| Author |
Message |
Gary Eickmeier
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 23, 2005 8:43 pm
Post subject: Pluralization of Pronouns to Avoid Gender |
|
|
I came across a particularly strange looking corruption of the
traditional usage, seemingly to avoid gender issues.
"I'm happy to inform you that no one who thinks for themselves..."
Seems like someone will be thinking for a group. Am I just old
fashioned, or does this strike anyone else as odd?
Gary Eickmeier
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Raymond S. Wise
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 23, 2005 10:58 pm
Post subject: Re: Pluralization of Pronouns to Avoid Gender |
|
|
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
| Quote: | I came across a particularly strange looking corruption of the
traditional usage, seemingly to avoid gender issues.
"I'm happy to inform you that no one who thinks for themselves..."
Seems like someone will be thinking for a group. Am I just old
fashioned, or does this strike anyone else as odd?
|
I don't think I would have noticed it if I had read it or heard it used
outside of this group, and I would not be surprised if that particular
example had been used (if sporadically) for centuries.
Concerning gender neutrality, there are two alternatives which I *do*
notice when I see them: "s/he" and the alternation of "he" and "she"
which is used by some authors, who might, for example, write "The
patient was dissatisfied with the medication which he had been given"
in one part of an article and "The doctor may use a different method
with her older patients" in another part of the same article.
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gary Eickmeier
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 12:17 am
Post subject: Re: Pluralization of Pronouns to Avoid Gender |
|
|
Raymond S. Wise wrote:
| Quote: | Gary Eickmeier wrote:
I came across a particularly strange looking corruption of the
traditional usage, seemingly to avoid gender issues.
"I'm happy to inform you that no one who thinks for themselves..."
Seems like someone will be thinking for a group. Am I just old
fashioned, or does this strike anyone else as odd?
I don't think I would have noticed it if I had read it or heard it used
outside of this group, and I would not be surprised if that particular
example had been used (if sporadically) for centuries.
Concerning gender neutrality, there are two alternatives which I *do*
notice when I see them: "s/he" and the alternation of "he" and "she"
which is used by some authors, who might, for example, write "The
patient was dissatisfied with the medication which he had been given"
in one part of an article and "The doctor may use a different method
with her older patients" in another part of the same article.
|
I do not like s/he because you can't pronounce it when reading. Your
doctor example is not very good, because it is simply a female doctor
and a male patient. This is what should be written when the sex is known
for an individual; in other words, you would not say "Dr. Spock gave
great advice to his or her patients." Well, I have seen it done.
On my example, I am wondering how the author would say "We need to hire
someone who can think for himself in order to teach others to think for
themselves."
Gary Eickmeier
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Raymond S. Wise
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 2:43 am
Post subject: Re: Pluralization of Pronouns to Avoid Gender |
|
|
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
| Quote: | Raymond S. Wise wrote:
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
I came across a particularly strange looking corruption of the
traditional usage, seemingly to avoid gender issues.
"I'm happy to inform you that no one who thinks for themselves..."
Seems like someone will be thinking for a group. Am I just old
fashioned, or does this strike anyone else as odd?
I don't think I would have noticed it if I had read it or heard it used
outside of this group, and I would not be surprised if that particular
example had been used (if sporadically) for centuries.
Concerning gender neutrality, there are two alternatives which I *do*
notice when I see them: "s/he" and the alternation of "he" and "she"
which is used by some authors, who might, for example, write "The
patient was dissatisfied with the medication which he had been given"
in one part of an article and "The doctor may use a different method
with her older patients" in another part of the same article.
I do not like s/he because you can't pronounce it when reading. Your
doctor example is not very good, because it is simply a female doctor
and a male patient. This is what should be written when the sex is known
for an individual; in other words, you would not say "Dr. Spock gave
great advice to his or her patients." Well, I have seen it done.
On my example, I am wondering how the author would say "We need to hire
someone who can think for himself in order to teach others to think for
themselves."
|
I was not speaking of an example where there was a female doctor and a
male patient. I was speaking of the usage where an author alternates
between "he" and "she" as neutral pronouns, that is, when the sex of
the individual is left unspecified because it is not important to the
point being made. The first example might suggest a particular patient,
whose sex is presumably known, but that would not be the case if the
sentence were to appear in a list, such as one following the heading
"Possible problems which can occur:"
When I pointed out that I notice these usages, I did so in order to
suggest that they were problematical. I suspect that, unlike the
singular "they," "s/he" and the alternation of "he" and "she" are
reforms which will not last. (I may, of course, be wrong about that
prediction.)
As for the pronunciation of "s/he," I don't know how it is pronounced
either. I had to look it up just now: Merriam-Webster Unabridged online
gives the pronunciation as (here I use ordinary words instead of
symbols) "she he," "she or he," or "she slash he."
In the book *Euphemism and Dysphemism: Language Used as Shield and
Weapon*
by Keith Allan and Kate Burridge, Oxford University Press, (C) 1991,
the term "s/he" is used with the direction that it be pronounced "he or
she." (I had to look up a post I had made earlier to another Usenet
group, since I didn't remember the pronunciation which Allan and
Burridge gave for "s/he.")
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Grammer Genious
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 6:41 am
Post subject: Re: Pluralization of Pronouns to Avoid Gender |
|
|
Gary Eickmeier <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:gkN6f.166169$xl6.93561@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
| Quote: | I came across a particularly strange looking corruption of the
traditional usage, seemingly to avoid gender issues.
"I'm happy to inform you that no one who thinks for themselves..."
|
The speaker/writer may have been trying to avoid sex reference, but that is
not the normal reason for employment of singular "they."
Normally this centuries-old locution is employed when referring back to an
unspecific person ("someone," "nobody," etc.), and it happens to be true
that such an unspecific person usually could be of either sex.
But examples abound in which the sex of the unspecific person is not in
question ("every father," "no bride," etc.), making it clear that the
avoidance of sex reference is a marginal consideration, not the default one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gary Eickmeier
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 7:02 pm
Post subject: Re: Pluralization of Pronouns to Avoid Gender |
|
|
The Grammer Genious wrote:
| Quote: | Gary Eickmeier <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:gkN6f.166169$xl6.93561@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
I came across a particularly strange looking corruption of the
traditional usage, seemingly to avoid gender issues.
"I'm happy to inform you that no one who thinks for themselves..."
The speaker/writer may have been trying to avoid sex reference, but that is
not the normal reason for employment of singular "they."
Normally this centuries-old locution is employed when referring back to an
unspecific person ("someone," "nobody," etc.), and it happens to be true
that such an unspecific person usually could be of either sex.
But examples abound in which the sex of the unspecific person is not in
question ("every father," "no bride," etc.), making it clear that the
avoidance of sex reference is a marginal consideration, not the default one.
|
Thanks - you're a genius. But did you see my second post in this thread?
On my example, I am wondering how the author would say "We need to hire
someone who can think for himself in order to teach others to think for
themselves."
Gary Eickmeier |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard R. Hershberger
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 7:55 pm
Post subject: Re: Pluralization of Pronouns to Avoid Gender |
|
|
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
| Quote: | The Grammer Genious wrote:
Gary Eickmeier <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:gkN6f.166169$xl6.93561@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
I came across a particularly strange looking corruption of the
traditional usage, seemingly to avoid gender issues.
"I'm happy to inform you that no one who thinks for themselves..."
The speaker/writer may have been trying to avoid sex reference, but that is
not the normal reason for employment of singular "they."
Normally this centuries-old locution is employed when referring back to an
unspecific person ("someone," "nobody," etc.), and it happens to be true
that such an unspecific person usually could be of either sex.
But examples abound in which the sex of the unspecific person is not in
question ("every father," "no bride," etc.), making it clear that the
avoidance of sex reference is a marginal consideration, not the default one.
Thanks - you're a genius. But did you see my second post in this thread?
On my example, I am wondering how the author would say "We need to hire
someone who can think for himself in order to teach others to think for
themselves."
|
I'm not sure what your point is. Yes, this is a situation where the
indeterminate they is awkward. But so is the putatively traditional
solution of using "himself". No one suggests that the indeterminate
they is a perfect solution, merely that it is how real English works.
Richard R. Hershberger |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James Silverton
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 8:10 pm
Post subject: Re: Pluralization of Pronouns to Avoid Gender |
|
|
Richard wrote on 24 Oct 2005 06:55:33 -0700:
RRH> Gary Eickmeier wrote:
??>> The Grammer Genious wrote:
??>>> Gary Eickmeier <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in
??>>> message news:gkN6f.166169$xl6.93561@tornado.tampabay.rr.c
??>>> om...
??>>>
??>>>> I came across a particularly strange looking corruption
??>>>> of the traditional usage, seemingly to avoid gender
??>>>> issues.
??>>>>
??>>>> "I'm happy to inform you that no one who thinks for
??>>>> themselves..."
??>>
??>> Thanks - you're a genius. But did you see my second post
??>> in this thread?
??>>
??>> On my example, I am wondering how the author would say "We
??>> need to hire someone who can think for himself in order to
??>> teach others to think for themselves."
RRH> I'm not sure what your point is. Yes, this is a situation
RRH> where the indeterminate they is awkward. But so is the
RRH> putatively traditional solution of using "himself". No
RRH> one suggests that the indeterminate they is a perfect
RRH> solution, merely that it is how real English works.
I don't see any lack of clarity in "We need to hire someone who
can think for themselves in order to teach others to think for
themselves." The repetition sounds a bit clumsy I'll admit but
seems clear enough, tho' "to teach others to do the same" might
be better, IMHO. I have never been much bothered by the use of
masculine pronouns in an indefinite usage but I can see the
objections. I was a little shaken the first time I saw the
indefinite plural in the "London Times" but I am used to it now.
James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gary Eickmeier
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 8:58 pm
Post subject: Re: Pluralization of Pronouns to Avoid Gender |
|
|
James Silverton wrote:
| Quote: | I don't see any lack of clarity in "We need to hire someone who can
think for themselves in order to teach others to think for themselves."
The repetition sounds a bit clumsy I'll admit but seems clear enough,
tho' "to teach others to do the same" might be better, IMHO. I have
never been much bothered by the use of masculine pronouns in an
indefinite usage but I can see the objections. I was a little shaken the
first time I saw the indefinite plural in the "London Times" but I am
used to it now.
|
It's just that the concept of "think for yourself" demands a singular
because it refers to you as only one person. Thinking for themselves is
a nonsensical phrase. But I guess the main point of language nowadays is
to not offend anyone. I guess if "himself" would offend all female
readers, I could go for "himself or herself."
Gary Eickmeier |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Grammer Genious
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 10:59 pm
Post subject: Re: Pluralization of Pronouns to Avoid Gender |
|
|
Gary Eickmeier <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:dX47f.167182$xl6.102384@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
<...>
| Quote: | On my example, I am wondering how the author would say "We need to hire
someone who can think for himself in order to teach others to think for
themselves."
|
"We need to hire people who can think for themselves in order to teach
others to think for themselves." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gary Eickmeier
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 11:34 pm
Post subject: Re: Pluralization of Pronouns to Avoid Gender |
|
|
The Grammer Genious wrote:
| Quote: | Gary Eickmeier <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:dX47f.167182$xl6.102384@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
...
On my example, I am wondering how the author would say "We need to hire
someone who can think for himself in order to teach others to think for
themselves."
"We need to hire people who can think for themselves in order to teach
others to think for themselves."
|
Nope. We are seeking to hire one person.
Gary Eickmeier |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James Silverton
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 12:00 am
Post subject: Re: Pluralization of Pronouns to Avoid Gender |
|
|
The wrote on Mon, 24 Oct 2005 16:59:09 GMT:
TGG> Gary Eickmeier <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
TGG> news:dX47f.167182$xl6.102384@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
TGG> <...>
??>> On my example, I am wondering how the author would say "We
??>> need to hire someone who can think for himself in order to
??>> teach others to think for themselves."
TGG> "We need to hire people who can think for themselves in
TGG> order to teach others to think for themselves."
I certainly agree that your change to plural form is much better
than any of the previous suggestions. However, the problem of a
non-specific singular pronoun still exists :-)
James Silverton. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard R. Hershberger
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 12:57 am
Post subject: Re: Pluralization of Pronouns to Avoid Gender |
|
|
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
| Quote: | The Grammer Genious wrote:
Gary Eickmeier <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:dX47f.167182$xl6.102384@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
...
On my example, I am wondering how the author would say "We need to hire
someone who can think for himself in order to teach others to think for
themselves."
"We need to hire people who can think for themselves in order to teach
others to think for themselves."
Nope. We are seeking to hire one person.
|
....who might be male or female...
If the first grammatical structure we try persists in not working, it
is time to recast the sentence:
"We need to hire an independant thinker in order to teach others to
think for themselves." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Grammer Genious
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 1:20 am
Post subject: Re: Pluralization of Pronouns to Avoid Gender |
|
|
Gary Eickmeier <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote
| Quote: | "We need to hire people who can think for themselves in order to teach
others to think for themselves."
Nope. We are seeking to hire one person.
|
It doesn't matter how many you end up hiring. It will work fine anyway.
Don't prolong your language dilemma just for the sake of prolonging it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Grammer Genious
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 1:24 am
Post subject: Re: Pluralization of Pronouns to Avoid Gender |
|
|
James Silverton <not.jim.silverton.at.comcast.net> wrote
| Quote: | ...
I certainly agree that your change to plural form is much better
than any of the previous suggestions. However, the problem of a
non-specific singular pronoun still exists 
|
It's not a problem, it's a feature. :-)
A Russian teacher once remarked to me that "you English speakers" are lucky
because when a wife asks a husband where he's been, he can honestly reply
"With a neighbor," without revealing the neighbor's sex.
Every language has features that can be employed to the user's advantage. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in