questions in form, are rhetorical, so please don't bother yourself
answering them.
"Hu" aside (where we'll leave it), do you really think you can come
up with some new angle on this topic?
--
Bob Lieblich
Been here since 1997 and seen it all
Schultz
> <...> We need to
> accommodate grammar to ethical concerns, not the other
The grammar is already there. You can try to "accommodate" it to this or
that if you think that would be fun for you. You can also try to
"accomodate" an ocean beach to your liking with a bulldozer, with the
same results.
Bear in mind that there are plenty of languages spoken by cultured
people with complicated societies and neckties and everything, that have
no gender at all -- not even in the pronouns.
\\P. Schultz
Wes Groleau
> students, authors, doctors, persons, etc.We need to
> accommodate grammar to ethical concerns, not the other
If you must have Logic in your Language, try LogLan.
> way around. Gaining a gender-neutral grammar at the
> expense of an individual reference is a self-defeating
> achievement.
Rephrase that: Creating a gender-neutral grammar in the
opposition to linguistic evolution is a self-defeating
campaign.
--
Wes Groleau
-----------
Daily Hoax: http://www.snopes2.com/cgi-bin/random/random.asp
Eric Walker
> Some people say that their preferable technique to avoid
> gender-biased pronouns is to change the noun into plural. I
> find such a solution problematic and even detrimental to the
> language's ethical and conceptual capacity to deal with
> individuals. Compare:
>
> A hero is one who places huself at risk for another.
>
> Heros are those who place themselves at risk for others.
A hero is one who willingly assumes risk for the benefit of
another.
Heroism is assuming risk for another.
To place oneself at risk for another is to be a hero.
It's late, I'm tired, and you can probably do better yourself.
To insist that the only alternatives to gendered pronouns are
the singular they, "he or she" forms, or the plural is to
trumpet an inability to write competent English.
Mikhail Epstein
>
> Aside from the novelty of your proposed new pronoun "hu" (dead on
> arrival, of course, like all such), you aren't saying anything that
> hasn't been said in both this group and alt.usage.english over and
> over again. The AUE FAQ specifically asks newcomers not to revisit
> the issue of "singular they" because it only leads to reiteration of
> the same old circular arguments. My responses above, though
> questions in form, are rhetorical, so please don't bother yourself
> answering them.
>
> "Hu" aside (where we'll leave it), do you really think you can come
> up with some new angle on this topic?
It's impossible to speak "aside from the novelty," because novelty is
the point of our conversation. Mutations happen to memes, not only to
genes. Brokers know that past experience does not predict future
results; even more so with higly volatile lexical values (grammar is
more conservative). Even if there are 99 chances out of 100 against the
novelty that we find useful and reasonable, we have to try the only
chance remaining.
My graduate students use hu-forms in their papers not because they are
told to do so but because they find it easy, convenient, and preferable
to other ways of avoiding both gender bias of "he" and depersonalizing
tendency of "they" and plural nouns.
Here are some simplest samples from their latest papers (slightly
edited). Please note that students prefer to drop apostrophes and
alternatively use "hu" or "hum" for the objective case.
An introvert can easily become an extravert when it is
advantageous for hu to do so.
Altervert will switch between the two classical types ("intro"
and "extra"), and is aware when hu is doing so.
If a fan engages in these activities, hus place in the group is
secure.
A true fan never allows that criticism to apply to The Team,
upon whom hus very sense of self-worth is based.
An outsider of the group is welcomed when hus disloyalty to
the Opposing Team becomes evident.
The last one left standing will consider huself the Ultimate
Survivor, but, ironically, there will be no one left to worship
hum.
Carmen L. Abruzzi
at rus...@emory.edu wrote on 10/24/03 5:53 AM:
>
> My graduate students use hu-forms in their papers not because they are
> told to do so but because they find it easy, convenient, and preferable
Oh My God!
Eric Walker
[...]
>Brokers know that past experience does not predict future
>results . . . .
And scientists know the opposite. So?
[...]
>Even if there are 99 chances out of 100 against the novelty
>that we find useful and reasonable, we have to try the only
>chance remaining.
"We"? "Only"? Pfui.
>My graduate students use hu-forms in their papers not because
>they are told to do so but because they find it easy,
>convenient, and preferable to other ways of avoiding both
>gender bias of "he" and depersonalizing tendency of "they" and
>plural nouns.
And doubtless one capable of the remarks cited above is capable
of actually believing that. Let's see what they use when you
are no longer in a position to issue them grades.
Wes Groleau
> My graduate students use hu-forms in their papers not because they are
... have either been thoroughly brainwashed
to your point of view or are "sucking up" to you.
> Here are some simplest samples from their latest papers (slightly
> edited). Please note that students prefer to drop apostrophes and
> alternatively use "hu" or "hum" for the objective case.
Hu-Hum.
--
Wes Groleau
When all you have is a perl, everything looks like a string.
Mike Epstein
I'd like to summarize the objections to the use of "hu" as a
gender-neutral
pronoun. I'll respond point by point, first regarding the
oral "hu" [hju:], then
the written "hu". In fact, it was my fault to ask only
"how does it sound to you?" In the first place, I should
have asked "how does it look?" A gender-neutral pronoun
seems to be a more urgent need in written language where a
word's social and ethical effects cannot be supported or
softened by an intonation, gesture, etc.
Oral "hu".
1. "Hu" is omophonic with the name Hugh.
--I don't think that there will be much confusion about it:
Hugh
occurs only once in 1666 males; the name's popularity rank in
the U.S. is #254. Even more popular proper names are safe
from possible confusion with their common name doubles.
Nobody confuses
Nick with a small cut, or Rick with a stack of hay.
2. "Hu" [hju:] may be confused with "who" [hu:].
--The phonetic distinction between t! hese words belongs to
the differential structures. [j] is a separate phoneme
that serves to distinguish lexical units. Cf. feud [fju:d]
and food [fu:d]; nuke [nju:k] and nook [nu:k]; hew [hju:]
and who [hu:].
3. "Hu" can be pronounced or heard as "you."
--There are many dialects and manners of
pronunciation, however nobody suggests to ban the word "air"
because it may be confused with "hair" or to drop the word
"hear" because it may sound similar to "ear" (even as
they are collocutives used together in many contexts).
Written "hu".
4. "Hu" looks like a Chinese word.
--Yes, but no more so than "van," a clipping of an
exotic word "caravan" (looking like "Chinese" doesn't prevent
"van" from
being one of the most usable English words, 48 mln. in
Google).
"Hu," as a syllable, is common to English: "huge, humor,
human, humility..."
Both the pronunciation [hju:] and the spelling "hu" are quite
ordinary, there is
nothing exotic about them.
5. The apostrophe in the possessive form "hu's". What is
contracted here?
--There is no contraction here. The apostrophe is
a sign of the possessive case, like in "John's, author's,
book's," etc. It would be even better to drop the apostrophe
if we could have "hus" pronounced [hju:z], not [has], as in
"bus";
and "hum" pronounced as [hju:m].
Examples:
Hu that has ears to hear, let hum hear.
It's the vice-president's job to support the president
and take
hus place when hu is away.
It should be the chief aim of a university professor to
exhibit humself in hus own true character - that is, as
an ignorant
human thinking, actively utilising hus small share of
knowledge
6. Possessive and objective cases, "hus" and "hum," fit the
pattern of masculine "his" and "him" rather than feminine
"her" and "her".
-- In "hus" (or "hu's"), -'s is simply a possessive
inflection without any
gender bias ("author's, person's, student's, employee's").
As for the objective case, "hum" follows the pattern not
only of "him," but also of the objective pronuns "whom" and
"them", which
are gender neutral. "Whom do you prefer?" - "I prefer hum."
I admit, however, that for the objective case the same
form of "hu" can be used as for the nominative. This would
follow the gender neutral "it" where the nominative and
objective cases coincide.
It would clear enough to say:
An introvert can easily become an extravert when it is
advantageous for hu to do so.
Or you can say:
An introvert can easily become an extravert when it is
advantageous for hum to do so.
Thus the four forms of the 3rd person pronouns make up the
table:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
nom gen (adj) posses acc
refl
--- --- ---
--- ----
male he his his him
himself
fem she her hers her
herself
neut hu hus hus hu
huself
(hum)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excuse me if I have missed any other specific objections.
If you could bring them forth, I would be happy to
consider them.
Dave Swindell
Epstein <rus...@emory.edu> writes
>Thanks to everybody for criticism and constructive comments.
> I'd like to summarize the objections to the use of "hu" as a
>gender-neutral
> pronoun.
<SNIP>
Why bother when English already has had a perfectly good set of gender-
neutral constructs for at least 700 years, which introduces no more
confusion than does your suggested hu, and probably far less by dint of
its long use and familiarity?
--
Dave OSOS#24 dswindel...@tcp.co.uk Remove my gerbil for email replies
Yamaha XJ900S & Wessex sidecar, the sexy one
Yamaha XJ900F & Watsonian Monaco, the comfortable one
Mike Epstein
> neutral constructs for at least 700 years, which introduces no more
> confusion than does your suggested hu, and probably far less by dint of
> its long use and familiarity?
Overall I don't see any inconsistencies or
difficulties in hu-language. There are several
advantages of "hu" over other contenders for the
vacancy:
1. "Hu" is a short, one syllable word.
The use of "hu" (2 keystrokes) cuts effectively the
time needed to type "he or she" (9 keystrokes);
cf. "huself" (6) and "himself or herself," (18) etc. This is a
substantial economy of time, space,
and effort in our frequent daily use of gender-neutral pronouns,
especially in e-mails.
2. "Hu" is fully motivated, semantically and etymologically
justified, as a shortened form of "HUman." Whenever the pronoun is
used, you have the idea of the noun behind it making it memorable,
inherently meaningful and suggestive (unlike purely
conditional, artificial pronouns earlier suggested such as "e,
et, mon, na, ne, po, se, tey").
3. "Hu" fits the pattern of existing 3rd person pronouns ("he" and "she"),
first, by including the consonant "h" common to all of
them; second, by containing only one vowel, like all of
them. "Hu - he - she" - these words, all open syllables,
one consonant plus one vowel, are good partners in
distributing the gender roles within one lexical family.
4. The spelling of "hu" coincides with its pronunciation; there
are no irregularities of the kind that damages, for example, the
"s/he" pronoun, making it good in writing but unpronouncible.
5. "Hu" is used in a regular grammatical manner, in
contrast to "they." "Hu" can be used automatically, without
twisting the sentence to put all nouns in plural or
exploiting "they" in a disagreeable manner to refer to a
singular person.
6. It is easy to form derivatives from "hu" following the
existing patterns: "hus," "hu" ("hum"), and "huself".
7. If we decide to borrow a gender-neutral pronoun from
another language, we'll have to consider the Persian "u,"
Arabic "hu" and Old English "ou." All of them could be
easily incorporated in contemporary English with the
addition or preservation of "h", as a shortened form of the
genderless "human".
So far, I don't see any strong logical or historical
arguments against hu-language. Its advantages over other
contenders are too obvious to ignore.
I acknowledge, however, that language rarely is guided by logic or even by
historical parallels and precedents. Words have their own magic, and, like
books, have their fate. I feel this magic and potential
in the "hu" language. It is the language of undivided HUmanness.
In the near future, this HUmaness will need even better articulation to
distinguish our species from artificial "it" forms of intelligence that are
rising to a more active role in civilization and language. Soon we'll have to
answer such questions as "Who is reading, writing, calculating, speaking, even
thinking?" The answer may be "hu" (human) or "it" (machine). We need "hu" not
only to speak equally about men and women, but in order to speak differently
about humans and non-humans who share with us many similar
qualities and predicates and fulfill many comparable tasks.
We increasingly need "hu" as a sign of a humanly specific
actor or agent in the language of mental actions and symbolical
interactions.
In a celebrated episode of "Star Trek: The Next
Generation," the crew of the Enterprise manages to liberate an
individual from the hive-like structure of the maleficent Borg
Collective. They name hum, of course, Hu(gh)!
Schultz
> <...>
The fact that you think "logical or historical arguments" have
anything whatsoever to do with language usage is the crux of your
confusion.
You need to reboot your brain and reinstall different software.
\\P. Schultz
andrew
"Mike Epstein" <rus...@emory.edu> wrote in message
news:f732cdb7.03110...@posting.google.com...
> Overall I don't see any inconsistencies or
> difficulties in hu-language. There are several
> advantages of "hu" over other contenders for the
> vacancy:
>
The problem with "hu" is that it is not an English word: it never has been
and it never will be. It's something that was invented to solve a
non-existent problem. English doesn't have a gender pronoun and it doesn't
want one.