mmar@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Mitchell Marks) (06/19/85)
Bryan Couhlin proposed coining a new pronoun to serve as a gender-neutral indefinite: > ... on the problem of what word to use to refer to a person of > unknown gender. ... I don't think any of those solutions is the way to go. > Instead, I think a new word is in order. ... My nomination? "Zhe." > (The zh is pronounced like the z in azure) > > Example: If a person saw an automobile accident, what should zhe do? Steven Pemberton and I independently posted the suggestion that 'they' (and related forms) would serve the purpose just as well. We both point out one difficulty in the way of wider usage in writing: :: Normative grammarians have opposed this usage for a long time. Bearing in mind the rule of thumb that normative grammarians don't bother getting worked up about purely hypothetical usages, we can note that :: people already widely use 'they' this way in speech and in informal writing which in any case you can hear around you daily. Adopting the pose of a hard-nosed descriptivist, I was content to leave the matter there, in effect saying "Too bad for the prescriptivists, real usage will pass them by." Steven instead provides ammunition, in the form of citations from good writers over a long history of this usage. Actually, I think both kinds of response remain problematic, as detailed in a moment. Both Steven and I seem to have been relying, without stating it explicitly, on the idea that :: An existing usage, if available, is to be preferred to a coinage. But why? I suggested that, for the pronoun problem we're discussing, the crucial factor is that :: pronouns form a closed class, and tend to change more slowly than most other parts of any language. A great many people now say 'chairperson' and 'firefighter', etc., after a mere 15 years or so of serious urging; but a new pronoun can't expect that degree of acceptance at that speed. And as a relevant example: :: Suggestions along the same general line as Bryan's have been made before. I recall a proposal from the middle seventies (?), using 'sher' and 'hesh'. Notice how far they've caught on. Nonetheless, I admit that a coinage may have the advantage of obviously being used by conscious decision. With 'they', a reader may just assume that the writer is unable to handle the traditional rules for number agreement. (But see my previous posting for an argument that 'they' in this use is no longer a plural, but becomes a singular.) And a writer may be reluctant to risk this, especially if the readership is going to include their boss or their thesis advisor, etc. Short of a pugnacious footnote, there is no easy way to highlight 'they' as fully intentional, and present either my 'Damn the prescriptivists, full speed ahead' position or Steven's 'It has always been grammatical for good writers' argument. Meanwhile, Kevin Koch points out that there is another indefinite in use already: > From: koch@piston.DEC (Kevin Koch LTN1-2/B17 DTN229-6274) > > The English language has had *precisely* the word you are looking > for for hundreds of years now. Its use sounds no more or less stilted > than your proposed new word. It is 'one.' > > "If one saw an automobile accident, what should one do?" I agree that it's no more stilted than a coinage would be; the problem is that, as Kevin apparently acknowledges, it's no less stilted, either. But a more serious problem shows up when we vary the example: Has anyone left their shoes at the registration desk? * Has anyone left one's shoes at the registration desk? The problem is not due to the FORM of the genitive: "one's" is perfectly good in other contexts, and in any event the problem comes up with other cases: If the person who forgot these shoes is still in the hall, they should come claim them immediately. * If the person who forgot these shoes is still in the hall, one should come claim them immediately. I'm afraid this means we have to get into the nitty-gritty of specific kinds of constructions. The simplest question is whether the word comes with a full range of cases (yes, there is a case system in English, for pronouns only); and the answer is yes for THEY, ONE, and YOU (which should also come into the discussion). Of course it can also be yes for a coinage, but this is something the coiner has to remember to do. So we can ask Bryan to fill in the blanks: If the person who forgot these shoes is still here, ZHE should come claim them. If you see a barefoot person, please tell _____ them to come to the desk. (ZHEM ? ZHER ? ZHIM ?) In this terrain, a climber really needs _____ shoes. (ZHER ? ZHIS ? ZHEIR ?) I hope the person who has found the blue suede 9-1/2's will bring them up here, as they're mine; and I will give back ____. (ZHERS ? ZHEIRS ? ZHIS ? ZHIMS ?) I think a true acrobat would give up vodka and in general take better care of _____. (ZHEMSELF ?) YOU does all right for most of the contexts suggested above, and I suggest thats it's a nice alternative to use when you can -- it feels a bit more personal. But it doesn't work when the referent is clearly not part of the audience, or when YOU is otherwise employed in the same sentence. Both problems show up in the following (asking for the sibling's age): If you have exactly one older sibling, write her or his age in box 9. their * your (wrong meaning) * one's zher ? So far we've had true indefinites. What about when you have a specific individual to refer to, but don't know whether they're male or female? Here most of the suggestions fail, and you're stuck with either a long-form ('her or his') or a coinage. In another posting, I started to write "Here I agree with the Colonel, since his analysis ...", and then remembered that of course there are female Colonels too. How do the competing suggestions work with this example: I agree with the Colonel, because ? his or her analysis is ... * their * your (maybe, by Col. the addressee of the rest of the sentence) * one's zher/zhis.. okay. Note that I give 'his or her' a question mark; it seems problematic beyond the usual stylistic objection. The only ready solution was to rewrite and avoid the dilemma. (To see how far this approach can go, take a look at _The_Chicago_Manual_of_Style, 13TH ED., not for what it has to say on the topic but for what it DOES: it's a massive exercise in avoiding the dilemma.) -- Mitch Marks @ UChicago (linguistics) ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!mmar