For years, I have been using the improper English "they" as my gender neutral pronoun, in addition to using it as a plural pronoun. I felt we had a need for it in our language, especially when writing about nebulous generic things like races and classes in gaming books. Recently, on a WotC thread, someone was flipping their hat over the dual use of "he" and "she" in D&D books. The poster, whom I assume was a man, said it was awkward to read "she" all the time, and that WotC should use "they".
Seeing it from another angle made me question my position. Why was I using "they"? Was it because I wasn't referring to a specific character, so I didn't want to call attention to said non-existent character's gender? Or was I using it because I found "she" to be a speed bump for me to read.
I noticed it again with Ch30's tavern post recently. I was going to make a joke about future archaeologists being gender-less robots, but I ended up abstaining. But the point still stands: reading "she" when not referring to a specific person was strange to me. English majors will tell you that "he" and "his" are gender neutral pronouns; in Spanish, you use male pronouns unless an entire group is female (ellos for they, ellas for they if it's a group of females).
So, what is the proper thing to do? Use "They" so no one is "uncomfortable"? Or should we be fair and use both pronouns, alternating if not referring to a specific character (the class write-ups in 3E referenced the gender of the iconics mind you), so that anyone who is going to be uncomfortable will be equally uncomfortable?
And as a light-hearted aside, what should the different gendered names for the traditional fantasy races be? Humans are Man and Woman; assuming that Elf, Dwarf, Halfling, and Gnome are all generic race names and not the name of one gender or another.
The Lexicon Valley podcast did a great show recently about this exact issue (http://www.slate.com/articles/podcasts/lexicon_valley/2012/05/lexicon_valley_seeking_a_gender_neutral_alternative_to_he_and_she_.html); I recommend it.
QuoteEnglish majors will tell you that "he" and "his" are gender neutral pronouns;
That's the same argument I made for a long time. It's also a pretty lousy argument. English is sorely in need of a genderless third-person singular pronoun set, certainly. But that's not a good reason to start pretending that very obviously gendered pronouns are the genderless pronouns we need.
It's all well and good to proclaim the strict adherence to (archaic) grammar standards of a construction like "I wonder which student left his book over there" and claiming that "his" obviously refers to the book of any student, male or no, who owns said abandoned book. But you'd be basically asking male students to be labeled with the male pronoun "his" (no big deal, this happens daily), and female students to also be labeled with the male pronoun "his" (what if "his" book is Jane's book?) which is damned weird and actually incredibly insulting especially when you start to unpack the extended implications of this supposedly "gender neutral" pronoun. ("Don't like being misgendered? Better study your grammar, ladies, if only you knew more about English you'd get why I'm totally correct in referring to you with male pronouns!")
All artificial constructions are either hideous frankensteins ("he/she", "s/he", etc.) goofy novelties (the "thon" I gleefully used in the Tavern, the unpronounceable space-age-looking "xe", etc.) and I can't really see any of them gaining traction. I think the best, most elegant solution is to go with the crowd and adopt "they" for singular use when you want to avoid specifying gender, because it's what most people automatically do anyway, and that's the mechanism that makes languages changes. (Even if you want to call it wrong now ["It's a plural pronoun, not a singular one!"], you can't fight a tidal wave. It won't be wrong for long.)
Quotesomeone was flipping their hat over the dual use of "he" and "she" in D&D books. The poster, whom I assume was a man, said it was awkward to read "she" all the time,
This clownboat needs to unpack his privilege already, even if we're
only talking grammar.
QuoteSo, what is the proper thing to do? Use "They" so no one is "uncomfortable"? Or should we be fair and use both pronouns, alternating if not referring to a specific character (the class write-ups in 3E referenced the gender of the iconics mind you), so that anyone who is going to be uncomfortable will be equally uncomfortable?
I mean, I've already been over some of my reasons for advocating "they", but that's not really at issue here. The issue here is a weird grammar maneuver that is seldom encountered, but was used in that book for whatever reason-- writing about a whole group in terms of a specific individual example. It'd be like if I wanted to write a primer on lawyers, and I briefly mentioned in passing that my friend Sandra is a lawyer, and then I went on at length for pages without ever actually mentioning Sandra again but clearly writing all my stuff about lawyers generally with a specific example in mind. ("When a lawyer goes to court to defend her case, she does a great deal of preparatory research on which to base her eloquent arguments....") (I'm using a female example here so you don't think I'm just using "he" as if it were genderless, as discussed above.) That's a really unusual way to try to explain something and I think it's a great way to invite confusion, so there are a lot of reasons to advocate against it.
Frankly, I think any male who claims to be made uncomfortable by reading female pronouns used in the generic sense is being ridiculous and should be told to get real already, and that it is a hilarious lack of perspective to complain about pronoun injustice in this context while, conversely, women are still being told to accept male pronouns used in the generic sense as right and correct and totally fine, like this arbitrary choice is a fundamental support of proper language, the only thing holding the barbarians at bay. It's silly and this dude should feel slightly ashamed, certainly.
Hell, I have typed a ton of words already and I haven't even touched the whole issue of non-binary gender. (Oh wait, yes I have. Alternating he and "she", or using "s/he" or whatever, doesn't address it. Using "they" does. So use "they.")
The proper thing to do is to avoid all gender pronouns in writing if a reference is to an indefinite group. That is very difficult to do, but it can be avoided in technical writing and I believe that at least in my professional career I have avoided it.
In speaking where it is more difficult to carefully construct sentences on the fly it would seem to be fine for a female speaker to use "she" or a male speaker using "he" or vice versa for each. For on the fly decisions, it's up to individual preference regarding which pronoun to employ if the speakers intend to avoid "they".
re: " "I wonder which student left his book over there" a"
I might go with: "Which student left a book over there?" or "Which student left the book over there?" or "I wonder which student left that book over there?" or "I wonder which student left a book over there?"
I support using they, though, as you stated, as in "I wonder which student left their book over there".
LD, I had never thought of simple sentence construction changes. And LC, your abdication for the singular genderless use of "they" was potent.
I just use Thon.
M.
English generally pushes a speaker to use "he", "it" or "they" as gender neutral terms. None of these are really acceptable as the first is gendered, the second has connotations of objectification and the last is plural. Honestly, if anything will catch on, it will be Thon. I shall endeavor to use it more often.
Having a setting in which a major race is genderless and individuals are referred to without exception as "it" has made me come to loathe that word with all of my being. "They" is the least confusing alternative, and it's already in common usage anyway. I'm not really sure what would happen if I sent a letter or turned in a paper that used "xe" or "thon" but I surmise it would end up either in the trash or on the office bulletin board for coworkers to jeer at.
I remember being surprised when I got the D&D 3rd edition books and found that they (or at least some of them, I don't recall) were written with "she" as the standard pronoun, but only because it's seldom done. It's not how I write because I'm too used to "he," but I really don't understand how anyone could be seriously offended by that or claim that it's "awkward." "It" would be awkward because of confusion with other objects in the sentence; "she" is not awkward at all so long as they keep the usage consistent, which they did.
Nuchachos!
M.
I have nothing to say on the matter that the inestimable Steven Pinker doesn't say better. (http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/s-pinker.html)
Quote from: Ch30
I just use Thon.
I don't believe anyone really does, except as a joke.
Quote from: Luminous Crayon
Quote from: Ch30
I just use Thon.
I don't believe anyone really does, except as a joke.
I do.
M.
Have you used that term in all of your threads? :p Or is that a recent phenomena?
Quote from: Luminous Crayon
Quote from: Ch30
I just use Thon.
I don't believe anyone really does, except as a joke.
Thon does.
In a worldbuilding context I always use the pronouns that best represent the sex-dynamics within the setting. If the predominant culture favours sex-neutral pronouns I use "they". I have similarly adopted a set of sex-neutral terms of authority which are used in most of my settings: monarch or diarch (king/queen), hierarch (lord/lady; prince/princess), autarch (self-governed being; god), panarch (emperor/empress), and anarch (one who claims self-governance but cannot enforce it).
Personally, I go nuts when, to use Steven Pinker's terms, a qualifier and bound variable do not match in number. If refering to a group of more than one, the plural pronoun is appropriate; if refering to a single object or person, the singular is appropriate. Anything else reads incredibly strangely and awkwardly to me. I suppose the reason is that I dislike reading coloquial English outside of quotations from characters. That is why I avoid using "they," "them," "they're," and "their" when referencing single individuals. If such a person's gender is indeterminate, I use the masculine, because that is standard English grammar. If the person's gender is known or should be easily inferred from context - e.g., "After zipping up the dress she snatched her purse from the counter" - I use the appropriate gender pronoun. "It," refers to innanimate objects and is not acceptable. Similarly, I have issues with being forced to read "that" when the author is refering to a person. The correct relative pronoun is "which."
Quote from: Exegesis
In a worldbuilding context I always use the pronouns that best represent the sex-dynamics within the setting. If the predominant culture favours sex-neutral pronouns I use "they". I have similarly adopted a set of sex-neutral terms of authority which are used in most of my settings: monarch or diarch (king/queen), hierarch (lord/lady; prince/princess), autarch (self-governed being; god), panarch (emperor/empress), and anarch (one who claims self-governance but cannot enforce it).
Good Lord, that is some sexy terminology.
But seriously, I don't know how I haven't commented on this thread yet. My biggest gripe with the English language is the lack of a legitimately gender-neutral pronoun. In my Manticore Gardens setting, which could probably be described as 'institutionally-queer' (and which I really should get back to, now that I think about it), I have four pronouns: 'he' for masculine-seeming individuals, 'she' for feminine-seeming individuals, 'they' for individuals who are both or neither, and 'qe' for individuals who are intentionally being a dick about it. Of course, that setting also had six sexes...
And to address one of Xeviat's original questions, I always use 'man' and 'woman' as race-neutral terms. It works best if you're using cultural names (e.g. Rohirrim, Targaryen, Dunmer) though, so it probably wouldn't work for all settings.
As a historical linguist, I'm kind of obliged to say that "they" as a gender-neutral singular pronoun is most certainly not new.
The first appearance of "they" is in Middle English. While the Old English equivalent was hī, they was actually borrowed from Old Norse þeir. The Oxford English Dictionary, which specifically traces the history of English words, gives the competing attestations circa the 1200s (that is, both the original OE form and the ON form in Middle English), but this is firmly Middle English territory (OE was pre-10th century), and it was certainly borrowed before that time. By the 1400s, they had completely replaced hī (and ME had given way to Early Modern English).
Gender-neutral singular usages are recorded almost as early as masculine/gender-neutral plural usages. The first in the OED is from 1415 CE. And since textual attestations are as a rule much later than spoken usage, it probably was a thing for as long as they has been a commonly used English word. It's also possible that OE hī could have been used in the same way in the spoken language, but we don't have any textual evidence that I know of (but I don't study the history of English so I'm not the best source).
So in short: if you're complaining the gender-neutral singular version of they is new, I'd like to know how somebody from the 1400s got a time machine. And if I can borrow it. I have a kidney or two I can offer in trade. (For serious.) :P
Fascinating, Limetom. Funny how it's so much more pervasive throughout history than you'd think.
More than anything, i find it interesting that English never filled the void of a singular gender-inspecific pronoun that refers to something alive. But then again, english doesn't do uncertain mood (subjunctive mood? i can't remember) much, either. I could certainly see a conlang (and probably plenty of real ones) that have gender specific, inspecific, and genderless pronouns.
Regardless, in English, I still champion "he" or if it isn't wonky or confusing, just avoiding pronoun usage entirely (one, oneself, etc.). If one must use "she," one should use it throughout. A lack of consistency in pronoun usage confuses the reader too much to be justified in my opinion, and "they/them/their" fails to agree in number, messes up verb conjugations, and just sounds too weird and coloquial for my Catholic gradeschool English-class-taught mind. It uses "he" or it gets the hose again. Isn't that right, Jesus?
Quote from: Humabout
More than anything, i find it interesting that English never filled the void of a singular gender-inspecific pronoun that refers to something alive.
You'd think that, but then start to consider all of the "slots" for possible words which English doesn't have any words for.
For instance, the Todzhu people are reindeer herders who live in Siberia. They have a general term for reindeer,
ivi. But being reindeer herders, they need more specialized labels. From birth to its second spring, a reindeer is called an
anai. From their second spring to their second fall, they are called
taspan. Males in their second fall to third fall are called
döngür . Females of the same age are called
myndyzhak . From their third fall on, adult females are called
myndy . Adult males, however, are split up into two groups:
eder (studs) and
chary (castrated).
Eder are used for breeding more reindeer, but are a bit uncontrollable.
Chary, however, are more docile and the Todzhu ride them. The age-based terms for
eder and
chary continue until their fifth year, and there's even a term for
eder who are castrated after their third fall:
bogona .
English also doesn't distinguish what linguists call clusivity. When talking about "we", some languages distinguish between having one form of "we" which includes the person being talked to, inclusive "we"; as well as a form of "we" which excludes the person being talked to, exclusive "we". So if you're talking to someone, and you say, "Remember when we went to the store?", they don't need context to figure out whether the story is about when you and them went to the store, or about when you and someone else went to the store.
And nobody seems to get upset about other ambiguous words in English. English doesn't have separate words for the verbs meaning "to put dust onto something" and "to take dust off of something." Compare:
- Jean, a cop, dusted the bookshelf with fingerprint powder.
- When Jean was done, Dave, the butler, dusted the bookshelf with a feather-duster.
By context, we know that Jean the cop would be putting dust on the bookshelf to look for fingerprints, and that Dave the butler would be removing that dust. But we use the same verb. The same goes for "Jean" the name. Did you all assume it referred to a man or a woman? It can be either, remember. But neither of these seem to rustle anybodies jimmies.
It seems t be things that get tied up with race (African American English speakers using
axe for standard English
ask, a paired variation which goes back to Old English), class (lower class people in my hometown of Baltimore using things like
wudder for
water or
amblance for
ambulance), etc., that really get people going when it comes to language. It seems to me that the reason singular
they is thought of as new is simply how pervasive it is--it can't be tied to any ethnic or economic group. At their heart, linguistic biases are really other sorts of biases, which is something to consider.
And remember: words are just a random collection of sounds which are paired with some referent (a thing in the real world or an abstract concept). Singular
they could just as easily be pronounced
platypus, and if it was, then would it be so much of an issue for verbs that come after it to work different? I see not to just go ahead and use it, but, of course, I can't make you if you don't want to.
On a lighter note: Denmark is the linguistic equivalent to
Fallout (according to Norwegians) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-mOy8VUEBk).
I'm sure this is an even older argument than that, but people have been arguing on the subject since at least the time the People's Almanac books came out in the 80s. I think it was The People's Almanac #2 that a reader had written in and advocated bringing back the old thorn letter/character (http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2003/04/21/00DE.png) and using it as the starting letter of a gender neutral singular pronoun that would look like [thorn]e and the thorn would be pronounced like the "th" in the.
Might work.
On the other hand, I'm not a fan of this whole, living, evolving language thing. I am against using you as a singular just to pick one instance.
Of all the possible solutions, I think that one is the least practical. (Can you imagine redesigning every computer keyboard in the english-speaking world, and reteaching people how to type, just so they can type a new artificial pronoun that is audibly indistinguishable from "the"?)
QuoteOn the other hand, I'm not a fan of this whole, living, evolving language thing. I am against using you as a singular just to pick one instance.
Say what you will about a living and evolving language, but until someone thinks of a way enforce linguistic rigor (and with it, linguistic
mortis), I recommend you get used to the idea of it.
I have never heard of anyone claiming to be against "you" as a singular pronoun before; that seems awfully reactionary to me. What dost thou prefer to use to express non-plural second-person?
Perhaps follow my uncle's august example: "youse".
Quote from: Luminous Crayon
I have never heard of anyone claiming to be against "you" as a singular pronoun before; that seems awfully reactionary to me. What dost thou prefer to use to express non-plural second-person?
Pretty close. Thee is my favored second person singular pronoun. I thank thee much.
Quote from: khyron1144On the other hand, I'm not a fan of this whole, living, evolving language thing.
Whyyyyyyyyyyyyyy?
Living languages are the best! Creole dialects, pidgin, natural languages - Papiamentu, Annobonese, Belizean Kriole, Saramaccan! Such awesome stuff!
don't forget English
Quote from: khyron1144On the other hand, I'm not a fan of this whole, living, evolving language thing.
...I don't think it's possible NOT to have a whole "living, evolving language thing." You're basically asking something as natural and ubiquitous as evolution to just stop working. The way language changes and develops is one of the most fascinating things I think people can study. Language in and of itself is a byproduct of a living, evolving culture, and to assume one would cease its natural growth while the other doesn't is absolutely ludicrous. I don't think it's a matter of being a fan of it or not, it just happens.
Sorry Khyron, I don't mean to pick on you, but it just came off as a very bizarre statement to make.