|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
I think it is common practice and anyone who thinks otherwise can take their marbles and go home.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 872
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 872 |
Uh...I know a personal pronoun that doesn't indicate gender Lander, but I hesitate to reveal it. The south-american tribe that began using it is no longer extant. It seems that, contrary to our popular understanding, sexual interest must be constantly reinforced in order to insure sexual union. These Indians, not having movies and TV, like all of us, needed constant redirectment as to which kind they should pursue, and so when their language failed them, they lost interest in sex and thereby went extinct. 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.  Welcome Lander, good luck with your campaign. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 2,661
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 2,661 |
I think it is common practice and anyone who thinks otherwise can take their marbles and go home.
"A culture of one is just as valuable as a culture of one million" - That *person
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400 |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467 |
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
TEd
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 2,661
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 2,661 |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 320
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 320 |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981 |
>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.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,027
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,027 |
"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 ??
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981 |
>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
|
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics13,913
Posts229,328
Members9,182
| |
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
|
|
|
0 members (),
721
guests, and
0
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
