jsq@im4u.UUCP (John Quarterman) (03/03/86)
Where I'm from in Georgia, nobody ever bothered to wonder about
what the appropriate singular indefinite pronouns might be,
because they already knew them. I was rather surprised to find
when I went to school in Boston that people there had a problem.
--
John Quarterman, UUCP: {gatech,harvard,ihnp4,pyramid,seismo}!ut-sally!im4u!jsq
ARPA Internet and CSNET: jsq@im4u.UTEXAS.EDU, jsq@sally.UTEXAS.EDUcharli@cylixd.UUCP (Charli Phillips) (03/06/86)
In article <2859@amdahl.UUCP> gam@amdahl.UUCP (G A Moffett) writes: >I am posting this in response to the re-arrisen controvery in net.nlang >about the use of 'they' and 'their' in such statements as: "Everyone >does as they think best" verses "Everyone does as he or she thinks best." Well, I tried to stay out of it, but...... I *KNOW* you can find *LOTS* of precedents for "they" as genderless singular pronoun. Precedents can be found for practically any construction or locution. That doesn't change the fact that "ain't", "between you and I", and the singular "they" all sound sloppy, careless, and illiterate in formal writing or speech. And s/he, he/she, and all of the other patronizing creations that I have seen are even worse. Of course, it depends on what you want from language. If you want to say something and don't care how, just as long as you get the point across, feel free to say "ain't" and "a person...they". We'll all know what you mean. A wooden shack with a tin roof keeps your head as dry as a cathedral. The problem is, of course, that writers and speakers *need* a singular pronoun of indefinite gender, and they need one that doesn't offend their sensibilities. The singular "they" and "he/she" both offend nearly every writer that I know. "He" for a person of unkown gender is likely to offend the reader. So what is a writer to do? He can, of course, solve the problem in part by casting a sentence in the plural to start with, or in the passive voice, but sometimes the indefiniteness of the plural and passive takes all the color and life out of a piece of writing. So he returns to the singular and to the problem. He can, of course, use the singular "they", but this solution seems entirely unsatisfactory. And I think there is a better solution: eliminate remaining vestiges of grammatical gender. This has been going on, slowly, for the past hundred years or more anyway. Words that were once considered feminine have disappeared, and the formerly masculine form is now considered gender-neutral. The only place that gender is left is in pronouns, courtesy titles, and an occassional job-title. When was the last time a woman received a "Mistress of Arts" degree, anyway? My grandmother was awarded one from the University of Mississippi over half a century ago. ("Master" was then a strictly masculine word. It would have been inconceivable to call a woman a "master" of anything!) When was the last time anyone called a woman who writes poetry a "poetess"? Or a woman who is a pilot an "aviatrix"? Those forms have died. Why don't we simply do away with the remaining grammatical gender as well? regards, Charli Phillips
jvc@stl.UUCP (03/06/86)
Much controversy over "he/she" vs. "they" etc; finally
Meertens quotes the OED:
" ... made universal by every/any/no, etc. ..." ;
similarly G.A.Moffett :
"often used ... after each every either neither no one ...";
There is surely a difference between the case where the
sentence refers to an indeterminate number of persons from a
mixed collection ("everybody brought their own lunch";
"anybody who does that deserves everything they get"), where
the implication is that there may be more than one of them,
and the case where we are referring to one person of
uncertain gender ("when the user types ctrl-S their terminal
stops output"). I maintain that the latter case is not
justified by the historical citations given.
Must go now, my manager says they want me to see them.
Vic Churchill (jvc@stl ...!mcvax!ukc!stl!jvc +44-279-29531 x 2546)nather@utastro.UUCP (03/08/86)
In article <830@cylixd.UUCP>, charli@cylixd.UUCP (Charli Phillips) writes: > When was the last time anyone > called a woman who writes poetry a "poetess"? Or a woman who is a pilot > an "aviatrix"? Those forms have died. Why don't we simply do away > with the remaining grammatical gender as well? I doubt I will ever be completely comfortable with "henchperson." -- Ed Nather Astronomy Dept, U of Texas @ Austin {allegra,ihnp4}!{noao,ut-sally}!utastro!nather nather@astro.UTEXAS.EDU
breuel@h-sc1.UUCP (thomas breuel) (03/08/86)
> The problem is, of course, that writers and speakers *need* a singular > pronoun of indefinite gender, and they need one that doesn't offend > their sensibilities. The singular "they" and "he/she" both offend > nearly every writer that I know. "He" for a person of unkown gender is > likely to offend the reader. So what is a writer to do? Why is 'he' for a person of unknown gender likely to offend the reader? Why don't you just consider 'he' the singular pronoun of unknown gender? From context it is usually quite clear whether 'he' is intended to convey natural gender or is used just as a placeholder. > an "aviatrix"? Those forms have died. Why don't we simply do away > with the remaining grammatical gender as well? That is unrealistic. Why don't we simply do away with pretentions that grammatical gender has anything to do with the social problems of sex discrimination? Or is that equally unrealistic... Thomas.
bzs@bu-cs.UUCP (Barry Shein) (03/10/86)
>I doubt I will ever be completely comfortable with "henchperson."
how about 'personhole' (you know, those things in the middle of the
street) and 'craftspersonship'.
Maybe the rule here is the one about consistency and hobgoblins and
mediocre minds.
-Barry Shein, Boston Universitycharli@cylixd.UUCP (Charli Phillips) (03/11/86)
In article <978@h-sc1.UUCP> breuel@h-sc1.UUCP writes: >> The problem is, of course, that writers and speakers *need* a singular >> pronoun of indefinite gender, and they need one that doesn't offend >> their sensibilities. The singular "they" and "he/she" both offend >> nearly every writer that I know. "He" for a person of unkown gender is >> likely to offend the reader. So what is a writer to do? [Charli Phillips] > >Why is 'he' for a person of unknown gender likely to offend the reader? >Why don't you just consider 'he' the singular pronoun of unknown gender? >From context it is usually quite clear whether 'he' is intended to convey >natural gender or is used just as a placeholder. I agree with you. I am not in the least offended by "he" in the common gender. However, I ocassionally find that the people who pay me for what I write don't want to pay for "he" in the common gender. It appears to offend them. Since it is hard to communicate with someone who is offended by the way you're phrasing the idea, I try to be careful. >> an "aviatrix"? Those forms have died. Why don't we simply do away >> with the remaining grammatical gender as well? > >That is unrealistic. Why don't we simply do away with pretentions that >grammatical gender has anything to do with the social problems of sex >discrimination? Or is that equally unrealistic... > Again, I agree with you. I was intending to be a bit satiric, but since I didn't :-) the article, no one noticed. I'm not going to refer to a woman as "he" any time soon, although I think that would be better than referring to someone of unknown gender as s/he. (How do you say that, anyway?) While we're on the subject, I find that the more extreme efforts to avoid neutral "he" and "-man" sound both stilted and patronizing. This can make my work as a writer difficult - I have to avoid the neutral "he" and "-man" to make my employer happy, and I have to avoid many constructions designed to avoid them to make *myself* happy. regards, Charli Phillips
dsn@umcp-cs.UUCP (Dana S. Nau) (03/11/86)
In article <978@h-sc1.UUCP> breuel@h-sc1.UUCP writes: >... Why don't we simply do away with pretentions that >grammatical gender has anything to do with the social problems of sex >discrimination? Or is that equally unrealistic... I, for one, think that it *does* have something to do with sex discrimination. -- Dana S. Nau, Comp. Sci. Dept., U. of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742 dsn@maryland seismo!umcp-cs!dsn (301) 454-7932
arnold@ucsfcgl.UUCP (Ken Arnold%CGL) (03/11/86)
In article <978@h-sc1.UUCP> breuel@h-sc1.UUCP (thomas breuel) writes: >Why is 'he' for a person of unknown gender likely to offend the reader? >Why don't you just consider 'he' the singular pronoun of unknown gender? Because it isn't. [Proof included below] Oh, I know that's what you were told, but that will teach you to pay attention to proscriptive grammarians. What they usually tell you is something like If the gender of an individual referred to is unknown or unknowable (i.e., no specific person is referred to), use "he" or the appropriate equivalent. This would describe a non-gender related word. However, try out the following sentences: When a nurse receives a call, he should ... When a secretary answers a phone, he should ... Do you know anyone who would say that, even in formal situations? I have yet to run into one. Everyone I know finds these sentences sound incorrect, and would use "she" instead. The only reason imaginable is that the word "he" is *not* generic. If it was, the above fragments would sound quite reasonable. So why don't they? Well, the reason is that the word "nurse" comes with a lot of implications and associated concepts, as do all words. One of those concepts is that nurses are usually women. Now, the sentence isn't going to sound wrong unless something in there contradicts a normal assumption. This contradiction occurs when the word "he" pops in. But, if the word "he" was generic (and the context of the sentence makes clear that the speaker is talking generically), it would not come with any inference which *contradicted* the presumed womanhood of "nurse" -- it would come with inference which implied, at most, personhood. So, in order to get the problem, the word "he" must, *even in a generic context*, come with an inference which contradicts the presumed womanhood of "nurse", i.e., it *must* come with a inference of male-ness. In fact, there is no such thing as a generic singular pronoun for referring to humans in English. "He" certainly doesn't make it, neither does "she", and you've run out. Any descriptive grammarian worth his or her salt would say something more like If a generic descriptor is needed, the feminine form is used if it fits with the situation described or implied better than a masculine form, otherwise the masculine form is used. That is much closer to how things are done in English today (at least American English; my pool of British subjects contains only one person). Ken Arnold P.S. Nothing in the letter is intended to imply that I think there are no male nurses or secretaries, or that I think there should not be. I know that there are, and I think that there aren't enough. I use them as example because of their common inference that holders of these positions are, for the most part, women.
laura@hoptoad.uucp (Laura Creighton) (03/11/86)
In article <177@umcp-cs.UUCP> dsn@maryland.UUCP (Dana S. Nau) writes: >In article <978@h-sc1.UUCP> breuel@h-sc1.UUCP writes: >>... Why don't we simply do away with pretentions that >>grammatical gender has anything to do with the social problems of sex >>discrimination? Or is that equally unrealistic... > >I, for one, think that it *does* have something to do with sex discrimination. >-- > >Dana S. Nau, Comp. Sci. Dept., U. of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742 >dsn@maryland seismo!umcp-cs!dsn (301) 454-7932 What would it take to convince you otherwise? -- Laura Creighton ihnp4!hoptoad!laura utzoo!hoptoad!laura sun!hoptoad!laura toad@lll-crg.arpa
hedden@atux01.UUCP (D. Hedden) (03/11/86)
I deleted all the previous text, since this really doesn't need it
for clarity.
Frequently, but definitely not always, the entire problem can be
eliminated by saying only what is necessary. For example, "Each
person must decide for himself ..." raises the possibility of
"himself/herself" or "himself or herself". But in the original
"for himself" is superfluous, "Each person must decide ..." means
exactly the same thing.
I will add to the debate, however, by casting my vote on the side
of having some kind of gender neutral pronoun in the language. The
problem is how to get it into use.
"The moving hand writes ..."
Donsteven@boring.uucp (Steven Pemberton) (03/12/86)
In article <278@stl.UUCP> jvc@stl.UUCP (Vic Churchill) writes: > There is surely a difference between the case where the > sentence refers to an indeterminate number of persons from a > mixed collection ("everybody brought their own lunch"; > "anybody who does that deserves everything they get"), where > the implication is that there may be more than one of them, > and the case where we are referring to one person of > uncertain gender ("when the user types ctrl-S their terminal > stops output"). I maintain that the latter case is not > justified by the historical citations given. > Must go now, my manager says they want me to see them. This is a good example where one doesn't use it, because the speaker clearly knows the gender of the person referred to. However, I have often remarked on conversations such as the following: "A friend of mine tried the same thing!" "Oh really? Did they succeed?". Here's a quote from a recent author, referring to a single person of indeterminate sex: DORIS LESSING And how easy the way a man or woman would come in here, glance around, find smiles and pleasant looks waiting for them, then wave and sit down by themselves. Steven Pemberton, CWI, Amsterdam; steven@mcvax.uucp.
steven@boring.uucp (Steven Pemberton) (03/12/86)
In article <978@h-sc1.UUCP> breuel@h-sc1.UUCP asks: > Why is 'he' for a person of unknown gender likely to offend the reader? > Why don't you just consider 'he' the singular pronoun of unknown gender? There are two objections that immediately come to mind. Firstly it lends credibility to the lie that men are superior to women (an attitude that, alas, one still comes across), and secondly because even among people who support 'he' as gender-unspecific, you hear the use of 'she' when speaking about nurses, secretaries, etc., which to my biassed mind demonstrates that 'he' is too gender-specific for them to use. Steven Pemberton, CWI, Amsterdam; steven@mcvax.uucp.
gadfly@ihuxn.UUCP (Gadfly) (03/13/86)
-- > > > ... Why don't we simply do away with pretentions that > > > grammatical gender has anything to do with the social problems > > > of sex > > > discrimination? Or is that equally unrealistic... > > I, for one, think that it *does* have something to do with sex > > discrimination. > > > > Dana S. Nau > What would it take to convince you otherwise? > > Laura Creighton Laura, you can't seriously believe that there is *no* relationship between grammatical and socio-political sexism. You could question how great the correlation is, whether it represents cause-and-effect, or whether it's worth doing anything about it (socially, politically, or linguistically). But no man in his right mind would say that there is no relationship between the two. See what I mean? -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 13 Mar 86 [23 Ventose An CXCIV] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7753 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken *** ***
charli@cylixd.UUCP (Charli Phillips) (03/13/86)
In article <177@umcp-cs.UUCP> dsn@maryland.UUCP (Dana S. Nau) writes: >In article <978@h-sc1.UUCP> breuel@h-sc1.UUCP writes: >>... Why don't we simply do away with pretentions that >>grammatical gender has anything to do with the social problems of sex >>discrimination? Or is that equally unrealistic... > >I, for one, think that it *does* have something to do with sex discrimination. Would you mind explaining that? I've always felt the contention that it did rather silly. In the first place, many job titles that do not have *grammatical* gender are thought by most users to carry strong connotations of gender anyway. Think of "nurse", "doctor", and "engineer". Each of these words is *grammatically* gender-neutral, but most speakers feel that they carry such strong connotations of gender that they specify "male nurse" or "woman doctor" (or engineer). Similarly, certain other titles that have grammatical gender are considered gender-neutral by speakers. "Chairman" is one such word. Any attempts to neuter it further ("chairperson") sound absurd. It is *already* neutral! To end gender discrimination, you need a change in attitude. I don't understand how calling a waiter a "waitperson" is going to accomplish that. regards, Charli Phillips