English gender-neutral singular pronoun
Richard Mason
Norman L. DeForest wrote:
>
> John Moreno (phe...@interpath.com) wrote:
> : It (s/he - GODS a sex neutral term would sure come in handy
> : occasionally) would have an incompatible world view
>
> How about "gtst" from the Chanur series?
How about "they" singular, as in "they would have an incompatible
world view..."?
(a) It is pronounceable by English-speaking humans.
(b) It is already prevalent in spoken English.
--
Richard Mason
ma...@robby.caltech.edu
John Moreno
Richard Mason <ma...@robby.caltech.edu> wrote:
I don't know, but I can't think of any time when "they" is used to refer
to a specific, single, individual.
--
John Moreno
rsf...@uncg.edu
In article <1997033108...@roxboro-177.interpath.net>,
phe...@interpath.com (John Moreno) writes:
>Richard Mason <ma...@robby.caltech.edu> wrote:
>
>] Norman L. DeForest wrote:
>] How about "they" singular, as in "they would have an incompatible
>] world view..."?
>I don't know, but I can't think of any time when "they" is used to refer
>to a specific, single, individual.
I can't either, and according to an English professor I know who just stuck his
head in the door, it's used to refer to both specific groups, generic groups,
and generic individuals, although in a clumsy construction.
Personally, I'd prefer swiping a march from the mathematicians of the world.
"Let there be a person X. X would have an incompatible world-view." sort of
thing. I use this sort of thing in conversation occasionally, and people usually
get what I'm talking about. It's significantly clumsier than the use of they for
generic individuals, but at least it's more accurate.
---
Rob Furr's .sig is at http://www.uncg.edu/~rsfurr/
Stevens R. Miller
Richard Mason wrote:
> How about "they" singular, as in "they would have an incompatible
> world view..."?
>
> (a) It is pronounceable by English-speaking humans.
> (b) It is already prevalent in spoken English.
(c) It is plural.
--
WEB PAGE: FINDING A NEW YORK LAWYER | Freedom from fear and want.
http://www.users.interport.net/~lex | Freedom of speech and religion.
Matt Austern
"Stevens R. Miller" <l...@interport.net> writes:
> Richard Mason wrote:
>
> > How about "they" singular, as in "they would have an incompatible
> > world view..."?
> >
> > (a) It is pronounceable by English-speaking humans.
> > (b) It is already prevalent in spoken English.
>
> (c) It is plural.
Depends on what (c) means. It is certainly often used as a plural
pronoun; it is also, though, often used as a singular pronoun.
(Albeit in limited contexts. There are certainly many cases where one
would say "he" or "she", but never "they".) The use of "they" in the
singular is quite old; you can look up early citations in the OED.
Is it correct English to use "they" as a singular? Again, depends on
what "correct" means. I tend to take the descriptivist point of view,
so I'm inclinined to say that a construction that has been used by
native English speakers for centuries is, by definition, correct
English. It's certainly more correct than some made-up pronoun that
nobody uses today and nobody ever has.
Robert J. Sawyer
The American Heritage English Dictionary, Third Edition, includes this
definition of "them":
2. [Usage Problem.] Used to refer to the one
previously mentioned or implied, especially
as a substitute for generic he: Every
person has rights under the law, but they
don't always know them.
The [Usage Problem] notation means there's considerable debate about
the acceptability of this, but it seems clear that "they" is already
entering the language as a gender-neutral singular. And since
language is entirely democractic, there's nothing to be done about
it; every artificial singular third-person pronoun that people have
tried to impose by fiat has failed (although on GEnie for a time,
Damon Knight had some success in getting his followers to use
"yeye").
In most parts of North America, we use the same word for singular
and plural second person: you (you-all, or y'all, only being used
in the south); nobody makes the "thou" / "you" distinction anymore.
But "you" WAS the plural form; it's now used for both singular and
plural; "they" and "them" -- plurals now -- seem destined to fill
the need for a non-gender specific singular and plural in the future.
All best wishes, y'all.
-----------------------------------------------
R O B E R T J . S A W Y E R
Next Novel: FRAMESHIFT (Tor, June 1997)
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/sawyer
-----------------------------------------------
Philip Chee
In article <1997033108...@roxboro-177.interpath.net> phe...@interpath.com writes:
>Richard Mason <ma...@robby.caltech.edu> wrote:
>] Norman L. DeForest wrote:
>] > How about "gtst" from the Chanur series?
>] How about "they" singular, as in "they would have an incompatible
>] world view..."?
>] (a) It is pronounceable by English-speaking humans.
>] (b) It is already prevalent in spoken English.
>I don't know, but I can't think of any time when "they" is used to refer
>to a specific, single, individual.
How about the protagonist from "When Rabbit Howls"?
Philip
---=====================================================================---
Philip Chee: Tasek Cement Berhad, P.O.Box 254, 30908 Ipoh, MALAYSIA
e-mail: phi...@aleytys.pc.my Voice:+60-5-545-1011 Fax:+60-5-547-3932
Guard us from the she-wolf and the wolf, and guard us from the thief,
oh Night, and so be good for us to pass.
---
ž 9887.99 ž Usenet is pronounced "ghoti".
John Moreno
Robert J. Sawyer <7670...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
] The American Heritage English Dictionary, Third Edition, includes this
] definition of "them":
]
] 2. [Usage Problem.] Used to refer to the one
] previously mentioned or implied, especially
] as a substitute for generic he: Every
] person has rights under the law, but they
] don't always know them.
]
] The [Usage Problem] notation means there's considerable debate about
] the acceptability of this, but it seems clear that "they" is already
] entering the language as a gender-neutral singular.
I still don't see it. The above definition is being used for a move
from plural to singular. Try changing the sentence to: Your child has
rights under the law, but they don't always know them. Or maybe: My
twin has rights under the law, but they don't always know them.
] And since language is entirely democractic, there's nothing to be done
] about it; every artificial singular third-person pronoun that people
] have tried to impose by fiat has failed (although on GEnie for a time,
] Damon Knight had some success in getting his followers to use
] "yeye").
Well, if it's good enough for Damon Knight it should be good enough for
me. Yeye it is - as long as I don't forget.
--
John Moreno
Richard Mason
Stevens R. Miller wrote:
>
> Richard Mason wrote:
>
> > How about "they" singular, as in "they would have an incompatible
> > world view..."?
> >
> > (a) It is pronounceable by English-speaking humans.
> > (b) It is already prevalent in spoken English.
>
The fact that "they" is used as a plural third-person pronoun
is not a fundamental objection to using it as a singular
third-person pronoun. Consider the English word "you",
used as both singular and plural second-person pronoun.
And as I have noted, "they" is in fact often used in the singular
in spoken English. Grammar purists may not like it, but I think
they should accept this naturally-evolved word rather than
artificial ones like "he/she", "sie" or "gtst".
--
Richard Mason
ma...@robby.caltech.edu
Richard Mason
John Moreno wrote:
>
> Richard Mason <ma...@robby.caltech.edu> wrote:
>
> ] Norman L. DeForest wrote:
> ] >
> ] > : It (s/he - GODS a sex neutral term would sure come in handy
> ] >
> ] > How about "gtst" from the Chanur series?
> ]
> ] world view..."?
> ]
> ] (a) It is pronounceable by English-speaking humans.
> ] (b) It is already prevalent in spoken English.
>
> refer to a specific, single, individual.
"When someone walks in here, what's the first thing they see?
The No Smoking sign. Do they read it? No. They pull out a
cigarette and light up."
This may not be correct usage of "they" according to a grammar
book, but it is very common in spoken English. (Your mileage
may possibly vary?? I'm sure I've heard it used by speakers in
Boston, L.A., Dallas and Seattle.) I would like to see it become
accepted in written usage, because I think it is better than the
alternatives.
It is used to refer to a "generic" individual whose sex is not
known.
--
Richard Mason Why I Am So Wise; Why I Am So Clever;
ma...@robby.caltech.edu Why I Write Such Good Question Packets;
Caltech Quiz Bowl Why I Am A Destiny
Elisabeth Carey
John Moreno <phe...@interpath.com> wrote in article
<1997033117...@roxboro-178.interpath.net>...
> Robert J. Sawyer <7670...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
>
> ] The American Heritage English Dictionary, Third Edition, includes this
> ] definition of "them":
> ]
> ] 2. [Usage Problem.] Used to refer to the one
> ] previously mentioned or implied, especially
> ] as a substitute for generic he: Every
> ] person has rights under the law, but they
> ] don't always know them.
> ]
> ] The [Usage Problem] notation means there's considerable debate about
> ] the acceptability of this, but it seems clear that "they" is already
> ] entering the language as a gender-neutral singular.
>
> I still don't see it. The above definition is being used for a move
> from plural to singular. Try changing the sentence to: Your child has
> rights under the law, but they don't always know them. Or maybe: My
> twin has rights under the law, but they don't always know them.
In these sentences, the person in question is a known individual whose
gender, therefore, is also known. "They" is used as third-person
gender-neutral singular when the person referred to is unknown or
indeterminate, i.e., when the gender isn't known. You don't *need* a
gender-neutral pronoun when talking about a known individual.
But these sentences are bad examples, anyway. The construction is weak and
confused. "Your child has rights under the law, but may not always know
them." Inserting the pronoun in the second clause was superfluous and
productive only of problems.
In fact, when *writing*, the problem is almost always avoidable by stepping
back and rethinking the construction of the sentence. In speaking, this is
often far less practical, and it's in speaking - inherently less formal
than writing in almost all circumstances - that we really need a
gender-neutral third person singular pronoun. And both "they" and "one"
have been in use for the purpose for centuries; it's only since the
beginnings of the women's suffrage movement that the use of "they" in this
context has become controversial.
>
> ] And since language is entirely democractic, there's nothing to be done
> ] about it; every artificial singular third-person pronoun that people
> ] have tried to impose by fiat has failed (although on GEnie for a time,
> ] Damon Knight had some success in getting his followers to use
> ] "yeye").
>
> Well, if it's good enough for Damon Knight it should be good enough for
> me. Yeye it is - as long as I don't forget.
Well, that's the problem, of course. "Yeye" is unfamiliar and not being
thrust into our faces on a large enough scale to make likely its general
adoption - whereas "they" is a familiar English word, has been used
informally for this purpose for centuries, and parallels the change that
has taken place in the second-person person pronouns, with the formerly
always-plural "you" becoming accepted as the singular form, as well.
Lis Carey
Elisabeth Carey
> Richard Mason <ma...@robby.caltech.edu> wrote:
>
> ] Norman L. DeForest wrote:
> ] >
> ] > John Moreno (phe...@interpath.com) wrote:
> ] > : It (s/he - GODS a sex neutral term would sure come in handy
> ] > : occasionally) would have an incompatible world view
> ] >
> ] > How about "gtst" from the Chanur series?
> ]
> ] How about "they" singular, as in "they would have an incompatible
> ] world view..."?
> ]
> ] (a) It is pronounceable by English-speaking humans.
> ] (b) It is already prevalent in spoken English.
>
> I don't know, but I can't think of any time when "they" is used to refer
> to a specific, single, individual.
It's not, but it's used all the time to refer to indeterminate or unknown
single individuals. If you're referring to a *specific* single individual,
after all, you usually *know* the gender and can use the gender-specific
form. The problem, and the need for a gender-neutral third-person singular
pronoun, only arises when you're referring to an unknown or undetermined
single individual.
Lis Carey
Leigh R Hidell
Shakespeare used "they," & that's good enough for me. --Leigh
Steve Patterson
In article <1997033108...@roxboro-177.interpath.net>, phe...@interpath.com (John Moreno) says:
>
>Richard Mason <ma...@robby.caltech.edu> wrote:
>
>] Norman L. DeForest wrote:
>] >
>] > John Moreno (phe...@interpath.com) wrote:
>] > : It (s/he - GODS a sex neutral term would sure come in handy
>] > : occasionally) would have an incompatible world view
[list of alternatives deleted]
The English language already has a gender-neutral singular pronoun. I use
it quite often. It is "it". I use "it" to refer to those obnoxious
individuals who insist on being referred to by a gender-neutral pronoun.
However, some insist that "it" should only be used for non-persons and feel
that it a perjorative.
I guess that one could use "one" as a singular gender-neutral pronoun...
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Note: My "from:" address has been altered to foil mailbots.
Please use the corrected address appearing below.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Steven J. Patterson spatt...@wwdc.com
"Men may move mountains, but ideas move men."
-- M.N. Vorkosigan, per L.M. Bujold
See my pitiful webpage! http://www.wwdc.com/~spatterson
Dennis Monbourquette
Richard Mason (ma...@robby.caltech.edu) wrote:
: Stevens R. Miller wrote:
: >
: > Richard Mason wrote:
: > > How about "they" singular, as in "they would have an incompatible
: > > world view..."?
: > >
: > > (a) It is pronounceable by English-speaking humans.
: > > (b) It is already prevalent in spoken English.
: > (c) It is plural.
: The fact that "they" is used as a plural third-person pronoun
: is not a fundamental objection to using it as a singular
: third-person pronoun. Consider the English word "you",
: used as both singular and plural second-person pronoun.
: And as I have noted, "they" is in fact often used in the singular
: in spoken English. Grammar purists may not like it, but I think
: they should accept this naturally-evolved word rather than
: artificial ones like "he/she", "sie" or "gtst".
I personally liked ke/kir, used in Mary Gentle's _Golden Witchbreed_. I
use this in my mind, because I really hate "sie", and "s/he" bugs me. My
main problem with these is people who use them in relation to individuals
whose gender is known. These people are *not* gender neutral, but some
excessively PC people want to portray them as such to hide their gender.
I actually used "ke/kir" in a conversation with someone, after
explaining it to her. We were discussing a cat of unknown gender (she was
too shy to lift up kir tail to check)
: Richard Mason
-Feste
--
#%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%#%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%#
# a09...@giant.mindlink.net # "I don't believe it!" -Luke Skywalker #
# fe...@mindlink.net # "That is why you fail." -Yoda #
# http://mindlink.net/feste # -- Star Wars, Empire Strikes Back #
#%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%#%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%#
John Moreno
Richard Mason <ma...@robby.caltech.edu> wrote:
] John Moreno wrote:
] >
] > Richard Mason <ma...@robby.caltech.edu> wrote:
] >
] > ] Norman L. DeForest wrote:
] > ] >
] > ] > John Moreno (phe...@interpath.com) wrote:
] > ] > : It (s/he - GODS a sex neutral term would sure come in handy
] > ] > : occasionally) would have an incompatible world view
] > ] >
] > ] > How about "gtst" from the Chanur series?
] > ]
] > ] How about "they" singular, as in "they would have an incompatible
] > ] world view..."?
] > ]
] > ] (a) It is pronounceable by English-speaking humans.
] > ] (b) It is already prevalent in spoken English.
] >
] > I don't know, but I can't think of any time when "they" is used to
] > refer to a specific, single, individual.
]
] "When someone walks in here, what's the first thing they see?
] The No Smoking sign. Do they read it? No. They pull out a
] cigarette and light up."
]
] This may not be correct usage of "they" according to a grammar
] book, but it is very common in spoken English. (Your mileage
] may possibly vary?? I'm sure I've heard it used by speakers in
] Boston, L.A., Dallas and Seattle.) I would like to see it become
] accepted in written usage, because I think it is better than the
] alternatives.
]
] It is used to refer to a "generic" individual whose sex is not
] known.
Not A individual - but a GROUP of individuals - plural. We have one
killer, one thief, one winner of the lottery, one person left his/her
headlights on. One person, not a member of a group.
--
John Moreno
James Battista
Richard Mason (ma...@robby.caltech.edu) wrote:
: Norman L. DeForest wrote:
: >
: > John Moreno (phe...@interpath.com) wrote:
: > : It (s/he - GODS a sex neutral term would sure come in handy
: > : occasionally) would have an incompatible world view
: >
: > How about "gtst" from the Chanur series?
: How about "they" singular, as in "they would have an incompatible
: world view..."?
: (a) It is pronounceable by English-speaking humans.
: (b) It is already prevalent in spoken English.
Or even the handy-dandy neuter pronoun we already have in English --
he
Only problem is it looks and sounds like the masculine.
Anyhow, I prefer this to an even more thorough confusing of the
singular and plural pronouns.
Jim Battista
PhD candidate, Dept of Political Science, Duke Univ.
jim...@mail.duke.edu
king of the impossible
John Moreno
Elisabeth Carey <lis....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
] John Moreno <phe...@interpath.com> wrote in article
] <1997033117...@roxboro-178.interpath.net>...
Too true. Here's a list of better examples that I posted to another
part of this thread (I haven't seen a thread with so many broken links
in quite a while).
The killer - The killer walked over there and then stabbed the victim,
and then the killer did this then the killer did that, and can't I stop
saying the killer sometime.
The thief - pretty much the same thing.
The winner of the lottery - The winner of the lottery will come up here
and accept the big check. I'll say a few words, then the winner of the
lottery says a few words. Then we pose the winner of the lottery for a
few pics, etc.
The person who left their headlights on, the person in the black
Mercedes who ran me off the road, the person who walked through the
dimly lit door and did various things, etc.
I'm wanting something for when you know it's one person and you even
know a bit about that person, but you don't know what sex that person
is.
] In fact, when *writing*, the problem is almost always avoidable by
] stepping back and rethinking the construction of the sentence. In
] speaking, this is often far less practical, and it's in speaking -
] inherently less formal than writing in almost all circumstances - that
] we really need a gender-neutral third person singular pronoun.
Well in writing you can mainly avoid the problem, but not always without
seeming stilted.
] And both "they" and "one" have been in use for the purpose for
] centuries; it's only since the beginnings of the women's suffrage
] movement that the use of "they" in this context has become
] controversial.
I see "one" as being used more in a context where the speaker can be
included in the group that "one" applies to. As for "they" and the
women's suffrage movement - do you think this is connected? It seems to
me the traditional english way is to assume that the person is male and
use "he", using "they" would seem to be something that the WSF would
consider a adequate compromise.
] > ] And since language is entirely democractic, there's nothing to be
] > ] done about it; every artificial singular third-person pronoun that
] > ] people have tried to impose by fiat has failed (although on GEnie
] > ] for a time, Damon Knight had some success in getting his followers
] > ] to use "yeye").
] >
] > Well, if it's good enough for Damon Knight it should be good enough
] > for me. Yeye it is - as long as I don't forget.
]
] Well, that's the problem, of course. "Yeye" is unfamiliar and not
] being thrust into our faces on a large enough scale to make likely its
] general adoption - whereas "they" is a familiar English word, has been
] used informally for this purpose for centuries, and parallels the
] change that has taken place in the second-person person pronouns, with
] the formerly always-plural "you" becoming accepted as the singular
] form, as well.
Well, if I ever got around to make a .sig file instead of just typing it
in each time I could add a definition of yeye as part of it. Of course
it'd seem mighty odd when I was posting to some of the NG I read.
--
John Moreno
Yeye - a sex neutral term for a specific individual.
Nancy Lebovitz
In article <fxtu3ls...@isolde.mti.sgi.com>,
Matt Austern <aus...@isolde.mti.sgi.com> wrote:
>
>Is it correct English to use "they" as a singular? Again, depends on
>what "correct" means. I tend to take the descriptivist point of view,
>so I'm inclinined to say that a construction that has been used by
>native English speakers for centuries is, by definition, correct
>English. It's certainly more correct than some made-up pronoun that
>nobody uses today and nobody ever has.
What do you mean by "nobody"? There are plenty of people who use sie or zie,
though perhaps mostly on the net.
Actually, if you track the use of "nobody", you'll find that it's more
interesting than it looks. For example "Nobody knew about the Holocaust"--
it's a common enough statement, but obviously false. At a minimum,
the people directly involved knew, but the "nobody" means something
more like "no one that the speaker was noticing"..
--
Nancy Lebovitz (nan...@universe.digex.net)
October '96 calligraphic button catalogue available by email!
Mari J Stoddard
In article <333FCF...@interport.net>,
Stevens R. Miller <l...@interport.net> wrote:
>Richard Mason wrote:
>
>> How about "they" singular, as in "they would have an incompatible
>> world view..."?
>>
>> (a) It is pronounceable by English-speaking humans.
>> (b) It is already prevalent in spoken English.
>
>
English uses the plural second person for both singular and plural
situations (you instead of thou). Why shouldn't we just keep up the
trend?
--
Mari Stoddard stod...@u.arizona.edu
Arizona Health Sciences Library, University of Arizona
520 / 626-2925 (voice) 520 626-2922 (fax)
URL: http://amber.medlib.arizona.edu/homepage.html
John S. Novak, III
>> How about "they" singular, as in "they would have an incompatible
>> world view..."?
>> (a) It is pronounceable by English-speaking humans.
>> (b) It is already prevalent in spoken English.
>(c) It is plural.
So what?
'You' can take take the singular or plural form based on context.
--
John S. Novak, III j...@cris.com
The Humblest Man on the Net
John S. Novak, III
>However, some insist that "it" should only be used for non-persons and feel
>that it a perjorative.
Consider using "s/h/it" as the pronoun of choice when refering to
these people.
Richard Mason
John Moreno wrote:
>
> The killer - The killer walked over there and then stabbed the victim,
> and then the killer did this then the killer did that, and can't I
> stop saying the killer sometime.
> The thief - pretty much the same thing.
> The winner of the lottery - The winner of the lottery will come up
> here and accept the big check. I'll say a few words, then the
> winner of the lottery says a few words. Then we pose the winner of
> the lottery for a few pics, etc.
> The person who left their headlights on, the person in the black
> Mercedes who ran me off the road, the person who walked through the
> dimly lit door and did various things, etc.
>
> I'm wanting something for when you know it's one person and you even
> know a bit about that person, but you don't know what sex that person
> is.
Bingo. Would the person who left THEIR headlights on, please
go turn them off? Because, you know, they have left their headlights
on.
I'm pretty sure that if you actually search for these kinds of
discussions (talking about the unknown killer, the unknown lottery
winner, you'll find that people use "they".) Try it and see.
--
Richard Mason "And you may say to yourself/
ma...@robby.caltech.edu My God! What have I done?" -- D. Byrne
John Moreno
Richard Mason <ma...@robby.caltech.edu> wrote:
] John Moreno wrote:
] >
] > The killer - The killer walked over there and then stabbed the
] > victim, and then the killer did this then the killer did that, and
] > can't I stop saying the killer sometime.
] > The thief - pretty much the same thing.
] > The winner of the lottery - The winner of the lottery will come up
] > here and accept the big check. I'll say a few words, then the
] > winner of the lottery says a few words. Then we pose the winner of
] > the lottery for a few pics, etc.
] > The person who left their headlights on, the person in the black
] -----
] > Mercedes who ran me off the road, the person who walked through the
] > dimly lit door and did various things, etc.
] >
] > I'm wanting something for when you know it's one person and you even
] > know a bit about that person, but you don't know what sex that
] > person is.
]
] Bingo. Would the person who left THEIR headlights on, please go turn
] them off? Because, you know, they have left their headlights on.
Believe it or not I saw that and thought about changing the sentence so
that "their" wasn't used. I can't recall at the moment why I didn't,
but one possibility is that in that case you DON'T know that it is one
person. Bad example, sorry.
] I'm pretty sure that if you actually search for these kinds of
] discussions (talking about the unknown killer, the unknown lottery
] winner, you'll find that people use "they".) Try it and see.
Actually, I think it more likely that most people would use "he". Which,
as another poster pointed out, is perfectly acceptable sex neutral
english - it just doesn't work *all* of the time.
--
John Moreno
Stevens R. Miller
Andrea Lynn Leistra wrote:
> The use of 'they' as a third-person singular is nothing new - the OED has
> citations dating back centuries, including one in Shakespeare IIRC.
Even though usage by Shakespeare is regarded as the absolute
last word in some circles, I point out that he was a Brit.
"They" is used differently in his version of English than in
the American version, so what real authority is he for
American writers?
Andrea Lynn Leistra
In article <5hr5db$k...@newsgate.duke.edu>,
James Battista <jim...@acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
>Or even the handy-dandy neuter pronoun we already have in English --
>
>he
>
>Only problem is it looks and sounds like the masculine.
>Anyhow, I prefer this to an even more thorough confusing of the
>singular and plural pronouns.
Such as already exists for the second person?
The use of 'they' as a third-person singular is nothing new - the OED has
citations dating back centuries, including one in Shakespeare IIRC.
--
Andrea Leistra http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~aleistra
-----
Life is complex. It has real and imaginary parts.
Stevens R. Miller
John S. Novak, III wrote:
>
> In <333FCF...@interport.net> "Stevens R. Miller" <l...@interport.net> writes:
> >(c) It is plural.
>
> So what?
> 'You' can take take the singular or plural form based on context.
So what? "You" didn't acquire that usage in English as an
alternative to some existing term. Force-fitting "they"
into another meaning than it already has, displacing other
words in the process, is not comparable to the usage of
"you."
As an example of the damage this might do, consider a simple
hypothetical law:
"Each member of a conspiracy is not guilty unless they
have a conversation about the crime to be committed."
Question: If a member has a conversation with someone
who is not a member, has the member satisfied this rule
or is the member not guilty? (Does your answer depend
upon whether or not "they" is singular or plural?)
Simon van Dongen
On or about Sun, 30 Mar 1997 22:54:59 -0800, Richard Mason wrote:
>Norman L. DeForest wrote:
>>
>> John Moreno (phe...@interpath.com) wrote:
>> : It (s/he - GODS a sex neutral term would sure come in handy
>> : occasionally) would have an incompatible world view
>>
>> How about "gtst" from the Chanur series?
>How about "they" singular, as in "they would have an incompatible
>world view..."?
>(a) It is pronounceable by English-speaking humans.
>(b) It is already prevalent in spoken English.
>--
>Richard Mason
>ma...@robby.caltech.edu
You cunningly avoided the problem of verbs. Would it be:
'They have an incompatible world view...' or 'They has an incompatible
world view...'
Simon van Dongen
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=++=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
Simon van Dongen <sg...@pi.net> Rotterdam, The Netherlands
'My doctor says I have a malformed public duty gland and a
natural deficiency in moral fibre,' he muttered to himself,
'and that I am therefore excused from saving Universes.'
Life, the universe and everything
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=++=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
Katie Schwarz
>
>So what? "You" didn't acquire that usage in English as an
>alternative to some existing term. Force-fitting "they"
>into another meaning than it already has, displacing other
>words in the process, is not comparable to the usage of
>"you."
Huh? I always thought "you" displaced the singular "thou." Am I wrong? It
looks perfectly comparable to me.
>As an example of the damage this might do, consider a simple
>hypothetical law:
>
>"Each member of a conspiracy is not guilty unless they
>have a conversation about the crime to be committed."
That would be a poorly constructed law. If lawyers have to worry a little
more about the word "they," let them, that's what they're paid for.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Katie Schwarz <*> ka...@physics.berkeley.edu
"There's no need to look for a Chimera, or a cat with three legs."
-- Jorge Luis Borges, "Death and the Compass"
Jorj Strumolo
a09...@giant.mindlink.bc.ca (Dennis Monbourquette) writes:
DM> I personally liked ke/kir, used in Mary Gentle's _Golden Witchbreed_.
> I use this in my mind, because I really hate "sie", and "s/he" bugs me.
But 'ke/kir' is only two forms. You need five to make the full
set. (Tho you can use words twice, and the natural forms do, if
you're inventing something new, I'd choose not to do that.) You
have to parallel the first two lines. What are the rest you'd
use? In casual writing I've used the last line ('x' as unknown,
variable; pronounced as 'z'). Apparently some used it in the 1920s.
nom. poss. obj. p.a. ref.
he his him his himself
she her her hers herself
ke kir (kir?) (kirs?) (kirself?)
xe xer xim xers ximself
-=-
Jorj.S...@chowda.com * Fido 1:323/140 * jo...@wsii.com
Richard Mason
> ] discussions (talking about the unknown killer, the unknown lottery
> ] winner, you'll find that people use "they".) Try it and see.
>
> Actually, I think it more likely that most people would use "he".
> Which, as another poster pointed out, is perfectly acceptable sex
> neutral english - it just doesn't work *all* of the time.
I meant that people use "they" some of the time, not in every case.
I also expect that many people would use "he", especially if they
were talking about "the unknown killer".
When you don't know the gender of an individual, these are the
alternatives as I see them, from best to worst:
1) Use singular "they". It is true that you cannot determine
(except from context) whether "they" refers to one or more
people. However, this isn't necessarily a disadvantage.
If you don't know somebody's gender, AND the context fails
to indicate whether the somebody is one person or multiple
persons, chances are you don't know the number of people.
(This is the case with "someone has left their lights on".)
So the ambiguity of "they" can be just what you want.
2) Use "he" whenever you don't know the gender. The reactionary
position. I have some sympathy with this because it has some
weight of tradition. But it's not as good as (1) because
when you use "he" it's not clear whether you know the gender
or not. Also, many people consider it sexist.
3) Use either "he" or "she" randomly when you don't know the
gender. This seems like a fairer version of (2), but because
it lacks the pedigree of (2), it suggests even more strongly
that you know the gender when in fact you don't.
4) Use "he or she" everywhere, or contort your sentences to try
to avoid the problem. Hopelessly awkward.
5) Invent some word like "ve" and try to get other people to
recognize/use it. A few people may go for it, but unless
you become ruthless dictator of the Western world, your
chances of large-scale success are small.
6) Use "it". I hesitate to even include this as an option.
Generally considered insulting when applied to people.
Sometimes you can get away with it when applied to newborn babies.
Richard Mason
Simon van Dongen wrote:
>
> Richard Mason wrote:
>
> >How about "they" singular, as in "they would have an incompatible
> >world view..."?
>
> 'They have an incompatible world view...' or 'They has an incompatible
> world view...'
No cunning was used. It is "they have", as I indicated.
(Note that, just as it is "you have" whether singular or plural,
it is "they have" whether singular or plural.)
Let me stress that I am not making this up, as some people seem
to think. I could not make it "they has" if I wanted to. This is
not some artificial construction I have dreamed up to force on
the English language. This is the way that many, many people
already speak, at least some of the time. Anybody can observe this.
Insofar as I am "pushing" anything, I would push for all
self-appointed guardians of language to accept singular "they"
in writing as it is already de facto accepted in speech.
I also wish people would stop inventing hideous, artificial
pronouns out of whole cloth when it's not necessary.
Larry Caldwell
In article <1997033117...@roxboro-178.interpath.net>,
phe...@interpath.com (John Moreno) wrote:
> I still don't see it. The above definition is being used for a move
> from plural to singular. Try changing the sentence to: Your child has
> rights under the law, but they don't always know them. Or maybe: My
> twin has rights under the law, but they don't always know them.
Think of it this way: the only pronoun case in the English language that
is gender specific is third person singular. All you have to do is tighten
that a bit to make third person singular refer only to a known person.
At that point the gender is known, and you can correctly use the gender
specific term.
In essence, an indeterminate individual is always plural, since the pronoun
can denote any of a group of possible candidates. That is why the gender
is indeterminate, after all.
The most desirable usage improvement would be the elimination of redundancy.
In both of your examples, the pronoun is unnecessary and the phrasing would
be improved by eliminating it. Another place where third person singular
is often used is passive voice, a construct that is weak and best avoided.
(Sorry, I couldn't help myself there. It was just too bad.)
Your child has rights under the law, but doesn't always know them.
My twin has rights under the law, but doesn't always know them.
A prisoner is considered unaware of their rights under the law until informed.
Void your bladder before entering the airlock. Use the appropriate tool
to install your catheter.
-- Larry
Peter Cash
Ok, how about we just use "she" as the universal non gender-specific
pronoun. It wouldn't bother me a bit, and if a person is of the PC
persuasion, she could stop hyperventilating. Additionally, adopting my
suggestion would remove the temptation to commit crimes against the English
language.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Die Welt ist alles, was Zerfall ist.
(apologies to Ludwig Wittgenstein)
email: cash at convex dot com (sorry, spam prevention)
Matt Austern
ca...@no.more.spam.com (Peter Cash) writes:
> Ok, how about we just use "she" as the universal non gender-specific
> pronoun. It wouldn't bother me a bit, and if a person is of the PC
> persuasion, she could stop hyperventilating. Additionally, adopting my
> suggestion would remove the temptation to commit crimes against the English
> language.
However, it's impossible. The fact is that "she" is not a singular
non-gender specific third person pronoun. People don't use it that
way today, and you can't make them use it that way by fiat. Try it
and see. Try writing (or reading) a book where someone uses it
consistently, and you'll see how unnatural it sounds.
(Of course, "he" is just as unnatural. I know that some grammar books
say that "he" is a non-gender specific pronoun, but I think they're
wrong. If you look at the way that people actually use the word, it's
clear that the claims for the genericity of "he" are vastly
overrated.)
Matt Austern
Matt Austern <aus...@isolde.mti.sgi.com> writes:
> > Ok, how about we just use "she" as the universal non gender-specific
> > pronoun. It wouldn't bother me a bit, and if a person is of the PC
> > persuasion, she could stop hyperventilating. Additionally, adopting my
> > suggestion would remove the temptation to commit crimes against the English
> > language.
>
> However, it's impossible. The fact is that "she" is not a singular
> non-gender specific third person pronoun. People don't use it that
> way today, and you can't make them use it that way by fiat. Try it
> and see. Try writing (or reading) a book where someone uses it
> consistently, and you'll see how unnatural it sounds.
Actually, since we're talking about science fiction... I'm reminded
of _Stars in my Pockets like Grains of Sand_. One of the cultures in
that book uses the pronouns "he" and "she", and the word "woman".
However, it doesn't use those words the same way that they are used in
English. "He" and "she" are used to categorize people, but the
category is not one of biological sex.
This makes for a very unsettling effect, which I'm sure Delany
intended.
Matt Austern
> > So what?
> > 'You' can take take the singular or plural form based on context.
>
> So what? "You" didn't acquire that usage in English as an
> alternative to some existing term.
Yes it did. That existing term was "thou". English once made the
same distinction that many other languages still do: one second-person
pronoun when you're talking to several people (or to one person with
whom you're not on familiar terms), and one that you use when you're
talking to a single person with whom you are on familiar terms.
It's sometimes a nuisance that English no longer has this distinction.
In a Russian novel, the moment when a character switches from "vyi" to
"tyi" is sometimes important. There's really no good way to capture
that in an English translation.
[Incidentally, I find it curious that so many languages conflate the
formal and the plural. Does anyone know of any research suggesting a
reason for that?]
John Moreno
Richard Mason <ma...@robby.caltech.edu> wrote:
] John Moreno wrote:
] >
] > Richard Mason <ma...@robby.caltech.edu> wrote:
] >
] > ] I'm pretty sure that if you actually search for these kinds of
] > ] discussions (talking about the unknown killer, the unknown lottery
] > ] winner, you'll find that people use "they".) Try it and see.
] >
] > Actually, I think it more likely that most people would use "he".
] > Which, as another poster pointed out, is perfectly acceptable sex
] > neutral english - it just doesn't work *all* of the time.
]
] I meant that people use "they" some of the time, not in every case.
] I also expect that many people would use "he", especially if they
] were talking about "the unknown killer".
]
] When you don't know the gender of an individual, these are the
] alternatives as I see them, from best to worst:
]
] 1) Use singular "they". It is true that you cannot determine
-snip-
Generally acceptable.
] 2) Use "he" whenever you don't know the gender. The reactionary
-snip-
Again generally acceptable.
] 3) Use either "he" or "she" randomly when you don't know the
-snip-
Hopelessly confusing. No good.
] 4) Use "he or she" everywhere, or contort your sentences to try
] to avoid the problem. Hopelessly awkward.
]
] 5) Invent some word like "ve" and try to get other people to
] recognize/use it. A few people may go for it, but unless
] you become ruthless dictator of the Western world, your
] chances of large-scale success are small.
]
] 6) Use "it". I hesitate to even include this as an option.
] Generally considered insulting when applied to people.
] Sometimes you can get away with it when applied to newborn babies.
I think I'll lump 5 and 6 together and just plan on becoming the
ruthless dictator of the WHOLE world. It just seems like the best plan
to me. Generally I'll use 5, but when I use 6 people better not be
insulted (or at least they shouldn't admit that they were insulted).
--
John Moreno
Mark Loy
In article <fxtohbx...@isolde.mti.sgi.com>, Matt Austern
<aus...@isolde.mti.sgi.com> wrote:
> ca...@no.more.spam.com (Peter Cash) writes:
>
> > Ok, how about we just use "she" as the universal non gender-specific
> > pronoun. It wouldn't bother me a bit, and if a person is of the PC
> > persuasion, she could stop hyperventilating. Additionally, adopting my
> > suggestion would remove the temptation to commit crimes against the English
> > language.
>
> However, it's impossible. The fact is that "she" is not a singular
> non-gender specific third person pronoun. People don't use it that
> way today, and you can't make them use it that way by fiat. Try it
> and see. Try writing (or reading) a book where someone uses it
> consistently, and you'll see how unnatural it sounds.
But don't we already have a universal non gender-specific pronoun?
_It_
I mean, it works. It has no gender. It is the wonder word of the ages!
ML
("It"...for the truly descriminating palet.)
Mark Loy
In article <mloy-02049...@134.68.134.43>, ml...@indyvax.iupui.edu
(Mark Loy) wrote:
> ("It"...for the truly descriminating palet.)
^^^^^
D'oh! <smacks hand to forehead>
Geez...am I stupid, or what?
Obliviously, I meant, "palate". Or maybe I meant, "palette". Whatever.
Back to your regularly scheduled newsgroup.
ML
(Good thin theirs know spelling mistakes in this post...)
Stevens R. Miller
LLeuth wrote:
>
> In article <3341CF...@interport.net>,
> Stevens R. Miller <l...@interport.net> wrote:
> >As an example of the damage this might do, consider a simple
> >hypothetical law:
> >
> >"Each member of a conspiracy is not guilty unless they
> >have a conversation about the crime to be committed."
> >
> >Question: If a member has a conversation with someone
> >who is not a member, has the member satisfied this rule
> >or is the member not guilty? (Does your answer depend
> >upon whether or not "they" is singular or plural?)
>
> That is a poor example. General use of a word does not
> always follow legal use. (thank goodness) There are many
> words which have precise legal meanings, but which have
> many different meanings in general use.
That is a poor response. You have ignored the issue raised
by those who want "they" to acquire a new meaning. If it
does acquire that new meaning, the above hypothetical law
will not have any ambiguity because it is written in some
strained version of language used only by legislators. Its
ambiguity will come for the reformers.
> I do not want to speak or write in "legalese", and nor do I
> want our laws and contracts and other legal documents written
> in imprecise general American English.
"'Legalese'" has nothing to do with my hypo. I have stated
a proposition in the terms being discussed. Avoiding the
question because you think law is written in a language you
don't like is no answer. My hypo is, I think, totally clear
*except* for the term we are discussing. And the only reason
that term creates a problem has *nothing* to do with legal
writing. Try to answer the question.
> Let the laws be written
> as precisely as possible (with "he" or "he or she" for singular
> third person), but don't let legal use dictate popular use.
Here you are trying so hard to belittle the question that you
trip over your own logic. My hypo does not depend upon legal
use leading popular use. Rather, I am asking you to consider
what would happen if popular use gave "they" a singular meaning,
and then legal use were to be dictated by that.
Throwing up one's hands and saying "legalese" just means you
can't answer the question. It's not a real law, you know. It's
a proposition in plain, standard English, except for the term
we are talking about.
Now try again.
Richard Mason
Matt Austern wrote:
>
> [Incidentally, I find it curious that so many languages conflate the
> formal and the plural. Does anyone know of any research suggesting a
> reason for that?]
If there are more of them than you, you have to be polite. (joke)
PMccutc103
ca...@no.more.spam.com (Peter Cash) wrote:
>Ok, how about we just use "she" as the universal non gender-specific
>pronoun. It wouldn't bother me a bit, and if a person is of the PC
>persuasion, she could stop hyperventilating. Additionally, adopting my
>suggestion would remove the temptation to commit crimes against the
English
>language.
This notion of a "crime against the English language" is a bit silly.
English itself is a mongrel combination of other tounges. Words and
usages can and do change over time -- "you" being a fine example. If
people start using the word "they" for an indefinite third-person gender
neutral pronoun, then that's what the word means. It's not a "crime
against English" any more than it was a crime when "you" became common for
both singular and plural uses. (You want to talk about crimes -- talk
about use of "disinterested" to mean "uninterested." A very good word is
being lost, folks!)
I think that "they" is likely to achieve rather common use in this sense
-- actually, I think it has already, in spoken English. Words such as
"ze" and "yeye" are unlikely to be adopted widely enough.
But I guess we do agree on at least one thing. "She" is perfectly fine
with me. Honestly, I really don't give a shit whether "he" or "she" or
"they" is used in this manner, because I believe the Sapir-Whorf
hypothesis to be untrue.
________________________
Pete McCutchen
John Moreno
James A. Wolf <jwolf!@cybercom.net> wrote:
] This topic reminds me of something I noticed in my law school
] textbooks. Whenever a hypothetical was used, the person was always
] 'She', unless a crime was committed by the individual in question.
] Then the word 'he' was used.
]
] For a while 'tek' was suggested as the gender nuetral singular
] pronoun. My personal suggestion is to combine She, He and IT into one
] word.
]
] Unfortunately, I merely get conteptuous dismissals that play
] havoc with my self-esteem.
That's funny, the reason I was wishing for a sex neutral term was
because I wanted to make it clear that both men and women could be a
killer.
--
John Moreno
James A. Wolf
This topic reminds me of something I noticed in my law school
textbooks. Whenever a hypothetical was used, the person was always
'She', unless a crime was committed by the individual in question.
Then the word 'he' was used.
For a while 'tek' was suggested as the gender nuetral singular
pronoun. My personal suggestion is to combine She, He and IT into one
word.
Unfortunately, I merely get conteptuous dismissals that play havoc
with my self-esteem.
James A. Wolf
(E-mail me at: jw...@cybercom.net.)
<*> <*>
The jawbone of an ass is | 18 USC 607: The| Our civilization right now is high
just as dangerous a weapon| controlling | on a drug that pervades the air,
today as in Samson's time.| legal | the media, everything. It's called
Richard Nixon | authority | self-righteousness. --David Brin
Peter H. Granzeau
>Richard Mason wrote:
>
>> How about "they" singular, as in "they would have an incompatible
>> world view..."?
>>
>> (a) It is pronounceable by English-speaking humans.
>> (b) It is already prevalent in spoken English.
>
>(c) It is plural.
At one time, "you" was plural, too. English can absorb changes in
usage quite handily.
John S. Novak, III
>It's sometimes a nuisance that English no longer has this distinction.
>In a Russian novel, the moment when a character switches from "vyi" to
>"tyi" is sometimes important. There's really no good way to capture
>that in an English translation.
Well, here in the South, people have been known to use "y'all".
Possessive formations and contractions still vary with region.
Stevens R. Miller
I keep seeing this argument, but I've read loads of stuff from
various times and don't recall ever seeing anything wherein "you"
did not have both cardinalities. One person said something about
"thou," but if that was ever the only singular form, it predates
the American Revolution. Anything before that refers to a time
when American English was far more parochial than now. We have
a wide-spread understand, finally, of what the words in our
language mean. Force-fitting them into new purposes, to satisfy
someone's ideology, will undo the advantage of simple understanding.
Cite me something on "you" never having been singular.
Gidon Moont
I admit I am unsure that I have read all of this thread, due to my news server
being a bit tempremental.
Anyway, "ve" has been used by Greg Egan, but not as a gender-unspecific
pronoun, but as a true gender-neutral pronoun - ie for persons who are
neither male nor female. This is in the novel "Distress".
It strikes me that many who have posted might want to read LeGuins article,
an apologetic for using "he" in The Left Hand of Darkness. In my opinion it
is an unnecessary apologetic, since there really is nothing wrong in using
the male pronoun to cover both sexes, and it is only a barrier to forgetting
about the whole sorry previous state of affairs where, for example, chaiman
was not an implication to the role being male, but a fact.
In fact, this is all part of the language of political correctness, which
insists on unsubtly reminding us prejudices, even when we care not for them.
For example, I have no gripes to anyone refering to me as a Jew if for example
they want to point me out in a crowd, and I presume that in most cases it is
done without prejudice.
Sandals
san...@geocities.com (the above mail is incorrect)
Larisa Migachyov
Leigh R Hidell (lr...@gnofn.org) wrote:
: Shakespeare used "they," & that's good enough for me. --Leigh
As a singular pronoun? Where, pray tell?
Larisa
Steve Patterson
In article <19970402233...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, pmccu...@aol.com (PMccutc103) says:
>
>But I guess we do agree on at least one thing. "She" is perfectly fine
>with me.
[sidepoint:] Not by me. It's just as inaccurate as the more traditional "he";
if there's no advantage to the change, why make the change?
Honestly, I really don't give a shit whether "he" or "she" or
>"they" is used in this manner, because I believe the Sapir-Whorf
>hypothesis to be untrue.
OK. I've seen the hyphenated "Sapir-Whorf" thrown around in the context
of language and meaning, but I still have no idea what the heck it's all
about. Can anyone recommend a good source for me to find out more?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Note: My "from:" address has been altered to foil mailbots.
Please use the corrected address appearing below.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Steven J. Patterson spatt...@wwdc.com
"Men may move mountains, but ideas move men."
-- M.N. Vorkosigan, per L.M. Bujold
See my pitiful webpage! http://www.wwdc.com/~spatterson
Matt Austern
"Stevens R. Miller" <l...@interport.net> writes:
> I keep seeing this argument, but I've read loads of stuff from
> various times and don't recall ever seeing anything wherein "you"
> did not have both cardinalities. One person said something about
> "thou," but if that was ever the only singular form, it predates
> the American Revolution. Anything before that refers to a time
> when American English was far more parochial than now. We have
> a wide-spread understand, finally, of what the words in our
> language mean. Force-fitting them into new purposes, to satisfy
> someone's ideology, will undo the advantage of simple understanding.
Yes, of course "thou" as a singular predates the American Revolution.
That's recent stuff: modern English has been around for far longer
than this young country has been. English has changed over the last
few centuries, and it's not going to suddenly stop changing now that
we've reached the 20th century. I couldn't possibly predict how it
will change, but I'm certain that 22nd century English won't be the
same as 20th century.
And who's talking about "force fitting"? If I were to design the
language the way I wanted, then I would (a) resurrect "thou",
reserving "you" for the plural/formal; (b) keep "they" exclusively as
a plural pronoun; (c) invent a new third-person singular pronoun that
can be used for people of both sexes; and (d) Use "he" and "she" only
in the (rare) circumstances where it really is important to specify
the sex of the person you're talking about.
(And that's just pronouns. I haven't even mentioned orthography and
spelling.)
But I'm not proposing that. Why? Because it's useless. You can't
redesign a language by fiat, and it's pointless to try.
I am absolutely not saying that "they" should be used as a singular
pronoun. I'm saying something much simpler: it *is* being used as a
singular pronoun, regardless of who does or doesn't like that usage.
"They" has been used as a singular pronoun for centuries, it is still
being used that way, and that usage is probably not going to disappear
in the future. (Predicting the future is always dicey, but my best
guess is that this usage will become more common than it is today.)
You can't legislate the singular "they" out of existence, any more
than you can legislate "thou" back into existence.
Dorothy J Heydt
In article <5i0pch$2...@van1s03.cyberion.com>,
Steve Patterson <no_spam_s...@wwdc.com> wrote:
[somebody said]
> Honestly, I really don't give a shit whether "he" or "she" or
>>"they" is used in this manner, because I believe the Sapir-Whorf
>>hypothesis to be untrue.
>
>OK. I've seen the hyphenated "Sapir-Whorf" thrown around in the context
>of language and meaning, but I still have no idea what the heck it's all
>about.
In this context, I think it's being loosely used to express the
possibility that the way a language divides up the universe
shapes the perceptions of its speakers.
Can anyone recommend a good source for me to find out more?
I tried "F SU SAPIR WHORF HYPOTHESIS" on the MELVYL database and
came up with 35 listings. Here's a few:
Ethnolinguistics : Boas, Sapir and Whorf revisited / ed. by Madeleine
Mathiot. [2514 GC] The Hague, [Noordeinde 41] : Mouton, 1979.
Series title: Contributions to the sociology of language ; 27.
Friedrich, Paul, 1927-
The language parallax : linguistic relativism and poetic indeterminacy /
by Paul Friedrich. 1st ed. Austin : University of Texas Press, 1986.
Series title: Texas linguistics series.
Grace, George William, 1921-
The linguistic construction of reality / George W. Grace. London ; New
York : Croom Helm, c1987.
Language and thought: anthropological issues, editors: William C. McCormack
[and] Stephen A. Wurm. The Hague, Mouton; Chicago, distributed in the USA
by Aldine, c1977.
Series title: World anthropology.
Lee, Penny.
The Whorf theory complex : a critical reconstruction / Penny Lee.
Amsterdam, Netherlands ; Philadelphia : John Benjamins, c1996.
Series title: Amsterdam studies in the theory and history of linguistic
science. Series III, Studies in the history of the language sciences v. 81.
Lucy, John Arthur, 1949-
Grammatical categories and cognition : a case study of the linguistic
relativity hypothesis / John A. Lucy. Cambridge [England] ; New York, NY,
USA : Cambridge University Press, 1992.
Series title: Studies in the social and cultural foundations of language
; no. 13.
And this one looks interesting, in the context of the discussion:
16. Muhlhausler, Peter.
Pronouns and people : the linguistic construction of social and personal
identity / Peter Muhlhausler and Rom Harre, with the assistance of Anthony
Holiday and Michael Freyne. Oxford, UK ; Cambridge, Mass., USA : B.
Blackwell, 1990.
Series title: Language in society (Oxford, England) ;.
No, I haven't read any of them, and it's been a long time since I
even read Dr. Sapir and Dr. Whorf, both interesting guys.
Or you could go read Vance's _The Languages of Pao_. I don't
recommend S. H. Elgin, she suffers from LeGuin's disease (n.,
a tendency to lecture under the guise of writing fiction).
Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djheydt@uclink
(still here for the moment....)
Dorothy J Heydt
In article <fxtpvwd...@isolde.mti.sgi.com>,
Matt Austern <aus...@isolde.mti.sgi.com> wrote:
>
>It's sometimes a nuisance that English no longer has this distinction.
>In a Russian novel, the moment when a character switches from "vyi" to
>"tyi" is sometimes important. There's really no good way to capture
>that in an English translation.
There was until recently. The equivalent of the tender moment
when the young man says to the young woman [since I don't know
Russian I'll use the Spanish equivalent], "Vamos a tutearnos,"
and from that moment they use "tu" to one another, used to be the
tender moment when the young man says to the young woman, "Miss
Foster-- may I call you Mabel?" and she says, "of course,
--Gregory," and now they are on a much friendlier footing.
Nowadays, however, everybody first-names everybody on sight (or
even when trying to sell things over the telephone), and nobody
gets annoyed but Miss Manners, me, and other people of mature
years.
There's always a flip side, though. My husband's first name
is Wilson (grandmother's maiden name), but everyone among his
family, friends and acquaintances call him Hal (except his grotty
old mother, who still calls him Willie). If someone calls on the
phone and says, "May I speak to Wilson, please?" we know it's
someone trying to sell something who doesn't know him from Adam,
and this provides us much innocent mirth.
Matt Austern
mo...@ic.ac.uk (Gidon Moont) writes:
> It strikes me that many who have posted might want to read LeGuins article,
> an apologetic for using "he" in The Left Hand of Darkness. In my opinion it
> is an unnecessary apologetic, since there really is nothing wrong in using
> the male pronoun to cover both sexes, and it is only a barrier to forgetting
> about the whole sorry previous state of affairs where, for example, chaiman
> was not an implication to the role being male, but a fact.
Note, however, that that essay appeared thirty years ago. Le Guin has
now changed her mind. (Not surprising; in that long a time, everyone
changes their minds about lots of things.)
Note also that Le Guin didn't always handle this issue the same way
that she did in _The Left Hand of Darkness_. In "Winter's King",
reprinted in _The Wind's Twelve Quarters_, she deliberately refers to
the same person by the masculine title "king" and the feminine pronoun
"she".
Le Guin has now written a new essay about the subject. I think that
it was originally written for the 25th anniversary edition of _The
Left Hand of Darkness_, but it's reprinted in one of her essay
collections. _Dancing at the Edge of the World_, perhaps.
(Incidentally, I admire the way that Le Guin does these things. When
she changes her mind about a subject, she is explicit about it. She
always includes both the old and the new essay, as in this case.)
Barbara
On 3 Apr 1997 13:22:45 GMT, mo...@ic.ac.uk (Gidon Moont) wrote:
>It strikes me that many who have posted might want to read LeGuins article,
>an apologetic for using "he" in The Left Hand of Darkness. In my opinion it
>is an unnecessary apologetic, since there really is nothing wrong in using
>the male pronoun to cover both sexes, and it is only a barrier to forgetting
>about the whole sorry previous state of affairs where, for example, chaiman
>was not an implication to the role being male, but a fact.
I have read LeGuin's essay, and it is an excellent one.
My mother, who spent 25 years as an elementary school teacher, is very
much in favor of using neutral pronouns, due to her experience with
the children she has taught. In her experience, terms such as
"fireman," "policeman," or sentences such as "When you call a teacher,
he will come to help you," invariably results in the children
interpreting the person in question as being male.
Language is a very powerful tool, and as long as the pronoun "he"
refers predominantly to a single male, it is very unlikely that it can
really be considered a truly gender-neutral term.
David Eppstein
jwolf!@cybercom.net (James A. Wolf) writes:
: This topic reminds me of something I noticed in my law school textbooks.
: Whenever a hypothetical was used, the person was always 'She', unless a
: crime was committed by the individual in question. Then the word 'he' was
: used. For a while 'tek' was suggested as the gender nuetral singular
: pronoun. My personal suggestion is to combine She, He and IT into one word.
No need to make up ugly words.
Informal English already has a perfectly good gender-neutral *SINGULAR*: they.
And, after all, if you can be singular, why can't they?
Unfortunately, one can't get away with using it when one is attempting
to be formal.
--
David Eppstein UC Irvine Dept. of Information & Computer Science
epps...@ics.uci.edu http://www.ics.uci.edu/~eppstein/
Stevens R. Miller
Jeff Suzuki wrote:
> Here the gender of an object is irrevocably tied in with it: ships are
> feminine (in Italian and French), while trains are masculine. Young
> women are neuter (in German).
The French word for "mustache" is feminine, n'est-ce pas?
--
WEB PAGE: FINDING A NEW YORK LAWYER | Freedom from fear and want.
http://www.users.interport.net/~lex | Freedom of speech and religion.
(Remove "JUNK" from my address for e-mail. Sorry it's come to this.)
Nyrath the nearly wise
Steve Patterson (no_spam_s...@wwdc.com) wrote:
: OK. I've seen the hyphenated "Sapir-Whorf" thrown around in the context
: of language and meaning, but I still have no idea what the heck it's all
In my no doubt limited comprehension of Sapir-Whorf, it basically
means that one's language influences one's thought.
This has been touched on by several SF novels:
1984 by George Orwell (New Speak, where the theory of the dictators is: it
is very difficult for people to plot a revolution if they
don't have a *word* for "revolution")
The Languages of Pao by Jack Vance
Babel-17 by Samuel R. Delaney
More concretely, there is an artifical language originally
called "Loglan", but the new version is called "Lojban".
It was formulated to test the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.
In theory, it will be easier to think scientifically in
Lojban than in english. It is actually an interesting
language, syntax based on boolean algebra (the algebra
of logic), spelled strictly phonetically, words are stressed
in such a way that even if you run the words together a
listener can still separate them, and so on.
If you are interested, do a web search on "Lojban".
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| WINCHELL CHUNG http://www.clark.net/pub/nyrath/home.html |
| Nyrath the nearly wise nyr...@clark.net |
+---_---+---------------------[ SURREAL SAGE SEZ: ]--------------------------+
| /_\ | I refuse to be intimidated by reality anymore. |
| <(*)> | |
|/_/|\_\| |
| //|\\ | |
+///|\\\+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
Jeff Suzuki
Steve Patterson (no_spam_s...@wwdc.com) wrote:
: The English language already has a gender-neutral singular pronoun. I use
: it quite often. It is "it". I use "it" to refer to those obnoxious
: individuals who insist on being referred to by a gender-neutral pronoun.
The normal use of "it" is for gender-less objects, or objects where
the gender is irrelevant (that caterpillar over there, it's eating
that leaf...).
Relatively speaking, English is a fairly gender-less language. Car's
may be "she", but are just as frequently "it" (or "This damned blasted
hunk of garbage"). About the only thing we routinely apply gender to
is people. Anyone who's tried to learn French, Italian, Spanish,
German, Russian, Latin, Greek, or any a lot of other languages knows
that these languages apply two (and in Russian, Latin, Greek, and
German, three) genders: masculine, feminine, and neuter.
Here the gender of an object is irrevocably tied in with it: ships are
feminine (in Italian and French), while trains are masculine. Young
women are neuter (in German).
Jeffs
Jeff Suzuki
John Moreno (phe...@interpath.com) wrote:
: I don't know, but I can't think of any time when "they" is used to refer
: to a specific, single, individual.
No, but it's often used to refer to an entity that might be single of
unknown sex. "A person walks up to you and then they ask..."
Jeffs
Steve Patterson
In article <5i15s4$9...@agate.berkeley.edu>, djh...@uclink.berkeley.edu (Dorothy J Heydt) says:
>
>In article <5i0pch$2...@van1s03.cyberion.com>,
>
>>OK. I've seen the hyphenated "Sapir-Whorf" thrown around in the context
>>of language and meaning, but I still have no idea what the heck it's all
>>about.
>
>possibility that the way a language divides up the universe
>shapes the perceptions of its speakers.
Ah. Then it's the same concept behind the reasoning of Oceana's introduction
of Newspeak in _1984_. Interesting...
Thanks for the list of books; I'll slip over to the local university library
and see if I can find one or two.
Joshua Kronengold
In article <5hriln$h...@universe.digex.net>,
Nancy Lebovitz <nan...@universe.digex.net> wrote:
>In article <fxtu3ls...@isolde.mti.sgi.com>,
>Matt Austern <aus...@isolde.mti.sgi.com> wrote:
>>
>>English. It's certainly more correct than some made-up pronoun that
>>nobody uses today and nobody ever has.
>What do you mean by "nobody"? There are plenty of people who use sie or zie,
>though perhaps mostly on the net.
I suspect the intended meaning here is in spoken English. I think
I've heard the use of a recently made-up gender-neutral pronoun in
spoken english once, mabye twice, mostly because, with a few
exceptions, the vast majority of the contenders for the
gender-neutral-singular-person slot are difficult to pronounce
unambiguously.
I've used "they" in the past, but lately, since I prefer to be
understood than advocate any particular style, I've either used both
together separated by 'or', or just switched from he to she every
paragraph (picking a new gender each time I was allowed to pick a new
gender-neutral person).
>
>Actually, if you track the use of "nobody", you'll find that it's more
>interesting than it looks. For example "Nobody knew about the Holocaust"--
>it's a common enough statement, but obviously false. At a minimum,
>the people directly involved knew, but the "nobody" means something
>more like "no one that the speaker was noticing"..
Nobody did X generally implies an unspoken group from which nobody is
taken, yes -- in the above example, for instance, (at least when
spoken in the USA), "nobody" will generally refer to "nobody in the US
who had any say in things" or "most people in the USA", while a
statement that "nobody wears white shoes after labor day" implies
something entirely different.
--Josh, who is reminded of the line in Books of Magic which reads "I
am nobody's little thing" (at which point, the speaking character, who
is a character in an absolutely hellish faery tale shrinks down and is
placed in a box by "Nobody", who owns her to this very day).
--
mn...@dorsai.org Josh Kronengold |\ _,,,--,,_ ,)
^ "Unix is easy. Just like a cross between /,`.-'`' -, ;-;;'
/\\ English and Welsh. Except that you have to |,4- ) )-,_ ) /\
/-\\\ take out all the vowels" -- Me '---''(_/--' (_/-'
John Moreno
Barbara <ba...@aol.com> wrote:
I don't have a problem with "fireman", "policeman", "chairman", etc any
more than I object to somebody have the last name "Johnson" who's father
isn't named "John". It's simply how the job is described. OTOH "When
you call a teacher, he will come to help you" is a bit more of a
problem, although I'd like to point out that for THAT particular
sentence saying "SHE will come to help you" is much more likely.
--
John Moreno
John Moreno
Matt Austern <aus...@isolde.mti.sgi.com> wrote:
] "Stevens R. Miller" <l...@interport.net> writes:
]
] > I keep seeing this argument, but I've read loads of stuff from
] > various times and don't recall ever seeing anything wherein "you"
] > did not have both cardinalities. One person said something about
] > "thou," but if that was ever the only singular form, it predates
] > the American Revolution. Anything before that refers to a time
] > when American English was far more parochial than now. We have
] > a wide-spread understand, finally, of what the words in our
] > language mean. Force-fitting them into new purposes, to satisfy
] > someone's ideology, will undo the advantage of simple understanding.
]
] Yes, of course "thou" as a singular predates the American Revolution.
] That's recent stuff: modern English has been around for far longer
] than this young country has been. English has changed over the last
] few centuries, and it's not going to suddenly stop changing now that
] we've reached the 20th century. I couldn't possibly predict how it
] will change, but I'm certain that 22nd century English won't be the
] same as 20th century.
I'm less sure of that than you are. And in any case, I think Miller had
a good point, 500 hundred years ago who gave a shit how somebody 500
miles away spoke? In most cases they weren't ever going to speak to
them anyway, And the further back you go the more true this was.
Today I spoke (not wrote) to two different people who are more than
6,000 miles away from each other. Distance is now irrelevant for the
most part, what relevance it still has is more about time of day not the
distance per se.
--
John Moreno
James W. Meritt
In article <5i1ooi$c...@clarknet.clark.net>, nyr...@clark.net says...
There is a newsgroup/mailing list devoted to lojban (a non-Brown evolved
loglan)
--
James W. Meritt
The opinions expressed above are my own. The fact simply
are and belong to none.
Matt Austern
Matt Austern <aus...@isolde.mti.sgi.com> writes:
> Le Guin has now written a new essay about the subject. I think that
> it was originally written for the 25th anniversary edition of _The
> Left Hand of Darkness_, but it's reprinted in one of her essay
> collections. _Dancing at the Edge of the World_, perhaps.
I went back and looked up the essay, partly to check my facts and
partly because I remembered it as being a good essay. I got some of
the facts wrong in my article, so here's a correction.
_The Left Hand of Darkness_ was published in 1967. The original
essay, "Is Gender Necessary", was published in 1976. It was not
written as a forward to _The Left Hand of Darkness_, but was written
for an anthology called _Aurora_. (Which Le Guin misidentifies as an
anthology of SF by women. It's not. It's an anthology of feminist
SF; one of the stories in it is written by P. J. Plauger, who is a
man.) "Is Gender Necessary" can be found in Le Guin's essay
collection _The Language of the Night_.
The revision I'm thinking of is "Is Gender Necessary, Redux". It was
published some time around 1986, and it is indeed in _Dancing at the
Edge of the World_. What it is, in fact, is an annotated version of
"Is Gender Necessary": it consists of the complete text of the earlier
essay, with parenthetical comments where Le Guin has changed her mind
or where she has new ideas.
The relevant section is where Le Guin is discussing the criticism that
she made her Gethenians too male: they seem much more like men than
like women, even though they are supposed to be both. In both the
1976 and the 1986 versions of the essay, she agrees that this is a
valid criticism, that this was a failing on her part. In 1976,
though, she still thought that she had made the right decision in
using the masculine pronoun "he" to refer for Gethenians, and by 1986
she thought that she this decision was wrong.
Wayne Throop
:: Honestly, I really don't give a shit whether "he" or "she" or "they"
:: is used in this manner [as a gender-neutral pronoun], because I
:: believe the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis to be untrue.
: no_spam_s...@wwdc.com (Steve Patterson)
: OK. I've seen the hyphenated "Sapir-Whorf" thrown around in the
: context of language and meaning, but I still have no idea what the
: heck it's all about. Can anyone recommend a good source for me to
: find out more?
Briefly (and vaguely), the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is that the forms
available in the language influence the thoughts of speakers of that
language. For example, the Jack Vance novel "The Languages of Pao"
makes use of this concept. Warriors are taught a language full of
active verbs, no passive tense, things like the word for "use" or
"apply" being synonymous with "attack", and so on; Scholars are taught a
language with lots of nuance and logical operators, politicians are
taught a language with lots of circumlocutions and ambiguity, and so on.
It has an interesting outcome, IMHO.
Abandoning the briefness (but not much of the vagueness)...
The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis has fallen on hard times recently.
The "Eskimo has 40 words for snow" meme is now pooh-poohed by many or most,
and the fact that neutral words (such as "secretary" or "nurse") rapidly
aquire or lose gender-specific connotations independently of language form
arguably tends to point in the other direction.
A quick search on alta-vista for "sapir-whorf" reveals lots of
links to pursue. Or go to a university library, sneak into the
stacks in the linquistics section, and flip through a few textbook
indides for "sapir-whorf", to see if they have a sizeable discussion
off the notion.
Also, the language "Loglan" (mentioned in Heinlein's "The Moon is
a Harsh Mistress") was specifically designed by James Cook Brown
to test the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. From the back page blurb of
my 1975 copy of "Loglan 1" (the book on loglan grammar and lexical form)
Loglan is a language designed to test the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis
that the natural languages limit human thought. It does so by
pushing those limits outward in predictable direction, principally
by:
- incorporating the notational elegance of symbolic logic
(it is *transformationally powerful*);
- forcing the fewest possible assumptions about "reality" on its
speakers (it is *metaphysically parsimonious*);
- removing all structural sources of ambiguity (in Loglan anything,
no matter how implausible, can be said clearly; for it is
*syntactcally unambiguous*);
- generalizing all semantic operations (whatever can be done to any
Loglan word may be done to every Loglan word; for it is
*semantically non-restrictive*);
- deriving its basic word-stock from eight natural languages,
including three oriental lones (it is therefore *culturally
neutral*);
As befits a research instrument, Loglan is also *small* (its grammar
is an order of magnitude smaller than any natural grammar), *easily
learned* (there are about 1000 basic words and their recognizability
has been maximized) and *isomorphic* (there are not structural
differences between its spoken and written forms). This last
feature, together with its logical power and lack of ambiguity,
*may* make loglan an ideal instrument for talking with computers.
This last bit is the role Loglan plays in TMiaHM; Mike speaks it fluently.
The idea was, if enough people could learn to "think in Loglan", then
tests of their cognitive habits might reveal interesting things about
how language influences cognition, or if it does at all. Unfortunately,
I'm not sure that a stable version of the language, and a stable pool
of fluent speakers has ever been gotten together for such testing.
Further, the language didn't remain totally unified for long; people
had many motives for pursuing Loglan, and the community is now
(near as I know; I'm largely an outsider) split into two groups,
the second group pushing a slightly revised version of the language
called "lojban" (since "loglan" doesn't mean anything in Loglan,
and doesn't even follow the rules of pronunciation well).
The lojban folks now seem to be a larger, more active group.
You can find out lots of information about them via a query on
"logban" on altavista. Trying that with "loglan" gets you information
mostly on some computer language or other, unrelated to the
Loglan I'm talking about here. Sigh.
In conclusion, and in honor of Hale-Bopp (though in an obsolete
dialect of Loglan): Ta bragagra tarsensi
( I always try to work "Ta bragagra tarsensi" in to conversations.
That and "Da bilti cmalo nirli ckela". That latter is one of
the fourteen ways to say "the pretty little girl's school" in Loglan;
per above, it means "a school for girls who have beautiful smallness"...
if you meant that the school was beautiful and the students are small
girls, that'd be "Da bilti ge cmalo nirli ckela", and so on and on...
whereas in English, the meanings are all muddled together, sort of.
... but again, that's an obsolete dialect: I haven't kept up with lojban. )
--
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
thr...@cisco.com
Dorothy J Heydt
In article <334565da.25959503@news>, Barbara <ba...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>I'd also recommend Native Tongue, a novel by Suzette Haden Elgin....
I wouldn't. As I mentioned previously, it's a lecture disguised
as a novel.
Cally Soukup
Larry Caldwell (lar...@teleport.com) wrote:
: Think of it this way: the only pronoun case in the English language that
: is gender specific is third person singular. All you have to do is tighten
: that a bit to make third person singular refer only to a known person.
: At that point the gender is known, and you can correctly use the gender
: specific term.
Umm -- what if it isn't? I have an acquaintance, perhaps even a friend,
whose sex is not known to me. Zie is, I am told, both (or neither?) male
and female. Since it is impolite to interrogate a person on the exact
configuration of zir genetalia, and the person in question expresses no
preference as to which gendered pronoun is to be used in reference to zir,
only asking that "it" not be used, I use "zie" and "zir" in print and when
talking to those familiar with those pronouns, and "he" and "she"
interchangeably when not. As you can imagine, this produces much confusion
in eavesdroppers.
P Nielsen Hayden
Matt Austern (aus...@isolde.mti.sgi.com) wrote:
: I went back and looked up the essay, partly to check my facts and
: partly because I remembered it as being a good essay. I got some of
: the facts wrong in my article, so here's a correction.
: _The Left Hand of Darkness_ was published in 1967.
You might want to check those facts again; wasn't THE LEFT HAND OF DARKNESS
published in 1969?
-----
Patrick Nielsen Hayden : p...@tor.com : http://www.panix.com/~pnh
senior editor, manager of science fiction, Tor Books : http://www.tor.com
Barbara
On 4 Apr 1997 02:24:18 GMT, nyr...@clark.net (Nyrath the nearly wise)
wrote:
>Steve Patterson (no_spam_s...@wwdc.com) wrote:
>: OK. I've seen the hyphenated "Sapir-Whorf" thrown around in the context
>: of language and meaning, but I still have no idea what the heck it's all
>: about. Can anyone recommend a good source for me to find out more?
>
>In my no doubt limited comprehension of Sapir-Whorf, it basically
>means that one's language influences one's thought.
>
>This has been touched on by several SF novels:
>
<List follows>
I'd also recommend Native Tongue, a novel by Suzette Haden Elgin, in
which a several female linguists attempt to change their highly
restrictive reality by creating a new language that has names for
concepts that have not yet been named.
Gidon Moont
Matt Austern (aus...@isolde.mti.sgi.com) wrote:
: mo...@ic.ac.uk (Gidon Moont) writes:
: > It strikes me that many who have posted might want to read LeGuins article,
: > an apologetic for using "he" in The Left Hand of Darkness. In my opinion it
: > [ cut ]
: Note, however, that that essay appeared thirty years ago. Le Guin has
: now changed her mind. (Not surprising; in that long a time, everyone
: changes their minds about lots of things.)
Indeed :-)
: Note also that Le Guin didn't always handle this issue the same way
: that she did in _The Left Hand of Darkness_. In "Winter's King",
: reprinted in _The Wind's Twelve Quarters_, she deliberately refers to
: the same person by the masculine title "king" and the feminine pronoun
: "she".
True. I think the word "deliberately" is of note though. Is it not
reasonable to presume when The Left Hand of Darkness was written, to
use "he" was natural, as opposed to "deliberate" ?
: Le Guin has now written a new essay about the subject. I think that
: it was originally written for the 25th anniversary edition of _The
: Left Hand of Darkness_, but it's reprinted in one of her essay
: collections. _Dancing at the Edge of the World_, perhaps.
This is in fact the essay I was refering to - it is in "The Language of
the Night" - and is the original essay with footnotes added explicitly.
I think this edition of "The Language of the Night" was an updated one -
I brought it about two years back.
BTW, to those of you living in London, UK, Murder One, for some bizare
reason, has hardback copies of Unlocking the Air and Other Stories going
for 6 quid, as well as the new paperback for 10 quid. Explanations
anyone? I already have the book, otherwise I would definitely have made
use of the offer!
Cheers
Sandals
PS - email address now fixed I think.
Gary Farber
In <5i496t$2...@root.two14.lan> Cally Soukup <ma...@mcs.com> wrote:
[. . .]
: Umm -- what if it isn't? I have an acquaintance, perhaps even a friend,
: whose sex is not known to me. Zie is, I am told, both (or neither?) male
: and female. Since it is impolite to interrogate a person on the exact
: configuration of zir genetalia, and the person in question expresses no
: preference as to which gendered pronoun is to be used in reference to zir,
: only asking that "it" not be used, I use "zie" and "zir" in print and when
: talking to those familiar with those pronouns, and "he" and "she"
: interchangeably when not. As you can imagine, this produces much confusion
: in eavesdroppers.
http://www.wavefront.com/~raphael/raq/raq.html
Androgyny RAQ and M. Manners' Guide
--
-- Gary Farber gfa...@panix.com
Copyright 1997 Brooklyn, NY, USA
Leigh R Hidell
: Umm -- what if it isn't? I have an acquaintance, perhaps even a friend,
: whose sex is not known to me. Zie is, I am told, both (or neither?) male
: and female. Since it is impolite to interrogate a person on the exact
: configuration of zir genetalia, and the person in question expresses no
I had a friend whose sex was not known to me, & I managed
w/out any problem. How often do you use the 3rd person
when addressing a person? You use 2nd person, correct?
Eventually, someone (such as the sex partner of your
friend) WILL blab, I promise you. Unless your friends are
a LOT less into gossip than mine are!!! --Leigh
Norman L. DeForest
John Moreno (phe...@interpath.com) wrote:
: Richard Mason <ma...@robby.caltech.edu> wrote:
: ] Norman L. DeForest wrote:
: ] >
: ] > John Moreno (phe...@interpath.com) wrote:
: ] > : It (s/he - GODS a sex neutral term would sure come in handy
: ] > : occasionally) would have an incompatible world view
: ] >
: ] > How about "gtst" from the Chanur series?
: ]
: ] How about "they" singular, as in "they would have an incompatible
: ] world view..."?
: ]
: ] (a) It is pronounceable by English-speaking humans.
: ] (b) It is already prevalent in spoken English.
: I don't know, but I can't think of any time when "they" is used to refer
: to a specific, single, individual.
Richard does have a good point. There is a precedent. "You" used to be
plural only. It gradually replaced the singular "thee" and "thou".
Norman De Forest
af...@chebucto.ns.ca
http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~af380/Profile.html
(A Speech Friendly Site)
.........................................................................
Q. Which is the greater problem in the world today, ignorance or apathy?
A. I don't know and I couldn't care less.
.........................................................................
Cally Soukup
Gary Farber (gfa...@panix.com) wrote:
: : Umm -- what if it isn't? I have an acquaintance, perhaps even a friend,
: : whose sex is not known to me. Zie is, I am told, both (or neither?) male
: http://www.wavefront.com/~raphael/raq/raq.html
: Androgyny RAQ and M. Manners' Guide
Thank you. I didn't have the URL handy.
(Incidentally, when inviting zir to my wedding, I took a clue from M.
Manners' Guide, and used the title "M." <grin>
Greer/Taylor
On Sun, 30 Mar 1997 22:54:59 -0800, Richard Mason
<ma...@robby.caltech.edu> wrote:
>Norman L. DeForest wrote:
>>
>> John Moreno (phe...@interpath.com) wrote:
>> : It (s/he - GODS a sex neutral term would sure come in handy
>> : occasionally) would have an incompatible world view
>>
>> How about "gtst" from the Chanur series?
>
>How about "they" singular, as in "they would have an incompatible
>world view..."?
>
>(a) It is pronounceable by English-speaking humans.
>(b) It is already prevalent in spoken English.
>
>--
>Richard Mason
>ma...@robby.caltech.edu
I agree that we need to avoid the awkward s/he use of
pronouns. The only solution I can offer is to avoid the use of the
third person pronoun when the gender is not known.
"A person would have an incompatible world view...?"
Daniel J. Starr
In article <5i4moi$b...@panix2.panix.com>,
Gary Farber <gfa...@panix.com> wrote:
>http://www.wavefront.com/~raphael/raq/raq.html
>
>Androgyny RAQ and M. Manners' Guide
Yes, but Mr. Carter's writing is ineluctably masculine. :)
[ObSF to the lurkers: Buy and read Raphael Carter's _The Fortunate Fall_.
Buy and read it NOW. Go on, put down the keyboard and run to the
bookstore. It's the best SF novel published in years.]
--
Daniel Starr (dst...@math.mit.edu)
Never attribute to malice what can be explained by indigestion.
Gary Farber
In <5i6b8s$9...@weierstrass.mit.edu>
Daniel J. Starr <dst...@math.mit.edu> wrote:
[. . .]
: Yes, but Mr. Carter's writing is ineluctably masculine. :)
[snort, laugh]
Bob Silverberg will never live that down, I'm afraid.
: [ObSF to the lurkers: Buy and read Raphael Carter's _The Fortunate Fall_.
: Buy and read it NOW. Go on, put down the keyboard and run to the
: bookstore. It's the best SF novel published in years.]
It's pretty darn good.
liz
In article <3343B9...@interport.net>, "Stevens R. Miller"
<l...@interport.net> writes
>Peter H. Granzeau wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 31 Mar 1997 09:53:30 -0500, "Stevens R. Miller"
>> <l...@interport.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Richard Mason wrote:
>> >
>> >> How about "they" singular, as in "they would have an incompatible
>> >> world view..."?
>> >>
>> >> (a) It is pronounceable by English-speaking humans.
>> >> (b) It is already prevalent in spoken English.
>> >
>>
>> At one time, "you" was plural, too. English can absorb changes in
>> usage quite handily.
>
>I keep seeing this argument, but I've read loads of stuff from
>various times and don't recall ever seeing anything wherein "you"
>did not have both cardinalities. One person said something about
>"thou," but if that was ever the only singular form, it predates
>the American Revolution. Anything before that refers to a time
>when American English was far more parochial than now.
As a point of interest, are we actually only talking about _American_
English? Maybe I'm mistaken, but I thought this newsgroup was available
world wide, and that "English" referred to all the varieties of English
spoken on the planet. But of course, I could be mistaken.
As a point of interest - 'they' started out as both singular and plural.
Its use as plural only is only a couple of hundred years old.
>We have
>a wide-spread understand, finally, of what the words in our
>language mean. Force-fitting them into new purposes, to satisfy
>someone's ideology, will undo the advantage of simple understanding.
"They" as plural only has _already_ been force-fitted to a new purpose.
>
>Cite me something on "you" never having been singular.
>
Daniel J. Starr
In article <5i7piq$j...@panix2.panix.com>,
Gary Farber <gfa...@panix.com> wrote:
>In <5i6b8s$9...@weierstrass.mit.edu>
>Daniel J. Starr <dst...@math.mit.edu> wrote:
>: [ObSF to the lurkers: Buy and read Raphael Carter's _The Fortunate Fall_.
>: Buy and read it NOW. Go on, put down the keyboard and run to the
>: bookstore. It's the best SF novel published in years.]
>
>It's pretty darn good.
Hunh. OK, Gary, what other SF books within the last three years are
equally nifty?
(I'm hoping to tease recommendations out of you. The possibility of our
inciting a pointless rankings flamewar on this newsgroup is just a bonus.)
John Moreno
Greer/Taylor <verdn...@mcn.net> wrote:
] On Sun, 30 Mar 1997 22:54:59 -0800, Richard Mason
] <ma...@robby.caltech.edu> wrote:
]
] >Norman L. DeForest wrote:
] >>
] >> John Moreno (phe...@interpath.com) wrote:
] >> : It (s/he - GODS a sex neutral term would sure come in handy
] >> : occasionally) would have an incompatible world view
] >>
] >> How about "gtst" from the Chanur series?
] >
] >How about "they" singular, as in "they would have an incompatible
] >world view..."?
] >
] >(a) It is pronounceable by English-speaking humans.
] >(b) It is already prevalent in spoken English.
]
] I agree that we need to avoid the awkward s/he use of
] pronouns. The only solution I can offer is to avoid the use of the
] third person pronoun when the gender is not known.
]
] "A person would have an incompatible world view...?"
Nope, I was describing a specific person. The sentence COULD have been
written as : The person, as described, would have an incompatible world
view. Note the use of "the" instead of "a".
--
John Moreno
Larry Caldwell
In article <5i5e8u$m...@News.Dal.Ca>,
af...@chebucto.ns.ca (Norman L. DeForest) wrote:
> Richard does have a good point. There is a precedent. "You" used to be
> plural only. It gradually replaced the singular "thee" and "thou".
Just a minor nit here. "You" was the second person singular formal.
"Thee" and "thou" were respectively the objective and subjective second
person singular familiar. They were properly used only with an intimate,
and have fallen from common usage.
"You" is also the second person plural pronoun.
Spanish still maintains the second person familiar and formal. In
Spanish the familiar is commonly used among equals and is more common
than the formal.
-- Larry
Carrie A Schutrick
The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis states, simply, that the way one speaks
influences and reflects the way one thinks.
Hence, those using "he" as a generic think of the average person as
male, disocunting that there are females in the population too.
Most elementary linguistics textbooks should have some information on
Sapir-Whorf.
Please note that I am not an adherent of this theory.
--Carrie S.
*****Carrie Schutri...@andrew.cmu.edu--Pittsburgh PA--CMU*****
<http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~caos>
Unsolicited commercial email sent to this address will be subject to a $1500
processing fee. Sending mail to this address, maunally or automatically,
implies consent to these terms.
Carrie A Schutrick
>I'd also recommend Native Tongue, a novel by Suzette Haden Elgin, in
>which a several female linguists attempt to change their highly
>restrictive reality by creating a new language that has names for
>concepts that have not yet been named.
...and, in the process, create a language in which men cannot talk about
themselves because the women are so much more important.
Do a web search for "Laadan," with a grave accent over the the first 'a'
if possible.
It's a wonderful example of female chauvinism and male-bashing, the
kind of thing that refuses to use the word "history" because it implies that
only "his" (males) have real stories...
I am a feminist--that is, I believe people should be equal regardless of
gender. The feminazis tick me off.
John Moreno
Gidon Moont <mo...@icrf.icnet.uk> wrote:
] Matt Austern (aus...@isolde.mti.sgi.com) wrote:
] : mo...@ic.ac.uk (Gidon Moont) writes:
]
] : > It strikes me that many who have posted might want to read LeGuins
] : > article, an apologetic for using "he" in The Left Hand of
] : > Darkness. In my opinion it
] : > [ cut ]
]
] : Note, however, that that essay appeared thirty years ago. Le Guin
] : has now changed her mind. (Not surprising; in that long a time,
] : everyone changes their minds about lots of things.)
]
] Indeed :-)
]
] : Note also that Le Guin didn't always handle this issue the same way
] : that she did in _The Left Hand of Darkness_. In "Winter's King",
] : reprinted in _The Wind's Twelve Quarters_, she deliberately refers
] : to the same person by the masculine title "king" and the feminine
] : pronoun "she".
]
] True. I think the word "deliberately" is of note though. Is it not
] reasonable to presume when The Left Hand of Darkness was written, to
] use "he" was natural, as opposed to "deliberate" ?
This reminds me of _Honor Among Enemies_ where Weber was filling in a
little bit about the Alderman Empire's history. Seems that only the
males can hold the throne - when the direct line died out and all of the
side branches were threatening to go to war the eldest female had
herself declared a man and then went on to be Emperor, as His Majesty
(forgot his name).
--
John Moreno
Matt Austern
mo...@icrf.icnet.uk (Gidon Moont) writes:
> : Note also that Le Guin didn't always handle this issue the same way
> : that she did in _The Left Hand of Darkness_. In "Winter's King",
> : reprinted in _The Wind's Twelve Quarters_, she deliberately refers to
> : the same person by the masculine title "king" and the feminine pronoun
> : "she".
>
> True. I think the word "deliberately" is of note though. Is it not
> reasonable to presume when The Left Hand of Darkness was written, to
> use "he" was natural, as opposed to "deliberate" ?
No, I don't think it's reasonable to assume that.
First, Le Guin's discussion in the original version of her essay
suggests very strongly that she made a conscious decision about which
pronoun she would use when referring to her androgynous aliens. She
recognized this as an issue, and initially defended her choice as the
least of several evils.
Second, I suggest that there is no "natural" answer to the question of
whether to use a masculine or a feminine pronoun when you're talking
about a person who is neither male nor female. My guess is that every
science fiction writer who has made up such aliens has consciously
thought about this question and has made a deliberate choice of one
sort or another. Some authors use new pronouns, some use "he" or
"she", but I doubt if there are any who are so unreflective that they
don't think about it at all. I certainly don't think that Le Guin is
a careless writer; she made a decision that she later regretted, but I
strongly suspect that that decision was deliberate.
There are lots of stories about aliens who are neither male nor
female, of course. One that happens to come to mind is _The Player of
Games_, by Iain Banks. He used the pronoun "he" to refer to one of
those aliens, but this was very definitely a deliberate choice. One
of the characters in the book takes discusses it for a few paragraphs.
Cally Soukup
Leigh R Hidell (lr...@gnofn.org) wrote:
: Cally Soukup wrote:
: : Umm -- what if it isn't? I have an acquaintance, perhaps even a friend,
: : whose sex is not known to me. Zie is, I am told, both (or neither?) male
: : and female. Since it is impolite to interrogate a person on the exact
: : configuration of zir genetalia, and the person in question expresses no
: I had a friend whose sex was not known to me, & I managed
: w/out any problem. How often do you use the 3rd person
: when addressing a person? You use 2nd person, correct?
: Eventually, someone (such as the sex partner of your
: friend) WILL blab, I promise you. Unless your friends are
: a LOT less into gossip than mine are!!! --Leigh
I'm sorry, you don't understand. Read my third sentence again. It was not a
metaphor. Sure I use second person in talking to zir; but it is useful to
have a pronoun when *referring to* zir. One can't always be using the
person's given name without sounding clumsy... (and the sex partner of the
person in question refers to zir mostly as "she", but I'm told a previous
one referred to zir as "he". So that's no help.)
Incidentally, I've replaced the attribution which you accidentally removed.
Elisabeth Carey
Larry Caldwell <lar...@teleport.com> wrote in article
<aCCSz0O5...@teleport.com>...
> In article <5i5e8u$m...@News.Dal.Ca>,
> af...@chebucto.ns.ca (Norman L. DeForest) wrote:
>
> > Richard does have a good point. There is a precedent. "You" used to
be
> > plural only. It gradually replaced the singular "thee" and "thou".
>
> Just a minor nit here. "You" was the second person singular formal.
> "Thee" and "thou" were respectively the objective and subjective second
> person singular familiar. They were properly used only with an intimate,
> and have fallen from common usage.
>
> "You" is also the second person plural pronoun.
This is quite misleading when phrased this way.
The second person plural is used as second person singular in formal usage;
note that even when used to refer to a single person it *always* takes the
plural verb form. This is because the singular forms are/were used *only*
to persons with whom you are/were on sufficiently intimate terms to justify
it [noting that this varies somewhat with culture.]
The plural usage is its primary nature; the singular usage is a secondary,
supplementary usage, for the purpose of not being overly-familiar with
people it wasn't appropriate to be familiar with.
Lis Carey
Norman L. DeForest
John Moreno (phe...@interpath.com) wrote:
: This reminds me of _Honor Among Enemies_ where Weber was filling in a
: little bit about the Alderman Empire's history. Seems that only the
: males can hold the throne - when the direct line died out and all of the
: side branches were threatening to go to war the eldest female had
: herself declared a man and then went on to be Emperor, as His Majesty
: (forgot his name).
: --
: John Moreno
Didn't the pharaohs also do this -- even to the extent of the female
ones wearing false beards?
Robert Pearlman
> The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis states, simply, that the way one speaks
>influences and reflects the way one thinks.
> Hence, those using "he" as a generic think of the average person as
>male, disocunting that there are females in the population too.
> Most elementary linguistics textbooks should have some information on
>Sapir-Whorf.
> Please note that I am not an adherent of this theory.
>--Carrie S.
Back in the fifties (and maybe before) Sapir/Whorf (usually without
Sapir) had a big play in sf, particularly Astounding.
C. M. Kornbluth wrote "That Share of Glory" based on it, and made it a
minor point in "Two Dooms".
The problem was, Whorf didn't check his hypothesis and assumptions.
He had noted that Navaho verbs didn't have tenses. So, he said, the
Navaho don't think in the the European manner, division of time into
past and future, etc., etc.
I believe that sometime later it was found that the Navaho put the
time markers on other parts of speech. One does assume that they
would have told him if he'd asked.
rp
BTW, the most extensive sf-nal treatment is Jack Vance's "The
Languages of Pao".
Leigh R Hidell
: I'm sorry, you don't understand. Read my third sentence again. It was not a
: metaphor. Sure I use second person in talking to zir; but it is useful to
: have a pronoun when *referring to* zir. One can't always be using the
: person's given name without sounding clumsy... (and the sex partner of the
: person in question refers to zir mostly as "she", but I'm told a previous
: one referred to zir as "he". So that's no help.)
Well, like I said, I live in a gossipy place (South Louisiana).
You just ask behind the person's back. No one I've known
has wished to be referred to as "zie," I can't see how that's
any different from "it." The TSs & TVs I've known had
very definite opinions on how they wished to be addressed,
usually as "she," less often as "he." But never "it"
or "zie." Not even once. --Leigh
Eugenia Horne
In article <5if4kf$frg$1...@News.Dal.Ca>,
Norman L. DeForest <af...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote:
>John Moreno (phe...@interpath.com) wrote:
>
>: This reminds me of _Honor Among Enemies_ where Weber was filling in a
>: little bit about the Alderman Empire's history. Seems that only the
>: males can hold the throne - when the direct line died out and all of the
>: side branches were threatening to go to war the eldest female had
>: herself declared a man and then went on to be Emperor, as His Majesty
>: (forgot his name).
>Didn't the pharaohs also do this -- even to the extent of the female
>ones wearing false beards?
Well...it's kind of up "in the air" as to whether this
actually happened or the evidence remaining reflected
traditional portrayals of "kingship" in language and
art.
The female pharaoh most well known is Hatshepsut and while
there are portraits of her "as a man" in standard male
attire, there are indications that the artists may have
just being trying to "follow the standard formula" in their
depictions. In written records, a number reportedly have
her titles (Lord of the Two Lands, etc.) with the usual
masculine "determinants", but other records have the titles
with feminine "determinants". (Sort of similar to the
term "Queen regnant" used later to define "woman who ruled
in her own right and not a "Queen consort" (which is the
"default" definition of the title "Queen").)
As to why Hatshepsut did this, there's an interesting
speculation in the latest edition of the magazine _KMT_.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The feelings of admiration and even love are not sinful - nor can you
prevent the impulses of one's nature - but it is your duty to avoid
the temptation in every way. - Prince Albert (via Queen Victoria)
Graydon
Robert Pearlman (rpea...@pipeline.com) wrote:
: The problem was, Whorf didn't check his hypothesis and assumptions.
: He had noted that Navaho verbs didn't have tenses. So, he said, the
: Navaho don't think in the the European manner, division of time into
: past and future, etc., etc.
:
: I believe that sometime later it was found that the Navaho put the
: time markers on other parts of speech. One does assume that they
: would have told him if he'd asked.
And thus went some way towards proving his point with himself, no?
--
Uton we hycgan hwaer we ham agen, | saun...@qlink.queensu.ca
ond thonne gethencan hu we thider cumen.
Karen Lofstrom
Robert Pearlman (rpea...@pipeline.com) wrote:
: Back in the fifties (and maybe before) Sapir/Whorf (usually without
: Sapir) had a big play in sf, particularly Astounding.
: C. M. Kornbluth wrote "That Share of Glory" based on it, and made it a
: minor point in "Two Dooms".
[snip]
: BTW, the most extensive sf-nal treatment is Jack Vance's "The
: Languages of Pao".
Let's not leave out Delaney's _Babel-17_, based on the premise that
just learning the artificial language Babel-17 turns one into a
saboteur and assassin.
--
Karen Lofstrom lofs...@lava.net
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspected and found apparently free of sweet potato weevils in
accordance with Part 3 of Chapter 12 of Title 3 of the Louisiana
Revised Statutes
Elisabeth Carey
Eugenia Horne <horn...@cwis.isu.edu> wrote in article
<5iguuv$d...@cwis.isu.edu>...
<snip>
> >Didn't the pharaohs also do this -- even to the extent of the female
> >ones wearing false beards?
>
> Well...it's kind of up "in the air" as to whether this
> actually happened or the evidence remaining reflected
> traditional portrayals of "kingship" in language and
> art.
>
> The female pharaoh most well known is Hatshepsut and while
> there are portraits of her "as a man" in standard male
> attire, there are indications that the artists may have
> just being trying to "follow the standard formula" in their
> depictions. In written records, a number reportedly have
> her titles (Lord of the Two Lands, etc.) with the usual
> masculine "determinants", but other records have the titles
> with feminine "determinants". (Sort of similar to the
> term "Queen regnant" used later to define "woman who ruled
> in her own right and not a "Queen consort" (which is the
> "default" definition of the title "Queen").)
>
> As to why Hatshepsut did this, there's an interesting
> speculation in the latest edition of the magazine _KMT_.
Or you could read _Hatchepsut_, by Joyce Tyldesley, the first really
complete re-examination of the available evidence, and a very good book.
The Egyptian belief structure required a king, to stand in the proper
relationship with the gods and thus maintain the peace and prosperity of
the kingdon. They had no provision for a woman filling this role, for a
Queen Regnant; Hatchepsut had to present herself as king, and that meant,
on ceremonial occasions, masculine attire and the false beard.
Lis Carey
Elisabeth Carey
John Moreno <phe...@interpath.com> wrote in article
<1997040111...@roxboro-168.interpath.net>...
> Elisabeth Carey <lis....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> ] John Moreno <phe...@interpath.com> wrote in article
> ] <1997033117...@roxboro-178.interpath.net>...
<snip>
> The killer - The killer walked over there and then stabbed the victim,
> and then the killer did this then the killer did that, and can't I stop
> saying the killer sometime.
> The thief - pretty much the same thing.
> The winner of the lottery - The winner of the lottery will come up here
> and accept the big check. I'll say a few words, then the winner of the
> lottery says a few words. Then we pose the winner of the lottery for a
> few pics, etc.
> The person who left their headlights on, the person in the black
> Mercedes who ran me off the road, the person who walked through the
> dimly lit door and did various things, etc.
>
> I'm wanting something for when you know it's one person and you even
> know a bit about that person, but you don't know what sex that person
> is.
>
In most of these sentences, "they/them/their" as third person singular
neuter would fit comfortably, and if you listen, you'll hear people using
it that way in these contexts.
> ] In fact, when *writing*, the problem is almost always avoidable by
> ] stepping back and rethinking the construction of the sentence. In
> ] speaking, this is often far less practical, and it's in speaking -
> ] inherently less formal than writing in almost all circumstances - that
> ] we really need a gender-neutral third person singular pronoun.
>
> Well in writing you can mainly avoid the problem, but not always without
> seeming stilted.
Usually, you just need to work at it a little longer. Sometimes, resort to
"they" might be your best choice.
>
> ] And both "they" and "one" have been in use for the purpose for
> ] centuries; it's only since the beginnings of the women's suffrage
> ] movement that the use of "they" in this context has become
> ] controversial.
>
> I see "one" as being used more in a context where the speaker can be
> included in the group that "one" applies to. As for "they" and the
> women's suffrage movement - do you think this is connected? It seems to
> me the traditional english way is to assume that the person is male and
> use "he", using "they" would seem to be something that the WSF would
> consider a adequate compromise.
Yes, I think it's connect. "Traditional English way" or not, and there's
some truth to that, "they" has in fact been used for centuries as a third
person singular gender-neutral pronoun; the complaints about began about
the same time as the women's suffrage movement. Amazing coincidence, don't
you think? Women began to be explicitly excluded grammatically when they
began demanding to be included politically. The first formal grammars
written for English were explicitly political in a number of ways; much of
it had to do with class, but that's another discussion.
>
> ] > ] And since language is entirely democractic, there's nothing to be
> ] > ] done about it; every artificial singular third-person pronoun that
> ] > ] people have tried to impose by fiat has failed (although on GEnie
> ] > ] for a time, Damon Knight had some success in getting his followers
> ] > ] to use "yeye").
> ] >
> ] > Well, if it's good enough for Damon Knight it should be good enough
> ] > for me. Yeye it is - as long as I don't forget.
> ]
> ] Well, that's the problem, of course. "Yeye" is unfamiliar and not
> ] being thrust into our faces on a large enough scale to make likely its
> ] general adoption - whereas "they" is a familiar English word, has been
> ] used informally for this purpose for centuries, and parallels the
> ] change that has taken place in the second-person person pronouns, with
> ] the formerly always-plural "you" becoming accepted as the singular
> ] form, as well.
>
> Well, if I ever got around to make a .sig file instead of just typing it
> in each time I could add a definition of yeye as part of it. Of course
> it'd seem mighty odd when I was posting to some of the NG I read.
>
> --
> John Moreno
> Yeye - a sex neutral term for a specific individual.
>
And you'll still be reaching only a tiny fraction of the English speakers
you need to reach. Maybe we need to have that class discussion after all.:)
Seriously, we *have* a suitable pronoun already in use in English;
aesthetic dislike is not going to override the rules of English As She Is
Spoke without some genuinely good reason for people to alter their speech
patterns. If this usage of "they" were in some way offensive to some group
that wasn't inclined to take it, you'd have a chance; as it is, we have
some relatively small group of people who dislike it on purely aesthetic
grounds, and some small group who dislike it because they think it's an
invention of one the more popular villians of the day, "feminists", and
many millions of native speakers of English using it routinely regardless
of their political opinions on anything. "Yeye" hasn't got a chance.
Lis Carey
Lis Carey
The Low Golden Willow
Matt Austern <aus...@isolde.mti.sgi.com> wrote:
/mo...@icrf.icnet.uk (Gidon Moont) writes:
/There are lots of stories about aliens who are neither male nor
/female, of course. One that happens to come to mind is _The Player of
/Games_, by Iain Banks. He used the pronoun "he" to refer to one of
/those aliens, but this was very definitely a deliberate choice. One
/of the characters in the book takes discusses it for a few paragraphs.
That would be the narrator, who says that the pronoun used to describe
the apex gender in languages which force such a choice will be the
pronoun used by those languages to refer to the socially dominant
gender. For us, that's male.
*wham* *wham*
Merry part,
-xx- Damien R. Sullivan X-) <*> http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~phoenix
The green hills of Ulster, the white causeway high
The beacon of Warshal throws its flame to the sky
The hunt and the threat let the coward abjure
Our hope is in God and in Rory O'Moore!
Matt Austern
pho...@ugcs.caltech.edu (The Low Golden Willow) writes:
> /There are lots of stories about aliens who are neither male nor
> /female, of course. One that happens to come to mind is _The Player of
> /Games_, by Iain Banks. He used the pronoun "he" to refer to one of
> /those aliens, but this was very definitely a deliberate choice. One
> /of the characters in the book takes discusses it for a few paragraphs.
>
> That would be the narrator, who says that the pronoun used to describe
> the apex gender in languages which force such a choice will be the
> pronoun used by those languages to refer to the socially dominant
> gender. For us, that's male.
>
> *wham* *wham*
Yes. It's not a subtle book. I enjoyed it anyway, but I think that
some of Banks's other books incorporate his politics in a less
obtrusive way.