|
|
Post by mrodigga on Jun 3, 2011 10:26:43 GMT -5
Maybe I'm just hyper aware of this because of my involvement in the GLBT community, but the English language is definitely lacking in a gender-neutral singular pronoun, and at times, it could really use one. Attempts to introduce one (e.g. "zhe") have often floundered, so some have settled on using "they" as a gender-neutral singular pronoun. How do you feel about it? Are you okay with it, or does it offend your grammarian sensibilities?
|
|
|
|
Post by Olive on Jun 3, 2011 10:50:13 GMT -5
Maybe I'm just hyper aware of this because of my involvement in the GLBT community, but the English language is definitely lacking in a gender-neutral singular pronoun, and at times, it could really use one. Attempts to introduce one (e.g. "zhe") have often floundered, so some have settled on using "they" as a gender-neutral singular pronoun. How do you feel about it? Are you okay with it, or does it offend your grammarian sensibilities? I'm all for "they" as a gender neutral singular. It really is necessary at this point in time, and as you mentioned, the other attempts to create one have failed. Also: This is really minor, but I notice that you say "GLBT," while I've always stuck with "LGBT." I wonder what this says about our own identifications... if anything. I'm probably reading too far into it. |
|
|
|
Post by onlyaworkingtitle on Jun 3, 2011 14:22:42 GMT -5
I hate "singular" they. Hate it. So much.
I think the "floundering" of ze/hir in place of she/he and his/her depends on where you are, too -- it's widely used at my alma mater, so I have to assume there are other pockets where it's commonplace -- and I think it really has to catch on. We need an alternative to the overly-formal "one" or the completely incorrect usage of "they."
Until then, if I overhear anyone using "they" as a singular pronoun, I will ask if the person ze is referring to has multiple personality disorder (and use the opportunity to introduce hir to the preferable alternative).
|
|
|
|
Post by mrodigga on Jun 3, 2011 14:26:16 GMT -5
Also: This is really minor, but I notice that you say "GLBT," while I've always stuck with "LGBT." I wonder what this says about our own identifications... if anything. I'm probably reading too far into it. It's just the way I have always heard it. I stick with it--rather than switching to LGBT--because "gay" is used more often to label female homosexuals than "lesbian" is used to label male homosexuals, I think it makes sense to start the acronym with the label that's more widely used. |
|
rayyychul
Armadillo
On ne voit bien qu'avec le c?ur. L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux.
Posts: 159
|
Post by rayyychul on Jun 3, 2011 18:18:30 GMT -5
The English language is always evolving. Words mean things today that they did not mean 10, 15, 20 years ago, and I see "they" as one of those words. The English language is lacking a universal a gender-neutral, singular pronoun. Until "zir," "hir," "zhe," etc. can merge their way into one's everyday vocabulary, I see no problem using "they" in their place.
I'd rather use "they" and make someone's inner-grammar stickler cringe a little than use a gendered pronoun and deeply offend someone.
|
|
|
|
Post by embonpoint on Jun 3, 2011 18:42:38 GMT -5
I think it makes a lot more sense to 'modify' usage of a common word (although, is it really modifying? A lot of arguments in favour of the singular "they" point to many examples from many hundreds of years ago where singular "they" has not just been used, but been used 'correctly' and acceptably) than to try to introduce completely new ones - particularly when there's no agreement on which words to introduce.
I have absolutely no problem with the singular "they". I actually find it kind of strange that it's an issue; I just... don't get the fuss.
|
|
Katherine
Armadillo Pup
From the moment you begin breathing you start dying too.
Posts: 44
|
Post by Katherine on Jun 4, 2011 12:38:32 GMT -5
Until words like ze can become widely popular (and, sadly, I don't see that happening for a long time. Think of how many people don't like to talk about/acknowledge things like transgenderism, and wonder how ze/hir would be widely used without them ever saying it), I support the singular they. And even after that really, I don't see what the big deal is about it.
|
|
andy
Young Armadillo
Posts: 80
|
Post by andy on Jun 4, 2011 15:02:52 GMT -5
The English language is always evolving. Words mean things today that they did not mean 10, 15, 20 years ago, and I see "they" as one of those words. The English language is lacking a universal a gender-neutral, singular pronoun. Until "zir," "hir," "zhe," etc. can merge their way into one's everyday vocabulary, I see no problem using "they" in their place. I'd rather use "they" and make someone's inner-grammar stickler cringe a little than use a gendered pronoun and deeply offend someone. Contrary to popular belief, 'they' has been used as a singular pronoun since the 15th century. It's not a recent addition to language at all. I don't think we need new pronouns at all, if 'they' was good enough for Shakespeare, it's good enough for me. |
|
|
|
Post by onlyaworkingtitle on Jun 5, 2011 3:19:20 GMT -5
Until words like ze can become widely popular (and, sadly, I don't see that happening for a long time. Think of how many people don't like to talk about/acknowledge things like transgenderism, and wonder how ze/hir would be widely used without them ever saying it), I support the singular they. And even after that really, I don't see what the big deal is about it. The problem with the argument that "ze" isn't widely accepted/understood now, so we'll use "they" until then: the only way to incorporate "ze" into the language is to use it, and use it, and use it, and explain it to people who don't know what it is, and turn the other cheek to homophobic assholes who don't think gender-neutral pronouns are important. And whose job is it to incorporate new vocabulary into a language? It's the writers' job. |
|
andy
Young Armadillo
Posts: 80
|
Post by andy on Jun 6, 2011 4:53:54 GMT -5
Until words like ze can become widely popular (and, sadly, I don't see that happening for a long time. Think of how many people don't like to talk about/acknowledge things like transgenderism, and wonder how ze/hir would be widely used without them ever saying it), I support the singular they. And even after that really, I don't see what the big deal is about it. The problem with the argument that "ze" isn't widely accepted/understood now, so we'll use "they" until then: the only way to incorporate "ze" into the language is to use it, and use it, and use it, and explain it to people who don't know what it is, and turn the other cheek to homophobic assholes who don't think gender-neutral pronouns are important. And whose job is it to incorporate new vocabulary into a language? It's the writers' job. I don't know any major contemporary writers who use 'ze'. On the other hand, in Canada and Belgium feminist groups pushed for the introduction of feminine versions of certain 'job titles' in legislation which later seeped into current use. For example, in Canada and Belgium femme écrivain (woman writer) has been changed to écrivaine (writress) - but these feminised words are not widely used in France despite the (obviously) very frequent cultural exchanges between French-language writers and readers between Francophone countries. So literature isn't necessarily the most efficient way to change language. |
|
|
|
Post by sazisquarepeg on Jun 6, 2011 11:49:49 GMT -5
I have been using 'they' as a singular pronoun for quite a while now. I haven't heard 'ze' or 'hir' used in every day language, and to be honest I find them very uncomfortable to say. Everyone know what you mean when you use 'they' as a singular pronoun, and conversation is meant to be about ease of understanding. In speech, for sure, I don't see this changing for a while, though with the use of the internet 'ze' and 'hir' may rise to common usage.
I also say this coming from the LGBT community, but think it mostly stems from the fact that I talk about people on the internet and often you don't know people's genders in this online world of anonymity!
|
|
Umbvix
Young Armadillo
SCHLURP :B
Posts: 64
|
Post by Umbvix on Jun 8, 2011 11:53:14 GMT -5
Personally, I support it. Sometimes it's difficult to carry on a conversation if, say, you don't know the gender of someone that's been mentioned. It's a bit wordy to say "How is he or she?" and can also come off as offensive if you're meant to know what the person's gender is. Sometimes it's just better for conversation to just say "How are they?" That could also just be me. I live in Indiana, so I've been told I have some hick tendencies when I talk and write. xD
|
|
|
|
Post by pjthefey on Jun 9, 2011 1:31:47 GMT -5
I prefer singular they to some of the wonky new pronouns that have been tossed around. They just sound too exotic for my taste. It is as if the person's gender ambiguity is being put on parade with the language and it's kind of objectifying.
"Ze" is especially annoying, why pick one of the most uncommon letters for words to start with? It could only really be worse with xe or xze.
If you are going to make a new pronoun, I suggest following the established language pattern by utilizing the letters that are already present. he => she => se is one example that could be applied for consistency. Alternately he => she => whe / the / phe or since gender is effectively being eliminated from the equation simply "e" or "ee" if you want to have at least 2 characters.
|
|
Annie Ozone
Young Armadillo
Death of Cars, Reader of Books, Drinker of Booze, and Generally Accident-Prone Lady
Posts: 88
|
Post by Annie Ozone on Jun 13, 2011 0:19:57 GMT -5
Writers who have used the singular "they" and "their": Geoffrey Chaucer, Edmund Spenser, William Shakespeare, the King James Bible, The Spectator, Jonathan Swift, Daniel Defoe, Frances Sheridan, Oliver Goldsmith, Jane Austen, Henry Fielding, Maria Edgeworth, Percy Shelley, Lord Byron, William Makepeace Thackeray, Sir Walter Scott, George Eliot [Mary Anne Evans], Charles Dickens, Mrs. Gaskell, Anthony Trollope, John Ruskin, Robert Louis Stevenson, Walt Whitman, George Bernard Shaw, Lewis Carroll, Oscar Wilde, Rudyard Kipling, H. G. Wells, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Edith Wharton, W. H. Auden, Lord Dunsany, George Orwell, and C. S. Lewis. In conclusion, the singular "they" and "their" have always been correct, the end. (Why yes, I have had this argument many, many times with classmates, thank you for your concern.) Sources: motivatedgrammar.wordpress.com/2009/09/10/singular-they-and-the-many-reasons-why-its-correct/, www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/austheir.html |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2011 5:12:21 GMT -5
I don't have an objection to singular 'they' for the most part, but I occasionally find it awkward to distinguish between a group of people and a gender-undetermined individual (GUI? hehe). I think the reason that people resist its usage despite the rich heritage of the singular 'they' is because it requires verbs to agree as though the subject were plural. Here's an example sentence referring to a GUI: "They are so friendly." Really, it should be "They is so friendly" but because 'they' is usually plural - and the singular usage is a derivation of that - it sounds incorrect. "Ze is so friendly" makes far more sense. It is in this area that I think the language would most benefit from the addition of gender-neutral pronouns; it's not just an LGBTQ issue.
|
|
