gender neutral third person pronoun

[ehrenfest]

The English language needs a gender-neutral third person pronoun that can refer to people. Without one, we need to find out either the name of a person or his/her gender or something about the person in order to refer to him/her in a sentence. This can be very awkward for several reasons. Either you always say both possibilities like "he or she","him or her", or you can violate grammar by saying "they" when referring to a single person or you can try to avoid it by repeatedly saying "this person". If you make a mistake and refer to a "she" as "he" or vice versa, that could probably lose you a job or something.

There is simply NO reason why the genital attachments of a person should affect how you refer to them in a discussion. By that logic, we should have a different third person pronouns for people who lost an arm or a leg or something. They are missing something usually extended from a place on their body. We sure can't call them "he" or "she".

In sum, I think this is a disgusting relic of our sexist ancestry and we MUST take action to get rid of this. I propose that we begin by taking action with our posts on PF. This problem is especially prevalent here because usernames may tell us nothing about someones gender.

There are a lot of related problems like the word "Chairman" or "alumnus" or "policeman" and all of these are an embarrassment of the English language. We need to take action to resolve this problem and we can start on PF.

Oh yeah, and a very prolific mathematician agrees with me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spivak_pronoun

[loseyourname]

You could always use "one," although that technically isn't a pronoun because it does not refer to a noun previously used.

[rootX]

I use 'it'.

[ehrenfest]

I use 'it'.

Except that doesn't refer to people (or large animals). I mean at least it is kind of rude.

[LowlyPion]

Surely the language has enough complexity already than to have need to support such non-intuitive and ambiguous convention.

No sooner do you create gender neutral pronouns than you create offense when in fact it becomes clear what the gender of the person or group may be. Calling a known "He" purposely then an "Ey" becomes an affront to their gender identity.

I think Spivak should keep to eir own business and not muck about with everyday language.

[Evo]

Ehrenfest, you do realize that a lot of languages assign gender to inanimate objects, right? So you need to know if a table, pencil, window, etc... are feminine or masculine.

[G01]

How does "making up" a third pronoun violate grammar more than using the pronoun they to refer to people of arbitrary sex?

You do know that other languages display gender differences in words even more prominently, right? Spanish, German, and I'm sure many other languages have masculine, feminine, and neuter forms of articles and nouns corresponding to intimate objects. Thus, those languages have a "masculine" the, a feminine "the", and a neuter "the." I don't see why English should be embarrassed by its use of gender forms compared to how other languages use them. Also, a table can be feminine, while a computer can be masculine. This is a property of language, not some hidden sexist agenda.

Also, I believe that what you are suggesting is only a method to hide from our problems. People should focus on educating the world that people can be equally capable and successful, no matter their sex or race, etc.. We should not be focused on hiding ourselves from our differences. We should embrace our differences and accept that they make our society stronger, and forget about the falsehood that differences make any one individual weaker.

What you are proposing is a method to have everyone systematically hide from the fact that peolple are individuals with differences. Don't deny that people have differences. Deny that these differences make some people more equal than others.

On a side note, we don't need to "make up" a neuter third person singular pronoun. We have one. If only I could remember what it was...:rolleyes:

[LowlyPion]

Good idea Evo. Let Spivak go straighten out the French.

[G01]

Also, the prospect of removing words from language in order to prevent people from thinking certain things (in this case sexist thoughts) has been thought about before. I'm pretty sure most people aren't found of the idea when you consider where this logically leads us:

Should we remove the word "black" from our language because it encourages racist slurs? Maybe we should call the color, "anti white" instead? Don't you just love those ole time, anti white and white films?

Do you see why this is ridiculous? It is not the word, but the thought that one person is not as good as another that is the problem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak

[waht]

This is a sociological problem rather than a logical one. People are resistant to a change in their way of thinking, even if it's illogical.

[D H]

There is simply NO reason why the genital attachments of a person should affect how you refer to them in a discussion.
This is not an issue in German or French or Spanish, where every dang object on and under the table, and the table itself, has a gender. We are sensitive to gender in English precisely because it is largely a gender-free language.

There is simply NO reason to get so overly hyped on gender and political correctness. Use of "he" as an generic form is acceptable English. Think of it this way: the word "guys" no longer pertains only to people with external plumbing.

If generic "he" bothers you, careful use of "they" is grammatically correct. Tell the pedants to stuff themselves. Either "he" or "they" looks better than the silly constructs he/she, she/he, or s/he.

Oh yeah, and a very prolific mathematician agrees with me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spivak_pronounA silly new word invented by a prissy academician will not catch on. New words tend spring up from the masses.

[mgb_phys]

In proper english (ie the north) you have 'them' - you also have all those useful 2nd person singular ( thee, thar, thine ) that the southerners dropped around the time of Chaucer because it was too complicated.

"Don't thee thar me, thee thars them that thars thee"

[D H]

There is simply NO reason why ... and we MUST take action to get rid of this.
Do you really think this is such a pressing issue that you have to SHOUT about it?
"alumnus"
So call them graduates if you prefer. Many a person, regardless of their gender, prefers the hoity-toity but sexist term to the boring generic term. It's proof they (or their parents) didn't spend all that money on a college edumacation for naught. If you want to modify alumnus itself, you will need to invent a time machine so you spread your religion in Ceasar's time.

[lisab]

In proper english (ie the north) you have 'them' - you also have all those useful 2nd person singular ( thee, thar, thine ) that the southerners dropped around the time of Chaucer because it was too complicated.

"Don't thee thar me, thee thars them that thars thee"

Ooooo...I like thar! Maybe it'll catch on and we can all talk like pirates!

But seriously. Ehrenfest, I agree with you about wanting a gender-neutral pronoun. I really like to be grammatically correct, so when I write formally (i.e., not on a forum!) I use "he" or "his" or "him," but it doesn't sound right in my head.

Language is fluid and living, so it will change to be more gender neutral, I think. For example, more and more people use the term "fisher" instead of "fisherman" and these kinds of changes will become more common.

[Phlogistonian]

As a proud chauvinist, I use "he".

[Chi Meson]

When the common person uses a gender-neutral third person singular pronoun in conversation, they usually use "they." It sounds natural, and there is no "confusion" in communication. Descriptive linguistics says it is valid.

It is far more irritating to read the alternating "he" and "she," as you currently see in all school textbooks these days. (Imagine the person with the job where they have to proofread every text to make sure that every other 3rd person is female).

Similar to "ending a sentence with a preposition," English teachers had decided that a singular "they" it was against the rules. ("Something with up we shall not put.")

[ehrenfest]

How does "making up" a third pronoun violate grammar more than using the pronoun they to refer to people of arbitrary sex?

I think "they" has a reasonably large already and appropriate purpose in our language and does not need to be extended. I don't think making up a new word violates grammar when you specify what kind of word it is and then use it according to that definition. Have you ever read "Frindle"?

You do know that other languages display gender differences in words even more prominently, right? Spanish, German, and I'm sure many other languages have masculine, feminine, and neuter forms of articles and nouns corresponding to intimate objects. Thus, those languages have a "masculine" the, a feminine "the", and a neuter "the." I don't see why English should be embarrassed by its use of gender forms compared to how other languages use them. Also, a table can be feminine, while a computer can be masculine. This is a property of language, not some hidden sexist agenda.

Good point. I used to speak French fluently but I totally forgot about that. Otherwise I would have soapboxed about that to in my original post. I think it is a terrible burden on the French language to have a gender attached to everything for two reasons. First, it makes learning French very tedious since the vast majority of the object genders are more or less arbitrary. Why is a car or "voiture" and house or "maison" a women? Why is book or "livre" masculine? Sure there are some rules to this, but there are always exceptions also. Second, it produces an inherent gender bias in the language-speakers. When you grow up in a society where everything is masculine or feminine and you need to memorize which is which in elementary school, it is probably hard to adopt a sex-neutral outlook on life.



Also, I believe that what you are suggesting is only a method to hide from our problems. People should focus on educating the world that people can be equally capable and successful, no matter their sex or race, etc.. We should not be focused on hiding ourselves from our differences. We should embrace our differences and accept that they make our society stronger, and forget about the falsehood that differences make any one individual weaker.

What you are proposing is a method to have everyone systematically hide from the fact that peolple are individuals with differences. Don't deny that people have differences. Deny that these differences make some people more equal than others.



Some of what I was saying was more of a practical matter. I am not saying we hide our differences. I am saying we should only emphasize our differences in places where it matters. I don't think everyday conversations are a place where it matters that someone is male or female yet we are constantly reminded of that fact. I am not saying we eliminate the words "man" and "woman" from our language, but only use them when appropriate.



On a side note, we don't need to "make up" a neuter third person singular pronoun. We have one. If only I could remember what it was...:rolleyes:

Do you really feel comfortable referring to your friend as "it"?

[jimmysnyder]

you can violate grammar by saying "they" when referring to a single person
As I am a native speaker of English, I am a little too close to the problem. So I asked my wife. He or she used to be Chinese, although they is an American now. He or she pointed out that they is very commonly used for singular. For example:

Someone left the water running, why would they do a thing like that?


Grammar should describe language, not prescribe it.

[Moonbear]

This issue has popped up in discussions of grammar at least as long as I've been learning grammar. It used to be fairly simple. "He" was used. Then along came the feminist movement, and that was no longer acceptable. I have days I agree and days I disagree. There are various ways of addressing it. One that some authors have taken is to switch to "she," which I think is the silliest way of doing it. Same problem, different gender. In a longer book with a lot of examples, it's easy to alternate which is used for examples without gender confusion, so that works pretty well for those situations and keeps things balanced if not completely correct. Some do go all out writing "he or she" every time they use the pronoun, but that gets cumbersome.

My personal preference is to use s/he. Of course, that doesn't help if I then need to refer to s/he as her or him. But, that's one of those places where I'm comfortable with breaking grammatical rules (if enough of us do it, it will become a new grammatical rule) and using "they" or "them" as a singular pronoun. That's one of those nice things about writing. If you know the rules, and know that none is perfectly suitable for your intended usage, you can break the rules. It's not a grammatical mistake if it's done intentionally. Of course, if it's formal writing, I first search for ways to rephrase the sentence to eliminate the need for the pronouns (or any other sticky phrasing). Sometimes, that just isn't going to provide the clearest way of conveying your message, though, so that's when it's time to just break the rules.

[jimmysnyder]

There is simply NO reason why the genital attachments of a person should affect how you refer to them in a discussion.
Here's another example.

[D H]

Here's another example.
Nice catch!

My personal preference is to use s/he.
That usage doesn't come across when spoken.

[neu]

what about brare/brair?
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Brare

[ehrenfest]

Here's another example.

Nice catch!

LOL! I was trying so hard not to do that!

I kind of see what people are saying about breaking the rules when necessary. That is in fact what I did unconsciously in the sentence that jimmysnyder referred to. There is probably no set of grammatical rules that will work in every situation. Its definitely not worth sacrificing clarity for grammatical correctness.

But anyway, when a pronoun like "they" or "them" gets violated as much as it does, I think its time the MLA amended the rules to be compatible with the vernacular usage. Or else come up with something better.

[G01]

LOL! I was trying so hard not to do that!

I kind of see what people are saying about breaking the rules when necessary. That is in fact what I did unconsciously in the sentence that jimmysnyder referred to. There is probably no set of grammatical rules that will work in every situation. Its definitely not worth sacrificing clarity for grammatical correctness.

But anyway, when a pronoun like "they" or "them" gets violated as much as it does, I think its time the MLA amended the rules to be compatible with the vernacular usage. Or else come up with something better.

Well, in the end, the MLA does not define the English language. It is the speakers of English that do that. This is why the language has evolved from its "Old English" form where you had to decline nouns like you do in Latin to "Middle English" to "Modern English." Believe it or not there was no MLA memo saying that these changes were OK.:rolleyes: Languages change and evolve naturally, and there is no way to stop it.

So, as a previous poster said, the language will fix itself. There is no need to force changes on English, since the speakers will naturally develop their own corrections over the course of time.

[D H]

LOL! I was trying so hard not to do that!

I kind of see what people are saying about breaking the rules when necessary. ... Its definitely not worth sacrificing clarity for grammatical correctness.
You did not break any rules of grammar. It slipped off your fingers so naturally because the use of they as an indeterminate is grammatically correct. It is not clunky. It becomes clunky when used in a specific sense.

But anyway, when a pronoun like "they" or "them" gets violated as much as it does, I think its time the MLA amended the rules to be compatible with the vernacular usage. Or else come up with something better.
Unlike other languages, there are don't have no language police in English. English dictionaries reflect the language rather than define it. The pedants do not have a badge to wave in front of us that forces us speak / write correctly. Badges? We don't need no stinkin' badges!

[neu]

Who dat Brair?

Is it a man? Is it a woman? No! it's ambiguous!

Problem solved

[ehrenfest]

So, as a previous poster said, the language will fix itself.

Do you really think so? Sure, we will develop patches to cover up the places in our sentences where the language doesn't provide us with a convenient term or phrase but we could each do it differently. But we will each do that individually. If English was restricted to one small locale, then I could see how all the people could spontaneously change to a new grammatical rule or a new word usage. I think that greatly facilitated the transition from Old English to Modern English: the fact that Great Britain was basically the only place that used the language.

But now there are hundreds of millions of people speaking the language and it seems hard to imagine that any major grammatical or vocabulary changes could occur without some central effort. How much has English changed in the past 100 years really? Sure there have been minor things like lots of new scientific nouns like "motherboard" but I can't think of anything on the order of the construction of a gender neutral third person pronoun that can refer to people.

[D H]

You want a centralized effort to dictate what constitutes proper English across many different countries? Good luck with that!

[G01]

Do you really think so?

Yes.


But now there are hundreds of millions of people speaking the language and it seems hard to imagine that any major grammatical or vocabulary changes could occur without some central effort.

Its hard to imagine humans evolving from bacterium (hence the issues today), but the evidence suggests that it has happened. Changes in language happen ehrenfest, whether we can see them happening or not. Just because many people are speaking a language does not mean it will remain stagnant. As those people change and their experiences change, so will the language.

You should look into a book on the history of language or something of the like. I have been planning on reading something like that myself, if I ever get the time. I think you'd find it to be an interesting read.

[out of whack]

The English language needs a gender-neutral third person pronoun that can refer to people.

Indeed, that would be sensible. The pronoun would also be applicable to "legal persons" such as corporations, perhaps also to personalized inanimate objects like ships which are currently female for whatever reason.

You could always use "one," although that technically isn't a pronoun because it does not refer to a noun previously used.

I suppose the meaning could be extended: if the driver takes the right lane, one has to exit. Meh, it sort of works but no so well.

What you are proposing is a method to have everyone systematically hide from the fact that peolple are individuals with differences.

I don't see this at all. It is merely a way to improve expressiveness of the language. It has no bearing on how we view both genders: if the driver takes the right lane, ey has to exit. No problem here beyond lack of familiarity. This is the first time I hear of this pronoun myself. But it seems to work.

A silly new word invented by a prissy academician will not catch on. New words tend spring up from the masses.

Yeah, true. Of course, PF is part of the masses in question.

the prospect of removing words from language in order to prevent people from thinking certain things

Huh, this sounds a bit paranoid... ;) A gender neutral pronoun is just a simplification for the ackward "he or she" form. It doesn't change its meaning since it is equivalent. But shorter. And it does not remove the other words that can continue to be used once gender is established, if a gender does apply.

they usually use "they." It sounds natural, and there is no "confusion" in communication. Descriptive linguistics says it is valid.

Yes, but then the verb must be in the plural form, which is inconsistent with the initial singular: if the driver takes the right lane, they have to exit. How did the driver multiply in mid-sentence?

(if enough of us do it, it will become a new grammatical rule)

Yes.

You want a centralized effort to dictate what constitutes proper English across many different countries? Good luck with that!

Indeed! No person or institution can force others to speak in a certain way. What does it is peer usage. See a word often enough and suddenly you find yourself using it.

[TheStatutoryApe]

But now there are hundreds of millions of people speaking the language and it seems hard to imagine that any major grammatical or vocabulary changes could occur without some central effort. How much has English changed in the past 100 years really? Sure there have been minor things like lots of new scientific nouns like "motherboard" but I can't think of anything on the order of the construction of a gender neutral third person pronoun that can refer to people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dialects_of_the_English_language
Linguistics is far more complex and organic than you give it credit for.

[jimmysnyder]

You should look into a book on the history of language or something of the like. I have been planning on reading something like that myself, if I ever get the time. I think you'd find it to be an interesting read.
Our library has a set of lectures on audio CD, "The Story of Human Language" by John McWhorter from the Teaching Company. It costs a lot, so I wouldn't suggest you buy it, but if your library has it, definitely borrow it. The topic is fascinating and McWhorter is a very entertaining lecturer.

[Ben Niehoff]

"They/Them" has been in use since before Shakespeare's time as a third-person singular gender-free pronoun.

[vociferous]

The proper way is to use the masculine pronoun when the gender is neuter and a neuter pronoun is not available or appropriate. This is common in many other Western European languages. I think altering our language to avoid appear "sexist" to some people is an absurd application of political correctness, like the claims that we should no longer use the word "mankind".

[vociferous]

"They/Them" has been in use since before Shakespeare's time as a third-person singular gender-free pronoun.

And then, as now, it is a grammatical error.

[TheStatutoryApe]

And then, as now, it is a grammatical error.

Lol... are you the sort of person that will tell people they are misspelling slang words too? Grammar is supposed to reflect use. Language is organic, it's not a science.

[vociferous]

Lol... are you the sort of person that will tell people they are misspelling slang words too? Grammar is supposed to reflect use. Language is organic, it's not a science.

Languages have very specific rules that you are supposed to follow, at least, all the languages I have studied. Language does change, and it is certainly possible that grammar could change, but the specific usage you have referred to is still a plurality error, and it has been for centuries. It is also something that publishers will look at. If you do not, or cannot use the basic rules of English grammar, you work may be rejected out of hand.

[D H]

And then, as now, it is a grammatical error.
Maybe in the minds of pedants who can only criticize how others abuse language. Singular they, particularly generic they and epicene they, are widely accepted as correct grammar.

Singular they is fine in the minds of Jane Austen (http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/austheir.html#X1a), Geoffrey Chaucer, Edmund Spenser, William Shakespeare, the King James Bible, The Spectator, Jonathan Swift, Daniel Defoe, Frances Sheridan, Oliver Goldsmith, Henry Fielding, Maria Edgeworth, Percy Shelley, Lord Byron, William Makepeace Thackeray, Sir Walter Scott, George Eliot [Mary Anne Evans], Charles Dickens, Mrs. Gaskell, Anthony Trollope, John Ruskin, Robert Louis Stevenson, Walt Whitman, George Bernard Shaw, Lewis Carroll, Oscar Wilde, Rudyard Kipling, H. G. Wells, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Edith Wharton, W. H. Auden, Lord Dunsany, George Orwell, and C. S. Lewis.

Singular they is acceptable according to Merriam-Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/they):
usage They, their, them, themselves: English lacks a common-gender third person singular pronoun that can be used to refer to indefinite pronouns (as everyone, anyone, someone). Writers and speakers have supplied this lack by using the plural pronouns <and every one to rest themselves betake — Shakespeare> <I would have everybody marry if they can do it properly — Jane Austen> <it is too hideous for anyone in their senses to buy — W. H. Auden>. The plural pronouns have also been put to use as pronouns of indefinite number to refer to singular nouns that stand for many persons <'tis meet that some more audience than a mother, since nature makes them partial, should o'erhear the speech — Shakespeare> <a person can't help their birth — W. M. Thackeray> <no man goes to battle to be killed. — But they do get killed — G. B. Shaw>. The use of they, their, them, and themselves as pronouns of indefinite gender and indefinite number is well established in speech and writing, even in literary and formal contexts. This gives you the option of using the plural pronouns where you think they sound best, and of using the singular pronouns (as he, she, he or she, and their inflected forms) where you think they sound best.

[jimmysnyder]

Languages have very specific rules that you are supposed to follow, at least, all the languages I have studied.
In the Politics & World Affairs section there is a thread entitled "Speculation mounting of an attack on Iran". It is locked, so I cannot use the referencing quote feature on it. On page 5, message #80 of that thread is a post of yours which I quote in part.


If Israel had the ability to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities with a single air strike, they probably would have taken it already.


There are rules to languages. In English you can't say "Up the ball over my bat with throw". But the kind of rules you are talking about are not linguistic at all, they are merely tools in the hands of autocrats that use a particular dialect to exclude people who use a different one. It has been said that a language is a dialect with an army.

[Chi Meson]

It has been said that a language is a dialect with an army.

I like that one! Whoever it was that said it first, they have my respect!

[jimmysnyder]

I like that one! Whoever it was that said it first, they have my respect!
It was Max Weinreich (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_language_is_a_dialect_with_an_army_and_navy), whoever he is. Apparently, he was quoting someone else, but no one seems to know who.

[LowlyPion]

Our library has a set of lectures on audio CD, "The Story of Human Language" by John McWhorter from the Teaching Company.

I caught this series "The Adventure of English" on BBC America I think some time back and found it quite interesting certainly as regards the waves of vocabulary incorporations through the various influences of history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Adventure_of_English

[cristo]

Good point. I used to speak French fluently but I totally forgot about that.
Hold on.. you used to speak fluent French, but now you forget the fact that nouns have a gender in French? :rolleyes:

[ehrenfest]

Hold on.. you used to speak fluent French, but now you forget the fact that nouns have a gender in French? :rolleyes:

No. I meant I didn't make the connection between that and what I wrote about in my opening post at first.

[WarPhalange]

My personal preference is to use s/he. Of course, that doesn't help if I then need to refer to s/he as her or him.

Hmer.

[D H]

Hmer.
Hrrmph.

[rewebster]

My personal preference is to use s/he.

I use 'it'.


and then, there's always the possibility of combining the two.

[Moonbear]

You should look into a book on the history of language or something of the like. I have been planning on reading something like that myself, if I ever get the time. I think you'd find it to be an interesting read.
Just look at the usage of English in Britain vs. the United States and you'll get some sense of how quickly language can evolve. For that matter, look at the different usages of the language in regions of the U.S. In the Northeast, if someone is referring to the second person plural, it's "you." In the South, it's "y'all."

and then, there's always the possibility of combining the two.

:rofl:

[OAQfirst]

Today, we adopt a language that has been carefully constructed to avoid offensive slight, completely void of sexism, racism, etc.

Tomorrow, the language changes senses, meanings, idioms, words to accommodate the underlying prejudices/attitudes -- and so becoming the same base language we spoke before.

Do whatever you want to make a perfect language. But without a change in attitudes, people will just revert/mutate their language to accommodate their unchanged attitudes. You've gotta look at the underlying issues and change those problems before the surface issue (our language) can reflect a healthier, more respectful language.

Sexism in our language has nothing to do with the words. Our language is perfectly equipped to suit those who want to avoid offending others. It's not the language that's the problem. Change the language, the sexism remains. And those people will find new ways to express it.

[jimmysnyder]

In the Northeast, if someone is referring to the second person plural, it's "you." In the South, it's "y'all."
Here in the People's Republic it's 'youse'.

[Chi Meson]

It was Max Weinreich (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_language_is_a_dialect_with_an_army_and_navy), whoever he is. Apparently, he was quoting someone else, but no one seems to know who.

"But no one seems to know of whom." Come on, wilst thou please speak as intended by language its creator?

[rewebster]

Here in the People's Republic it's 'youse'.

The singular form is, of course, 'ya'--


---as in, 'Get youse ya ya's out'

[LowlyPion]

Language seems to me to evolve in a more Darwinian way through usage - that in some cases may be a reaction to previously considered proper usage even - or in the case of y'all or youse expresses some subgroup or regional identity in addition to it's literal meaning.

Perhaps Spivak would be succumbing to hubris in thinking to get in front of such a parade with his own form of Intelligent Design?

[LowlyPion]

On the bright side at least Spivak might expect that Louisiana will permit the teaching of his pronouns though.

[vociferous]

In the Politics & World Affairs section there is a thread entitled "Speculation mounting of an attack on Iran". It is locked, so I cannot use the referencing quote feature on it. On page 5, message #80 of that thread is a post of yours which I quote in part.



There are rules to languages. In English you can't say "Up the ball over my bat with throw". But the kind of rules you are talking about are not linguistic at all, they are merely tools in the hands of autocrats that use a particular dialect to exclude people who use a different one. It has been said that a language is a dialect with an army.

I think this would qualify as a "tu quoque logical fallacy. I believe that I was probably making a grammatical error, although not the specific one you mention. I was probably thinking "they" as in, "the leaders of Israel" and thus creating a pronoun without a proper antecedent.

I am not an expert on English grammar, but I do believe this was wrong in any case. There is some question as to how strictly one must adhere to the rules. Charles Dickens began his most famous book with a paragraph long run-on sentence, but, he was a well-respected author by that time.

There is no question that the level of grammatical correctness in published works has been declining precipitously. Just look at the average daily newspaper and compare it to one written 50 or 75 years ago. Publishers are certainly more tolerant of those who do not adhere to strict grammatical rules.

[DaveC426913]

We could also use a second person pronoun that distinguishes singular from plural. You is ambiguous. Youze or y'all sound trashy.

[out of whack]

We could also use a second person pronoun that distinguishes singular from plural. You is ambiguous. Youze or y'all sound trashy.

Good catch! Also, a plural form for "it", a third person plural for non-persons. And for completeness, distinct plurals for "he" and "she", the third person plural forms for male and female genders. So what do we have now?

I
You
It, He, She, Ey
We
Yall
Ti, Hey, Shey, They

Yesss! :biggrin:

[D H]

So what do we have now?

I
You
It, He, She, Ey
We
Yall
Ti, Hey, Shey, They
Shey-it! All of y'all are crazy.

[LowlyPion]

All of y'all are crazy.

That's redundant.

[D H]

No, it is not. A real southerner knows the distinction between y'all and all of y'all. Y'all is you plural. It might mean just a few people in a crowded room. All of y'all (or all y'all, for short) means everyone in the room.

Think of it this way: all of y'all means exactly the same thing as the Spanish phrase todos ustedes.

[jimmysnyder]

I think this would qualify as a "tu quoque logical fallacy.
And unashamedly so. But your position had already been demolished by correct arguments. What is the name of the fallacy that says "No matter how bad my argument is, the fact that you used a fallacious argument gives it a luster it would not otherwise have."

[vanesch]

I use 'it'.

In Germanic languages with a neutral gender, a neutral pronoun is never used to refer to persons, unless you really want to formulate an insult, because the neutral gender usually refers to objects, and to diminutives. In fact there is even something strange about it, because the German and the Dutch for "girl" is "das Maedchen", or "het meisje", both neutral. However, the pronoun that refers to it is feminine: sie or ze. You never refer to a person as "es/das" or "het", unless you really want to formulate an insult.

In French, if you want to be gender-neutral, you can use "la personne", and then the pronoun that goes with it is necessarily feminine: "elle", while it is understood that it can be a male or female person, and it doesn't even pose a problem if you know the gender. I think in English, "the person" is referred to by he or she according to a gender choice, no ?

[TheStatutoryApe]

I think in English, "the person" is referred to by he or she according to a gender choice, no ?
Very often when 'choice' is a part of the determination people have a tendancy to use 'it' to refer to said person.

[DaveC426913]

Today, we adopt a language that has been carefully constructed to avoid offensive slight, completely void of sexism, racism, etc.

Tomorrow, the language changes senses, meanings, idioms, words to accommodate the underlying prejudices/attitudes -- and so becoming the same base language we spoke before.

Do whatever you want to make a perfect language. But without a change in attitudes, people will just revert/mutate their language to accommodate their unchanged attitudes. You've gotta look at the underlying issues and change those problems before the surface issue (our language) can reflect a healthier, more respectful language.

Sexism in our language has nothing to do with the words. Our language is perfectly equipped to suit those who want to avoid offending others. It's not the language that's the problem. Change the language, the sexism remains. And those people will find new ways to express it.
We're not trying to force language use, we are identifying that we have a need for a gender-neutral 3rd person pronoun and we don't currently have one.

[rewebster]

We're not trying to force language use, we are identifying that we have a need for a gender-neutral 3rd person pronoun and we don't currently have one.

That is a problem for those that see it as a problem for them.

[DaveC426913]

That is a problem for those that see it as a problem for them.

I think that goes without saying. It doesn't require unanimous buy-in.

[OAQfirst]

We're not trying to force language use, we are identifying that we have a need for a gender-neutral 3rd person pronoun and we don't currently have one.

I sorry, I don't see where you get "force" out of my post. I did use some exaggeration but only for illustration.

[DaveC426913]

I sorry, I don't see where you get "force" out of my post. I did use some exaggeration but only for illustration.

"Today, we adopt a language that has been carefully constructed to avoid offensive slight, completely void of sexism, racism, etc. Tomorrow, the language changes senses, meanings, idioms, words to accommodate the underlying prejudices/attitudes -- and so becoming the same base language we spoke before. Do whatever you want to make a perfect language."

This passage led me to believe that you were suggesting that we thought (erroneously) that a change in language would bring about a change in behaviour, while you were argung that the change in behaviour had to come first.

I was pointing out that our behaviour has changed, thus bringing about the need for a new word.

[OAQfirst]

Ah, okay. My perspective does differ, though. I don't see the change in behavior as you say. At least not enough to bring about a change in the majority of our population.

But still, there is no "force" intended. Offer a new word to fill the gap, but I doubt sufficient willingness in the majority to accept it. Which is why I was pointing to attitude first. Pursue a change there, and the majority should be more willing to accept that change in language.

[DaleSpam]

English has a perfectly good third-person singular neuter pronoun: "it". Anyone who claims that "it" cannot refer to a person obviously led a sheltered childhood devoid of games like "hide and seek" or "tag". My deepest condolences to you.

(Sorry if this point has already been made)