my latest windmill to tilt at
Dec. 4th, 2003 08:45 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
roneEnglish already has perfectly useful gender-neutral pronouns: it, its. Use them. Do not use they, them for singular objects. Do not use the abhorrent, artificial 'hir', 'zie', 'blim', 'gur', or whatever. Yes, people can be called 'it'. Deal with it.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Cervantes has abandoned you
Date: 2003-12-05 10:26 am (UTC)Going to the usual suspects, we see disagreement among noted grammarians. The more definitive Gregg Reference Manual (William A. Sabin) extorts writers to avoid the issue by rewording sentences. For example:
Parents of teenage children often wonder where they went wrong. instead of
The parent of a teenage child often wonders where he or she went wrong.
In cases where it is not a good idea to reword the sentence, Gregg recommends the he or she and him or her construction, but adamantly says to avoid he/she and s/he constructions.
I think Gregg knows that its recommendations are awkward and not going to stand.
Which brings me to Richard Lederer and Richard Dowis:
"A doctor must respect his or her patients" seems innocuous enough, but a little his or her can go too far. The true zealot continues with "A doctor must respect his or her patients if he or she wants them to respect him or her."
... The problem didn't begin with the feminist movement. It has been recognized, and solutions sought for it, since at least the nineteenth century. One suggested neutral pronoun, thon, never caught on, but it remained in some dictionaries until the 1950s. Other rejected suggestions include co, E, mon, heesh, na, hir, and pa. One university press published a book using hir.
We strongly recommend against using the ungainly him/her, himself/herself, and the nonwords theirself and themself. The following appeared in a telephone company booklet on handling obscene calls: "Hang up if the caller doesn't say anything ... or if the caller doesn't identify themself."
We are dubious also about the merit of alternating the masculine and feminine pronouns, a device we have seen from time to time. This device is too contrived. We want readers to enjoy what we write, not to be concerned with whether one sex gets more mentions than the other.
... Is there a natural solution? When the reference is clearly to more than one person, perhaps the most natural solution is to toos traditional grammar out the window and use they, them, or their when you need a singular, genderless pronoun or pronominal adjective. They, "Everyone must do his own work" becomes "Everyone must do their own work." Purists may become apoplectic upon reading this, but the construction is almost universal in educated speech and increasingly common in writing. For some years now, we have been seeing it in well-edited publications such as the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. Moreover, the sense of everyone (read, "all people") is plural even though the word is technically similar.
Lederer and Dowis continue by explaining how everyone works as a singular and discusses idioms. They wrap up by saying that they have reservations about they constructions in formal writing, but not in informal speech and writing. They caution against stupidity as when Oprah Winfrey said, "One question a mother should ask a baby-sitter when they leave them with their child ..." as though the presence of "mother" does not allow us to assume that a feminine gender pronoun is appropriate (i.e., " ... when she leaves them with her child ... ").
In formal writing, they echo Gregg -- restructure the sentence if possible to avoid the situation.
Even the all-inclusive Chicago Manual of Style does not permit it and its for he and she, though it permits pretty much any grammatical monstrosity. (Not a slam on Chicago -- its goal is to be comprehensive rather than definitive)
Re: Cervantes has abandoned you
Date: 2003-12-05 10:30 am (UTC)Sabin, William A., The Gregg Reference Manual, ninth ed., Glencoe/McGraw-Hill, 2001.
Lederer, Richard and Dowis, Richard, Sleeping Dogs Don't Lay, St. Martin's Press, New York, 1999.
Re: Cervantes has abandoned you
Date: 2003-12-05 01:17 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-12-05 02:07 pm (UTC)I still have that calendar for you. Where's mah wine!
no subject
Date: 2003-12-05 02:31 pm (UTC)For some arbitrary values of 'educated'.
For some years now, we have been seeing it in well-edited publications such as the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal.
Then they're not well-edited publications. QED.
Moreover, the sense of everyone (read, "all people") is plural even though the word is technically similar.
This makes me want to die. There's a subtle but important difference between 'everyone' and 'all people', at least in my brane. In the same way that there's a less-subtle difference between 'many' and 'much'. I will never agree that it's all right to say, "Twelve items or less." Just because Stop & Shop prints it on a sign doesn't make it right.
What happens when, as
You're making baby William Safire cry!
no subject
Date: 2003-12-05 05:12 pm (UTC)There should be a Godwin's law for QED usage on the net.
Not only are these standards for well-edited publications, but authors such as Jane Austen, Jonathan Swift, George Orwell, and a ton others do the same.
A survey of classics finds 75 different widely regarded authors use the they/their construction to no ill effect of their status as authors.
The summarized list is here. (http://www.languagehat.com/archives/000421.php)
Examples and discussion from Jane Austen's work are here. (http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/austheir.html)
I would regret that George Bernard Shaw isn't here to defend himself against your claim that to use the they/their construction is at least to be poorly edited, and perhaps even to use an arbitrary value of "educated", but I don't he would care much.
no subject
Date: 2003-12-05 05:48 pm (UTC)A survey of classics finds 75 different widely regarded authors use the they/their construction to no ill effect of their status as authors.
Sure. But I wouldn't hire 'em as editors.
I also consider George Bernard Shaw primarily a playwright...and rarely an editor.
Hey, no one's going to change my mind that written English has become a morass, lacking precision and elegance, precisely because writers of some renown have bastardized usage for their own purposes.
Next up, VERBING NOUNS!