The Gender Pronoun Discussion

[Humabout]

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."

[Rhamnousia]

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.

[limetom]

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

[Lmns Crn]

Fascinating, Limetom. Funny how it's so much more pervasive throughout history than you'd think.

[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.  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?

[limetom]

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).

[khyron1144]

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 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.

[Lmns Crn]

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"?)

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.

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?

[SA]

Perhaps follow my uncle's august example: "youse".

[khyron1144]

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.

[Kindling]

On the other hand, I'm not a fan of this whole, living, evolving language thing.

Whyyyyyyyyyyyyyy?

[O Senhor Leetz]

Living languages are the best! Creole dialects, pidgin, natural languages - Papiamentu, Annobonese, Belizean Kriole, Saramaccan! Such awesome stuff!

[Lmns Crn]

don't forget English

[Weave]

On 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.