| Author |
Message |
Gary Eickmeier
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 1:50 am
Post subject: Re: Pluralization of Pronouns to Avoid Gender |
|
|
The Grammer Genious wrote:
| Quote: | Gary Eickmeier <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote
"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.
|
This is a language usage discussion group. I'm just reacting as long as
people seem interested in the point at hand. The idea is, the language
is not serving us if we cannot say a certain thought or make a certain
point or request. If we are deprived of a singular pronoun, there are
certain things we just can't communicate. True, we can think of
workarounds, but it's a shame we have the problem in the first place.
Gary Eickmeier
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
The Grammer Genious
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 7:01 am
Post subject: Re: Pluralization of Pronouns to Avoid Gender |
|
|
Gary Eickmeier <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote>
| Quote: | The Grammer Genious wrote:
Gary Eickmeier <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote
"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.
This is a language usage discussion group. I'm just reacting as long as
people seem interested in the point at hand. The idea is, the language
is not serving us if we cannot say a certain thought or make a certain
point or request. If we are deprived of a singular pronoun, there are
certain things we just can't communicate. True, we can think of
workarounds, but it's a shame we have the problem in the first place.
|
Just about every single thing you say or write in English is a problem
demanding a workaround. English has lost its subjunctive, so we must work
around the problem by stacking up modals in an imitation of the subjunctive.
English has no grammatical gender, so we must work around that problem by
using explicit nouns where other languages can use plain pronouns. English
has no robust verb conjugations, so we work around the problem by inserting
thousands of little pronoun words in our speech and writing. English lacks a
natural subordination system in its syntax, so we work around the problem by
inserting little commas and semicolons in the text.
Singular "they" is a centuries-old part of standard English. It's true that
today it strikes many as awkward. But awkwardness is eliminated by
rewriting. The fact is, employing the real plural in place of singular
"they" often makes the "problem" go away. Ta daahh!
It's true that language is not serving us if we cannot say a certain thought
or make a certain point or request, but no natural language prevents its
speakers from doing any of that. You simply find a way to do it outside of
the mental rut you have made for yourself.
But I know what you mean. Making a sore disappear spoils the fun of picking
the scab. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gary Eickmeier
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 7:43 pm
Post subject: Re: Pluralization of Pronouns to Avoid Gender |
|
|
The Grammer Genious wrote:
| Quote: | Just about every single thing you say or write in English is a problem
demanding a workaround. English has lost its subjunctive, so we must work
around the problem by stacking up modals in an imitation of the subjunctive.
English has no grammatical gender, so we must work around that problem by
using explicit nouns where other languages can use plain pronouns. English
has no robust verb conjugations, so we work around the problem by inserting
thousands of little pronoun words in our speech and writing. English lacks a
natural subordination system in its syntax, so we work around the problem by
inserting little commas and semicolons in the text.
Singular "they" is a centuries-old part of standard English. It's true that
today it strikes many as awkward. But awkwardness is eliminated by
rewriting. The fact is, employing the real plural in place of singular
"they" often makes the "problem" go away. Ta daahh!
It's true that language is not serving us if we cannot say a certain thought
or make a certain point or request, but no natural language prevents its
speakers from doing any of that. You simply find a way to do it outside of
the mental rut you have made for yourself.
But I know what you mean. Making a sore disappear spoils the fun of picking
the scab.
|
You make some interesting points. I just object when the PC crowd begins
taking the language from us, or when ignorance of proper usage begins
taking case from us. But I question some of your described language
losses. We have no subjunctive any more? If that were true, I wouldn't
be able to write this sentence. No gender? What are you talking about?
With pronouns we do. No conjugations?
But it really strikes me odd when you say the singular "they" is a
centuries old part of English. I am just 61, not even one century, and I
have not used it. I thought it came in with the PC movement, people
being offended by leaving women out. I was taught that when a pronoun
can refer to either sex, you can use the masculine form as a convention,
because you need to retain the number correctly, and it is clumsy to
keep repeating "he or she."
I guess the bottom line is which way communicates better to more people.
Thirty years ago I would have said
"We need to hire someone who can think for himself"
Today, if we think women will be offended by that form, what do we use?
In my most creative solutions, I can't think of anything better than
"We need to hire someone who can think for himself or herself"
because the convention of "himself" referring to either sex has been
taken from us.
OK, I've had my say now. Thank you for your attention. I understand if
you are tired of this topic.
GAry Eickmeier
Himself in person
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Grammer Genious
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 4:27 am
Post subject: Re: Pluralization of Pronouns to Avoid Gender |
|
|
Gary Eickmeier <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote
| Quote: | You make some interesting points. I just object when the PC crowd begins
taking the language from us, <...
|
If you think singular "they" originated with PC, you're mistaken.
| Quote: | ...> We have no subjunctive any more? If that were true, I wouldn't
be able to write this sentence.
|
Your "shouldn't" is an example of the modals that have taken the place of
English's former but now moribund subjunctive. Those modals aren't even
artifacts; they're substitutes. If you want to see real subjunctive at work,
go look at German or French or Spanish.
| Quote: | ...> No gender? What are you talking about?
With pronouns we do. <...
|
Nope. Third person singular pronoun choice is governed by sex reference, not
gender. Grammatical gender disappeared from English centuries ago.
| Quote: | ...> No conjugations?
|
If you want to say "I walk You walk He walks" etc. is a conjugation because
there is still that brave little "s" on the 3d person singular, then, ok. We
still have conjugations. And there is still a Bering Straits land bridge.
Except it is a little bit below the water line, is all.
| Quote: | But it really strikes me odd when you say the singular "they" is a
centuries old part of English. I am just 61, not even one century, and I
have not used it. I thought it came in with the PC movement, people
being offended by leaving women out. <...
|
A common misconception. It has nothing to do with gender, except when
artificially so applied in very recent times. For the remarkable age of
singular "they" I refer you to the wikipedia article and its links at the
bottom (especially the entertaining Jane Austen stuff):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they
You might start with Philippians 2:3, in the King James Bible:
"Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind
let each esteem other better than themselves." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Grammer Genious
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 4:35 am
Post subject: Re: Pluralization of Pronouns to Avoid Gender |
|
|
Just after writing my previous posting, guess what I came across?
"Dinner At Eight" (MGM, 1933) was on the DVD machine. Jean Harlow, playing
the slatternly trophy wife of crook financier Wallace Beery, yells at him:
"Ya never send me anything! When I want flowers, I gotta go out and buy 'em!
What woman wants to buy theirselves flowers?!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robert Lieblich
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 4:50 am
Post subject: Re: Pluralization of Pronouns to Avoid Gender |
|
|
The Grammer Genious wrote:
| Quote: |
Just after writing my previous posting, guess what I came across?
"Dinner At Eight" (MGM, 1933) was on the DVD machine. Jean Harlow, playing
the slatternly trophy wife of crook financier Wallace Beery, yells at him:
"Ya never send me anything! When I want flowers, I gotta go out and buy 'em!
What woman wants to buy theirselves flowers?!"
|
Big Deal! Surely you don't expect us to base our English usage on
that of slatterns.
Good to see you back, John Smith. Checked out AUE yet?
--
Bob Lieblich
Occasional idiom savant |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Raymond S. Wise
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 7:08 am
Post subject: Re: Pluralization of Pronouns to Avoid Gender |
|
|
The Grammer Genious wrote:
| Quote: | Gary Eickmeier <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote
You make some interesting points. I just object when the PC crowd begins
taking the language from us, <...
If you think singular "they" originated with PC, you're mistaken.
...> We have no subjunctive any more? If that were true, I wouldn't
be able to write this sentence.
Your "shouldn't" is an example of the modals that have taken the place of
English's former but now moribund subjunctive. Those modals aren't even
artifacts; they're substitutes. If you want to see real subjunctive at work,
go look at German or French or Spanish.
|
Perhaps Gary had in mind the "were"-subjunctive he used.
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gary Eickmeier
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 7:37 pm
Post subject: Re: Pluralization of Pronouns to Avoid Gender |
|
|
Raymond S. Wise wrote:
| Quote: | The Grammer Genious wrote:
...> We have no subjunctive any more? If that were true, I wouldn't
be able to write this sentence.
Your "shouldn't" is an example of the modals that have taken the place of
English's former but now moribund subjunctive. Those modals aren't even
artifacts; they're substitutes. If you want to see real subjunctive at work,
go look at German or French or Spanish.
Perhaps Gary had in mind the "were"-subjunctive he used.
|
Yes, thanks. I thought I had that right! There wasn't even a "shouldn't"
in my sentence!
Gary Eickmeier |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gary Eickmeier
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 8:04 pm
Post subject: Re: Pluralization of Pronouns to Avoid Gender |
|
|
The Grammer Genious wrote:
| Quote: | Gary Eickmeier <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote
...> No gender? What are you talking about?
With pronouns we do. <...
Nope. Third person singular pronoun choice is governed by sex reference, not
gender. Grammatical gender disappeared from English centuries ago.
|
Sex reference in grammar is called gender. Without it we would have no
way of identifying the referrant as male or female.
| Quote: |
...> No conjugations?
If you want to say "I walk You walk He walks" etc. is a conjugation because
there is still that brave little "s" on the 3d person singular, then, ok. We
still have conjugations. And there is still a Bering Straits land bridge.
Except it is a little bit below the water line, is all.
|
Sometimes the verb form is more variable than others, but we still have
the principle of conjugating verbs. Helps us communicate.
| Quote: |
But it really strikes me odd when you say the singular "they" is a
centuries old part of English. I am just 61, not even one century, and I
have not used it. I thought it came in with the PC movement, people
being offended by leaving women out. <...
A common misconception. It has nothing to do with gender, except when
artificially so applied in very recent times. For the remarkable age of
singular "they" I refer you to the wikipedia article and its links at the
bottom (especially the entertaining Jane Austen stuff):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they
You might start with Philippians 2:3, in the King James Bible:
"Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind
let each esteem other better than themselves."
|
I don't really agree with using printed passages as proof of the
correctness of a grammatical usage. Especially someone's translation of
a bible passage. Your quote above doesn't even make sense.
In your hyperlink above, most of the quoted passages used referrants
which were of indeterminate number, not sex. It even said that the
modern usage of the singular "they" for wiping out sexual difference is
controversial. Count me as one of the conservatives, but I claim beyond
my unwillingness to change, that this usage changes the meaning of
sentences or diminishes our ability to communicate what we want. Take
the last example they used: "No mother should be forced to testify
against their child." This has a completely different meaning from "No
mother should be forced to testify against her child." "Their child"?
Who are the "they" being referred to?
"There is a juvenile delinquent down the street who got himself into a
whole lot of trouble. The couple who raised him have problems of their
own, being scruffy rednecks with no character to speak of. We have all
been vandalized by the child, and we have no sympathy for the parents,
but no mother should be forced to testify against their child."
I rest my case.
GAry Eickmeier |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard R. Hershberger
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:45 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
...> No gender? What are you talking about?
With pronouns we do. <...
Nope. Third person singular pronoun choice is governed by sex reference, not
gender. Grammatical gender disappeared from English centuries ago.
Sex reference in grammar is called gender. Without it we would have no
way of identifying the referrant as male or female.
|
If, however, you go back one generation earlier than the quoting goes,
you will find that he originally wrote "grammatical gender", not merely
"gender". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gary Eickmeier
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 27, 2005 12:15 am
Post subject: Re: Pluralization of Pronouns to Avoid Gender |
|
|
Richard R. Hershberger wrote:
| Quote: | If, however, you go back one generation earlier than the quoting goes,
you will find that he originally wrote "grammatical gender", not merely
"gender".
|
Isn't that what we are all talking about - grammatical gender? OK, most
English nouns do not have a gender, as do our pronouns. But I fail to
see the enhancement of identifying the gender of a table.
Gary Eickmeier |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robert Lieblich
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 27, 2005 4:07 am
Post subject: Re: Pluralization of Pronouns to Avoid Gender |
|
|
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
| Quote: |
Richard R. Hershberger wrote:
If, however, you go back one generation earlier than the quoting goes,
you will find that he originally wrote "grammatical gender", not merely
"gender".
Isn't that what we are all talking about - grammatical gender? OK, most
English nouns do not have a gender, as do our pronouns. But I fail to
see the enhancement of identifying the gender of a table.
|
I didn't detect anyone arguing that English needs grammatical gender,
and I personally am happy to leave it to other languages. The point
was only that grammatical gender is a meaningless concept in English
syntax, hence what is called gender" in English, as for example in
discussing third person pronouns, is more precisely described as "sex"
and should be so labeled.
I assume that by "referrant" in an earlier post you meant "referent."
--
Bob Lieblich
Of the male sex but lacking in grammatical gender |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gary Eickmeier
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 27, 2005 5:48 am
Post subject: Re: Pluralization of Pronouns to Avoid Gender |
|
|
Robert Lieblich wrote:
| Quote: | I didn't detect anyone arguing that English needs grammatical gender,
and I personally am happy to leave it to other languages. The point
was only that grammatical gender is a meaningless concept in English
syntax, hence what is called gender" in English, as for example in
discussing third person pronouns, is more precisely described as "sex"
and should be so labeled.
I assume that by "referrant" in an earlier post you meant "referent."
|
Woops.
But on the gender question, I thought the usual line was we talk of sex
when referring to people, gender when referring to grammatical usage.
Gary Eickmeier |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard R. Hershberger
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 27, 2005 11:04 pm
Post subject: Re: Pluralization of Pronouns to Avoid Gender |
|
|
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
| Quote: | Richard R. Hershberger wrote:
If, however, you go back one generation earlier than the quoting goes,
you will find that he originally wrote "grammatical gender", not merely
"gender".
Isn't that what we are all talking about - grammatical gender?
|
Your definition may vary, but as I understand and use the term,
grammatical gender is the property of nouns having gender apart from
sex. If only actual females are feminine and actual males are
masculine and everything else is, well, everything else, then that is
natural gender[1]. Throw in various gender agreement rules and you
have a full blown grammatical gender system. English has natural
gender and only requires agreement with personal pronouns: a
qualitative difference from Latin or Old English.
Richard R. Hershberger
[1] The situation in English is only slightly muddled by the handful of
poetic conventions such as calling boats "she". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gary Eickmeier
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 7:01 am
Post subject: Re: Pluralization of Pronouns to Avoid Gender |
|
|
Richard R. Hershberger wrote:
| Quote: | Gary Eickmeier wrote:
Richard R. Hershberger wrote:
If, however, you go back one generation earlier than the quoting goes,
you will find that he originally wrote "grammatical gender", not merely
"gender".
Isn't that what we are all talking about - grammatical gender?
Your definition may vary, but as I understand and use the term,
grammatical gender is the property of nouns having gender apart from
sex. If only actual females are feminine and actual males are
masculine and everything else is, well, everything else, then that is
natural gender[1]. Throw in various gender agreement rules and you
have a full blown grammatical gender system. English has natural
gender and only requires agreement with personal pronouns: a
qualitative difference from Latin or Old English.
Richard R. Hershberger
[1] The situation in English is only slightly muddled by the handful of
poetic conventions such as calling boats "she".
|
Interesting - I see what you mean now.
Gary Eickmeier |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in