edhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall) (04/02/85)
In my previous postings, I've tried to address why I feel the current state of affairs--with ``he' as the prefered third-person singular pronoun--is a bad one. In brief, language is an important molder of a person's ideas and of their connection to their society. Studies show that the mental image created by the use of ``he'' is usually that of a male person, not a genderless person. I have to confess to this, myself. I don't remember anyone specifically teaching me this mental image, any more than I remember anyone teaching me that the ``man'' at the end of ``fireman'' meant someone of the male gender. But I have yet to discuss these things with a person--of either sex--who didn't form the same sort of male-biased image in their mind, at least when they were a child. A change needs to be made; what the language needs is a good, genderless, third-person singular pronoun. In its current usage ``one'' is insufficient, since it bears a connotation of ``either you or me''--sort of a mixture of first and second persons, in terms of nuance, despite its using a third-person syntax. Besides, when one uses ``one'', it makes one sound a bit pretentious, doesn't it? One sounds like one is putting on airs... Still, ``one'' is completely UNambiguous in terms of number; it is hard to come up with a word that is more forceful in insisting on its singular nature--a source of problems in using to indicate a representative of a group. On the other hand, ``they'' has a very strong sense of third person, no sense of gender--and a fairly strong sense of plural number. It is this latter quality that makes many people--such as Marcel-- have conniption fits when ``they'' is suggested as a third-person singular pronoun. This leaves us in a quandry--both of our alternatives seem to have serious problems. Yet there is a bit of linguistic history that points towards a solution: the evolution of the word ``you''. About two hundred years ago, ``you'' became a singular as well as a plural pronoun, replacing ``thee'' and ``thou''. Of course, this change didn't occur overnight. At first it was considered very sloppy usage. But as time went on more and more people came to use it, until ``thee'' and ``thou'' became ``old-fashioned'' and then fell from use altogether. Why did this happen? I have a hunch: people wanted to use the same mode of address when speaking to one or several people, and were tired of constantly having to make the distinction. Except in very rare cases the number of people in the speaker's audience made little difference, or was available from the social context. Thus little was lost by making ``you'' more ambiguous, compared to the gain achived by creating a simpler form of expression. The same sort of evolutionary change is occuring with ``they'' (with the same howls from those groups resisting the change). Why? I can see two reasons. One, in most of the current usage of ``he'', number is unimportant except when the ``he'' is an individual already determined by context. The generic ``he'' usually refers to an arbitrary individual from a particular group of one or more. This is parallel to the use of ``you'', where number is also unimportant or part of the context. Two, in most cases where the generic ``he'' is used, *gender* is unimportant as well. This is the crux of the issue at hand-- the *unintentional* specification of gender creates a built-in semantic prejudice for that gender. All sorts of contrived examples have been generated (some even posted to the net) ``proving'' how incorrect ``they'' is. These all have one or more of the following flaws: 1) A specific individual, of known gender, is being refered to. 2) A singular verb is used with ``they''--compare this to using a singular verb with ``you''. Both sound equally ``wrong''. 3) A plural noun is used in conjunction with ``they'' used in a singular sense, or vice-versa. See the last sentence of my first paragraph: ``... [a] male-biased image in their mind, at least when they were a child''. Note the singular ``mind'', but the plural ``they''. 4) A dialog is invented where the loss of the singular/plural distinction creates an ambiguity in our perception of the situation. Note that equally ambiguous dialogs can be created involving the word ``you''--and are just as likely to happen in real life. 5) A singular ``they'' is used in a situation which is specific to individuals of a particular sex. Actually, these examples don't bother me much, since gender is generally obvious from syntax. Other than such ``examples'', every complaint against the singular ``they'' seems to boil down to ``it's ungrammatical'' or ``it sounds bad''. To each of these, I answer (in addition to the 200+ lines of stuff I've posted on this): ``Time will tell.'' 20 years from now, I suspect that singular ``they'' will be firmly established in the mainstream of English--unless reactionaries manage to whip up enough backlash to reverse the trend. It is from such fears that I find the motivation to write. -Ed Hall decvax!randvax!edhall
mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) (04/08/85)
> Ed Hall: > A change needs to be made; what the language needs is a good, genderless, > third-person singular pronoun. In its current usage ``one'' is > insufficient, since it bears a connotation of ``either you or me''--sort > of a mixture of first and second persons, in terms of nuance, despite its > using a third-person syntax. Besides, when one uses ``one'', it makes > one sound a bit pretentious, doesn't it? One sounds like one is putting > on airs... Still, ``one'' is completely UNambiguous in terms of number; > it is hard to come up with a word that is more forceful in insisting on > its singular nature--a source of problems in using to indicate a > representative of a group. > From the American Heritage Dictionary (New College Edition), published 1981: "one: (pronoun) 1) A certain person or thing; someone or something. 2) Any person or thing; anyone or anything. 3) A single person or thing among persons or things already known or mentioned (e.g. one of the Elizabethans) " Also, one of the meanings given for 'one' as an adjective is: "Designating a certain person, especially a person not previously known or mentioned" I don't see any "connotation of ``either you or me''" here. It seems quite clear that 'one' is a nice, neutral, third person singular pronoun used to isolate a single person from a group of generic persons, where not much else about that person is known (such as sex). So where is the "need" for something else? As for 'one' being pretentious, why is that so? You assert pretentiousness but give no proof, no support for your assertion. Why is a perfectly good pronoun suddenly "pretentious"? Do you feel it is incorrectly defined (by the dictionary)? None of the reasons Ed cites (and then demolishes) against the singular 'they' applies to my hostility to it. Simply put, the language ain't broke, so don't fix it. People use the language incorrectly, using 'he' where something gender neutral should be used. It is clear to me that 'one' exists specifically for such situations. Using the singular 'they' instead introduces needless ambiguity, and as I have argued in a previous posting, ambiguity is not a good idea in everyday communication. So why use it? Is it not more "natural" to use a pronoun already in wide usage, and with which most people are at least somewhat familiar, than to force this square peg of a singular 'they' into the round hole of gender neutrality? Marcel Simon
edhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall) (04/10/85)
> Is it not > more "natural" to use a pronoun already in wide usage, and with which > most people are at least somewhat familiar, than to force this square > peg of a singular 'they' into the round hole of gender neutrality? > > Marcel Simon Two points: (1) ``One'' is not in very wide usage, at least in conversation, at least partially because it sounds affected. (2) Singular ``They'' is at least as widely used, especially in conversation. -Ed Hall decvax!randvax!edhall
ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) (04/16/85)
In article <2396@randvax.UUCP> edhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall) writes: > Is it not > more "natural" to use a pronoun already in wide usage, and with which > most people are at least somewhat familiar, than to force this square > peg of a singular 'they' into the round hole of gender neutrality? > > Marcel Simon More problems with `One' vs. `They' In professional jargon, `they' shares the quality `anaphoric' with the pronouns `he/she', whereas `one' lacks this feature, as below: A. When you see Bill's secretary, be sure you give him/her my memo. Here, the pronoun has anaphoric use; it refers to a previously mentioned specific noun. Which of the below sentences is is more natural? B. When you see Bill's secretary, be sure you give them my memo. C. When you see Bill's secretary, be sure you give one my memo. I'd believe that the vast majority of native english speakers would at least understand (B), but not (C). The quality shared by {they,he,she} but not by {one}, is apparently so important that people are willing to overlook the mismatch in number caused by the use of `they' rather than deal with the total loss of reference caused by the use of `one'. Apparently, Marcel, you value the grammatical category `number' more highly than most english speakers. -michael
mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) (04/18/85)
> Michael Ellis: > A. When you see Bill's secretary, be sure you give him/her my memo. > > Here, the pronoun has anaphoric use; it refers to a previously > mentioned specific noun. Which of the below sentences is > is more natural? > > B. When you see Bill's secretary, be sure you give them my memo. > C. When you see Bill's secretary, be sure you give one my memo. > > I'd believe that the vast majority of native english speakers > would at least understand (B), but not (C). How about phrasing the sentence as: Be sure to give Bill's secretary my memo. Also, in that context, it is likely that the sex of the secretary will be known. 'One' refers to a person or thing as part of a group of persons or things, where the interesting attribute is belonging to the group. Thus 'one' would not be the pronoun of choice in the context you cite. It is always possible, and generally easy, to phrase gender neutrally, and avoid awkwardness. Marcel Simon
dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (04/19/85)
In article <300@mhuxr.UUCP> mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) writes: >> Michael Ellis: >> A. When you see Bill's secretary, be sure you give him/her my memo. >> >> Here, the pronoun has anaphoric use; it refers to a previously >> mentioned specific noun. Which of the below sentences is >> is more natural? >> >> B. When you see Bill's secretary, be sure you give them my memo. >> C. When you see Bill's secretary, be sure you give one my memo. > >How about phrasing the sentence as: > Be sure to give Bill's secretary my memo. I think orthogonality is important in spoken languages, for the same reason it's important in programming languages: it reduces the amount of mental effort you have to devote to the form of what you say, so you can concentrate on content. Content is the part that counts. It's too much to expect that, in casual day-to-day conversation, we should have to go to all the trouble of rearranging the words of a sentence the way you suggest. What the English language needs (the orthogonal solution) is a third-person singular neuter pronoun which can be used anaphorically. We actually have such a beast in the word "it". My version of the above sentence would be: D. When you see Bill's secretary, be sure to give it my memo. If we use the word "it" this way, we gain orthogonality. We lose the ability to distinguish people from objects by our choice of pronouns. The French don't have this ability. Has it crippled them in any way? Do they ever wish their language provided it? -- David Canzi
crs@lanl.ARPA (04/23/85)
> > Michael Ellis: > > A. When you see Bill's secretary, be sure you give him/her my memo. > > > > Here, the pronoun has anaphoric use; it refers to a previously > > mentioned specific noun. Which of the below sentences is > > is more natural? > > > > B. When you see Bill's secretary, be sure you give them my memo. > > C. When you see Bill's secretary, be sure you give one my memo. > > > > I'd believe that the vast majority of native english speakers > > would at least understand (B), but not (C). > > How about phrasing the sentence as: > Be sure to give Bill's secretary my memo. > > Also, in that context, it is likely that the sex of the secretary will be known. > 'One' refers to a person or thing as part of a group of persons or things, > where the interesting attribute is belonging to the group. Thus 'one' would not > be the pronoun of choice in the context you cite. It is always possible, and > generally easy, to phrase gender neutrally, and avoid awkwardness. > > Marcel Simon It is also not too difficult to pick awkward examples of the form that you don't like as in C. above. I must agree with Marcel. I come from an area and a time when singular "they" was a *commonly used* form of *poor* grammar. Now it grates on my ear as do misuse of comprise and any use of orientate (yes I know it's in the dictionary; the next thing we'll find there is "ostentate"). I agree with the occasional need for a gender non-specific singular pronoun[1] but they isn't it. Perhaps, as someone suggested a while ago, we should find a language that supports one and borrow theirs as we have done with so many useful words. [1] We have a gender *neutral* singular pronoun; it is "it". Charlie Sorsby ...!{cmcl2,ihnp4,...}!lanl!crs crs@lanl.arpa
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (04/23/85)
> What the English language needs (the > orthogonal solution) is a third-person singular neuter pronoun which > can be used anaphorically. > > We actually have such a beast in the word "it". My version of the > above sentence would be: > > D. When you see Bill's secretary, be sure to give it my memo. > > If we use the word "it" this way, we gain orthogonality. We lose the > ability to distinguish people from objects by our choice of pronouns. > The French don't have this ability. Has it crippled them in any way? > Do they ever wish their language provided it? > -- > David Canzi The french don't even have a word similar to 'it', I only had three years in high school, but as far as I know, they have to use words which mean 'him' and 'her' even when they are referring to objects, not people. I think a frenchman would be stuck saying 'give him my memo' or 'give her my memo', just as we are. I don't know if the french ever wish their language provided the ability to distinguish people from objects with pronouns, but *I* certainly wished it did when I was trying to learn it. Sentences like 'Give it to her.' could translate literally to 'Give him to her.' or 'Give her to her.', depending on the gender of the referenced object. Obviously, this was a great source of confusion to someone who hasn't figured out whether the direct object comes before or after the indirect object. -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "This statement is true."