bsc@wuphys.UUCP (Bryan Coughlan) (06/22/85)
References: <697@sphinx.UCHICAGO.UUCP> <706@sphinx.UCHICAGO.UUCP>
In response to my postings on the gender-neutral
indefinite, Mitch Marks posted some very good articles
which summarize the situation. I find I must respond
to some of the points in his articles.
By the way, it is nice to have someone in on this
discussion has some background in the field. This rank
ametuer [ Dammit, Jim! I'm a physicist, not a linguist!]
has some opinions on the matter as well! Here goes ...
Mitch Marks in <697@sphinx.UCHICAGO.UUCP>:
>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.
>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.
>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.)
That's the big problem. Who knows? Maybe if we wait long
enough, everybody will realize that the writer DID
make a conscious decision to use "they". Then we
wouldn't have to deal with new coinages. This may
not come about, however. A coinage, however stilted,
avoids the problem.
>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:
Sure. Why not?
Remember my criteria, however: a word that is
similar enough to the male and female forms to be
easily substituted.
> If the person who forgot these shoes is still here, ZHE should
> come claim them.
By the way, alternative suggestions to "zhe"
are welcome. The word itself is not a sacred cow.
> If you see a barefoot person, please tell _____ them to come
> to the desk. (ZHEM ? ZHER ? ZHIM ?)
him vs. her Hmmm... HIR? sounds too much like HER.
HEM? Better. HERM? Maybe. Actually,
I like Hem better for reasons to be
explained shortly.
> In this terrain, a climber really needs _____
> shoes. (ZHER ? ZHIS ? ZHEIR ?)
his vs. her HES. Better yet, HEZ. (There's another
"Z" for you !)
> 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 ?)
his vs. hers HEZ again. (His can be used in both
cases. Why not HEZ?)
> I think a true acrobat would give up vodka and in general take
> better care of _____. (ZHEMSELF ?)
himself vs. herself HEMSELF. HERMSELF does not roll
trippingly off the tongue. That's
why I don't like HERM (above).
Why such irregularities? Well, I was just following
the pattern of the non-neutral pronouns. The whole
purpose of the exersize is to come up with relatively
simple substitutions.
Mitch in <706@sphinx.UCHICAGO.UUCP>
>I hope it's obvious to all that there are two different debates going
>on about gender-neutral[ized] indefinite pronouns:
>
> Debate # 1 WHETHER to adopt & encourage changed usage
>
> Debate # 2 HOW to adopt & encourage changed usage
>
>Bryan Coughlan, in defense of his suggestion to coin a new pronoun, says:
>
>> The third person singular is the only form without
>> a gender neutral pronoun. Why should this be so?
>> Well, when the class was set up, women were considered
>> by everyone to be second-class citizens. Thus, when in
>> doubt, the default gender was male. Since then, things
>> have changed to the point where women are actually
>> considered to be first-class citizens (I hope!). I
>> think that this is a big enough change in society
>> to open up the pronoun class to include a new one.
>
>This is a good summary of the general argument to be made on the 'pro'
>side of Debate #1; it establishes the direction to take in answering
>those who repeat the claim that the traditional 'indefinite he' is free
>of specifically male implications. What worries me is that this was
>Bryan's response to one of my comments (in which I objected to his proposal
>to coin a new pronoun).
The comment was:
| The difficulty is not in the incorporation of new words per se -- after
|all, that much happens all the time. But pronouns in English are a closed
|class (as they are in any language). We don't resist new nouns or verbs
|or adjectives in the same way, because there are already so many, and because
|the corresponding semantic field is open.
> Does that mean that I have seemed to be arguing
>the 'anti' side in Debate #1 ?? Gosh! No, I'm presupposing an interest
>in the same end, and just arguing about means.
I didn't think you were arguing the 'anti' side of
Debate #1. I was arguing in Debate #2. Since I was
suggesting a new pronoun and your comment was rebutting
that, I thought my statement was appropriate.
>So (strictly within Debate #2), I would emend that argument by replacing
>"new one" ( = "new pronoun") at the end, with "new standard usage".
See above.
>
> -- Mitch Marks
> @ UChicago (linguistics)
> ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!mmar
My point is: a new pronoun (with all accompanying cases)
would not have the "excess baggage" of presumed
ungrammaticality. Since there is a specific area of
usage, a specific word will work as well as a "pinch
hitter". Acceptance is a BIG problem. To make it
easier (or even possible) the new coinage should be
similar to the words it is replacing to
1- make it simple to use
2- make it possible to understand when
heard/read.
ZHE may not fit the bill. The emphasis should not
be so much on the word, but the process by which it
was derived (created? pulled out of thin air?).
--
Bryan S. Coughlan ( Yes, that's right. My first
ihnp4!wuphys!bsc two initials are B.S. ! )allen@osu-eddie.UUCP (John Allen) (06/29/85)
> > >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: > > Sure. Why not? > Remember my criteria, however: a word that is > similar enough to the male and female forms to be > easily substituted. > > If the person who forgot these shoes is still here, ZHE should > > come claim them. > > By the way, alternative suggestions to "zhe" > are welcome. The word itself is not a sacred cow. > > > If you see a barefoot person, please tell _____ them to come > > to the desk. (ZHEM ? ZHER ? ZHIM ?) > > him vs. her Hmmm... HIR? sounds too much like HER. > HEM? Better. HERM? Maybe. Actually, > I like Hem better for reasons to be > explained shortly. > > > In this terrain, a climber really needs _____ > > shoes. (ZHER ? ZHIS ? ZHEIR ?) > > his vs. her HES. Better yet, HEZ. (There's another > "Z" for you !) > > > 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 ?) > > his vs. hers HEZ again. (His can be used in both > cases. Why not HEZ?) > > > I think a true acrobat would give up vodka and in general take > > better care of _____. (ZHEMSELF ?) > > himself vs. herself HEMSELF. HERMSELF does not roll > trippingly off the tongue. That's > why I don't like HERM (above). > > > Bryan S. Coughlan ( Yes, that's right. My first > ihnp4!wuphys!bsc two initials are B.S. ! ) There is one major flaw with some of these suggestions if you want them to be distinct from the already existing pronouns. In some American dialects the [I] (as in `pin') and the [E] (as in `pen') have fallen together before nasals so that both of these words would be pronounced [pIn]. This also means that the forms `hem' and `hemself' would be homophonous with `him' and `himself' respectively in these dialects. John Allen Ohio State University (UUCP: cbosgd!osu-eddie!allen) (CSNet: allen@ohio-state)