re: Besides I hold the belief that words should not be manufactured, they should be allowed to spring freely and full blown from the collective mind of their originating culture.

Milo here is demonstrating how wonderfull both he and english are constitantly inconstistant! or maybe he is claiming to be the voice of the collective mind of our culture... yes, that could be it..

but at least he doesn't agrue that he, or his, or him, or any of the other masculine pronouns are also gender neutral-- something that is rather consistantly done, but it never true.

in english language culture, he is masculine, and to say it is also neutral is a lie.

evenually, we might evolve a new word, (them/they is on its way) but until then, we have a gender bias in english.

Helen:

Every citizen should pay his taxes. Every citizen should pay her taxes. Every citizen should pay his or her taxes.

For many years (probably several centuries) it has been accepted practice to include his and her in the construction of his in the first sentence above. Now you are saying that is a "lie" or "a false statement purposely put forward as the truth: falsehood."

If I [bold]define[/bold] "he" as including "he and she" when the context requires it and "his" as "including his and her(s): when the context requires it, then it is not a lie to infer that he "is" neutral when we define it to be neutral.

Personally i don't care a fig whether we use she and her(s) but I will not use the abomination: "It is the duty of every citizen to pay his or her taxes."

Why do you call it a lie?

TEd, who is not trying to be argumentative, but simply trying to understand

Every citizen should pay their taxes, which, in turn, buys them the right to be tax-paying citizens.

Singular (or not) it resolves thy need (real or not). From what I've heard, this ain't the first time we've experienced words being revived. They just need a little hot air.

Maybe I'm just too old and cranky, but I could never use they, their or them as a singular pronoun. And as for the he or she or he/she construction, that can force us into abominations such as: "If he or she doesn't pay his or her taxes, the IRS will come after him or her." PC or no PC, I have to go with the masculine forms continuing to be used when gender is irrelevant, as has been the tradition. I wouldn't care if someone used the feminine pronouns instead. I've noticed that some high-school textbooks have made a point of alternating from chapter to chapter. Maybe a bit labored, but no real harm done.

>Every citizen should pay their taxes, which, in turn, buys them the right to be tax-paying citizens.

I have no problem whatsoever in reading this sentence. It might just be a way of thinking that is different, for those who have problems with this approach. In my case, it is just how I think about people. I find alternatives, such as the use of "he/she" very irritating (it slows down the pace of reading). Alternating uses of “he” and “she” sound highly contrived to me and sometimes make it difficult to follow the thread of what is being said.

I remember once trying say to a woman that I met on a journey that her baby was very beautiful. I suddenly realised that it was difficult in normal conversation to say very much without making an assumption (possibly incorrect) about the sex of the baby or having to ask a question. A question, in itself, might imply that I was having difficulty assessing the gender of the baby. To some, that would be seen as a kind of insult - believe me, I have heard it said. In the end, I got it in the neck because the mother of the baby replied that the baby was not beautiful, he was handsome. I have never been able to think of a baby as handsome, although I'm happy to think that one day her son would be handsome. I can't be bothered saying pleasant things about babies any more - I'll only get it wrong.

In our society where we still ritually exclude people, when I read, "The President of the United States is an important position, he carries responsibility ...." I tend to assume that "he" means "he" until it is proven beyond reasonable doubt not to be the case. That is the problem with our language.

"The President of the United States..he carries.. "he" means "he"
My feeling has always been: if we try to achieve equality by starting from the language angle, we are putting the cart before the horse, and no progress will be achieved. Who knows, if equality was achieved, would there still be a need for presidents- male, female or neuter??

>if we try to achieve equality by starting from the language angle

Agreed, but we're not "starting" from the language angle, it just re-inforces the way society used to be at every turn.

On the other hand, of course, if a country were to allow a female leader to get in then they could have their own Maggie Thatcher. http://politics.guardian.co.uk/redbox/story/0,9029,748940,00.html

Mostly babies seem to get called it, at least around this part of the world and I can't imagine a reasonable mother* objecting to anyone calling her baby beautiful.

The president example is a little narrow; we've never had a female president. How'd y'all handle that in Ireland, Rube? Or anyone know from Iceland? How do they do it when talking about their president?

*Is that an oxymoron?

Every citizen should pay their taxes, which, in turn, buys them the right to be tax-paying citizens

I'd go for this kind of construction, where appropriate. Sometimes sounds a bit stilted (in fact it does here), but I can live with that.

Mind you, with just a little thought you can usually re-work PC sentences into something slightly more palatable:

"Every citizen should pay taxes, which, in turn, buys them the right to be called a tax-paying citizen"

Since the wording is "...THEIR taxes.." I guess the speaker is referring to direct taxation. Not every citizen is liable to direct taxation, due to very low income perhaps, which means that "Every citizen should pay taxes..." is too sweeping.

Doing a Faldage



Here, have my place, David. I'm off to the back of the queue!

have my place, David

The torch has been passed, shona. It's now officially doing a Juan

The torch has been passed

That's as may be, nunclage, but I've bagsied a place on that big comfy couch right at the back of the line

And if you don't want second place, dxb is, I think, a most worthy understudy to the Juan.

a most worthy understudy

That'd be up to Juan. I'm retired.

Here, now, what's all this faldagery going on with my good "name"? It's all very clear as cited in the dictionary section of the Ithaca Encyclopedia of Nit. You can't retire from, or relinquish, an inherent power, Faldage...you ARE, now and forevermore, the Nit King! O fearsome King of Nit, I bow before, and light years away from, your fearsome and omnipotent powers. Shona and me merely jesters and/or pages in your esteemed court...and that's all we can ever hope to be. Now here's the dictionary citation for all to see:

faldage: n. (origin: "a Cubs fan in New York" ) : 1. a miniscule, and sometimes presumptuous, dissection of formulas, phrases, historical facts, and any data in general, but usually directed at linguistic discussions.( ~he's a real faldage when it comes to picking nits!) 2. nit-knacker; nit-knackery; nit-knacking 3. v. to nit-knack; demonstrating a knack for picking nits ( ~he faldaged all through that citation!)

Forgive me for derailing Won and Faldage's twaddle and getting back on the track of this interesting thread.

It seems that this love of things PC, which above all seems to catch the attention of TV people, is getting so out of hand that no one wants to use a gender-specific word even when it's justified. Several times in the last month or so, I have heard TV announcers use "their" when referring to members of a group composed entirely of mothers, female lawyers, male prison inmates, etc.

you ARE, now and forevermore, the Nit King!

As is the line between insanity and genius, that between nitpickery and conceptual detection is exceeding thin.

...is too sweeping.

Who says there's anything wrong with picking nits? Conceptual detection, on the other hand...

------------------

Who knows, if equality was achieved, would there still be a need for presidents- male, female or neuter??

But... but... but... we ARE equal, which, of course, explains why, no matter *whom is in office, nobody "can't get no - satisfaction".

As is the line between insanity and genius, that between nitpickery and conceptual detection is exceeding thin.

Granted, good sir. But just remember the old adage:

You can't have your nit, and pick it too!

And, Boby...you mean shona is exempt from twaddling!

(and just to show that I'm a worthy apprentice, Faldage, Sire...exceedingly).

...exceedingly).

...but Juan, that changes the whole *meaning of the sentence.

lander, I too have often wished for a nongendered set of pronouns. I don't like to use the plural pronouns as substitutes when they are being used to signify a singular; I don't like the awkwardness of the he-or-she construction; I don't like the default of the singular masculine pronoun when the noun might be feminine, although I use it for lack of an alternative.

I have mentally substituted "che" for "he or she". It seems like one could similarly tweek him-or-her, his-or-hers. Herm and hez?

Good luck.

changes the whole *meaning

Thank you, musick. You've given me a whole new understanding of the phrase passing strange. I stick by my usage.

It is only in writing that it really shows up, though.
I regularly talk to students about how they should deal with their tutors, and how they should consider who is the author of the bookk they are reading (this, in study skill classes), As both authors and tutors come in any possible variety of genders, I regularly refer to he-or-she, him-or-her-, his-or-hers in my lectures and never see any adversxe reaction from my audience (and this is often in groups as small as six or eight, where body-language feedback is very apparent.)

However, I do agree that in written language, it is obtrusive, if so written. As shona says, a little thought will permit you to write these things in reasonably smooth English, most of the time.

And there was a practice adopted for awhile, and still in use by some non-fiction authors, to use he/him and she/her intermittently in whole sections of the text, pointing this out to the reader in the prologue as being done in "the interests of fairness". But this practice always seemed awkward and heavy-handed to me. Now, it seems, this gender-doubling of pronouns has largely faded from use.


And BTW...third person or third perdaughter?

I agree with Rhuby and the moll from Michigan that the awkwardness caused by a lack of non-specific pronouns is most apparent in writing. Well, when you're trying to be PC, that is. When I was lecturing I tried a number of approaches. The one I found worked the best for me was to spread it 50/50 between "his" and "her".

...you mean shona is exempt from twaddling!

But of course, Juanage. I never get sidetracked or veer away from the thread's true purpose, especially in Q&A [innocence]

I'm a North-going Zax, make North-going tracks..

Well.. It's a fair cop. Cuff me, Danno.


As a form of atonement, please allow me to promote the Spartan use of invented PC terms for 3rd-person singular. Let's have a little competition.

I agree that there is a substantial biological and cultural dimension to this. It would seem that in all language groups, distinguishing between male and female when referring to persons is important, if not critical.

As to manufactured words, I guess we'll have to take Shakespeare to task... eponymous unum =;-]

The one I found worked the best for me was to spread it 50/50 between "his" and "her".


I like this approach and have tried it previously, but it leaves me unsatisfied. What I now do is alternate not between successive references, but between chapters or sections. For a single piece, I seldom alternate, but will usually stick with whatever reference I first use.


k

English speakers shouldn’t be complaining, really. at least you don't have an indication of the gender in verbs. In Russian you can easily tell the gender if a verb is in Past tense. I always got trapped by it in chats when I don't want people to know my gender - sooner or later I say: I did feminine

It would seem that in all language groups, distinguishing between male and female when referring to persons is important, if not critical.

I guess not all languages do it. In Turkish the third person singular is just one word, used for males, females, or objects. This has caused great confusion for my Turkish friend who's learning English. We constantly argue about whether or not it's terribly useful to know the gender of the person you're referring to by a pronoun (she, of course, argues it's irrelevant). When she's excited and talks fast, she just picks random pronouns, so she'll say sentences like "I was talking to my mother yesterday and he said..." Eventually you get into the habit of filtering this out.

Funny!

What is the Turkish word? Are there subject, object, possessive variations? If used for objects, does that mean its neuter as well?

thanks, Lander

What is the Turkish word?

Ha, well, see, I managed to avoid mentioning it because I've forgotten it, and my Turkish book is at home, and I am at school/work* right now. I think (and please don't quote me on this) the personal pronoun is on. And yes, I recall seeing a table for the different forms (possessive, etc.), and the third person singular was always a single word, never a masculine/femminine form. I think the whole thing is intrinsically neuter. You refer to a table the same way as you refer to your brother. I promise I'll look it up tonight.

BTW, welcome aBoard, lander! (Is it Lander or iander? Switch the cases I used and you'll see they both look the same!) EDIT: I see I'm an idiot, or just blind, because you capitalized it above. D'oh!

* school = work when you are a graduate student

The Turkish word is "o". This designation is also puzzling when you are reading, for example a short story on love. When the characters are addressed as "o" and gender specific details are not given, there is no compulsory heterosexuality and a higher level of abstraction is possible.

Thanks, hatish! Having only a nodding acquaintance with Turkish means that I forget the details very easily. I thought of "o" but then remembered it means "that that" and so managed to confuse myself.

(However, I can sing a Turkish children's song about a little frog if anyone would care to listen...)

sing a Turkish children's song about a little frog

Oh, please do.

The Scandinavian languages in general (Icelandic is an exception) have conflated masculine and feminine into the animate gender but this conflation seems to have bypassed the personal pronouns.

why do people on the board put words into white (so that they can barely be read)? and what does the * mean?

Highlight the white words and they're easy to read (with most browsers). We do it for several reasons. It might be because we are hiding the words from all but a select group or it might be because we feel the content is something that some among us would not like staring them in the face. Sometimes it is because it is something that is not the main thrust of what we are trying to say and we don't want it to distract from the main message. In this last, it is something of a step beyond parenthetical. The star *before a word indicates emphasis but less emphasis than stars *around* a word. The latter isn't used much on this board; we usually bold or italicize. Italicizing is more normally used when we wish a word to be considered as the word itself and not to indicate the meaning behind the word.

Got that?

If so, I'll try to explain it again

This from a friend who speaks Mandarin.

The HE, SHE pronouns are written differently, but said the same. Verbally, no one can tell the difference.
The word is pronounced "ta". It means he, she and it. It is it's own possessive, objective and subjective variations. All of those tenses are other words added later in a sentence. It works.

As an aside, the way that the mandarin "we/us" is pronounced is "woman".

Didn't James Thurber write a book "The Wonderful O" ?

And halfway through the letter o disappears from the alphabet, so that "Ophelia Oliver couldn't go out of doors..."

A quick google search reveals that it was even made into a musical! http://alt.venus.co.uk/weed/music/salliterri/wondero.htm...never knew that, but somehow the cynic in me suspects that the book was better)