There was a fascinating "Thought For the Day" today from a rabbi whose daughter now identified as non-gender and, instead of 'he' or 'she', preferred to be referred to as "they". I have absolutely no problem with that and, obviously, it is up to people how they self-refer. However, "they", "their" and especially "them" seemed to be quite confusing. I couldn't, for the life of me, think of an viable alternative - certainly 'it' isn't - which is possibly why "they/eir/em" was settled upon. Obviously, just using someone's name is the perfect solution but pronouns are needed on occasion.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Non-binary nomenclature.
Collapse
X
-
This is a hot subject, rightly so, and I think the right side is winning. I was writing something about this just the other day regarding my area, music, where it is as you might expect a much-discussed area.
A few observations.
1) We all use "they" as a singular pronoun sometimes, often without realising it. "I'll leave the package here, and when the courier comes tomorrow, they will pick it up." That feels very natural to me and I think most people.
2) English has fudged pronouns before when it comes to singular versus plural etc. There used to be a second person singular pronoun, thou. As time went on, I understand people started to use what was then the second person plural, you, instead, as in certain cases it could be more polite, as it addressed someone as it they were or might be the representative of a wider group: "I have listened to what [all of] you are saying", etc. So, you is now ambiguous, but that happened as people found the ambiguity useful.
3) It can feel a bit awkward having to rewrite articles using various different terms their, them, etc. But most of the time there's some way around it. And I think context in language gets you 90% of the way there 90% of the time without too much problem.
4) Finally and most importantly, the problem some profess to have with the singular pronoun "they" is that it is ambiguous. This misses the crucial point that ambiguity is the very reason some people choose it.
I guess the problem with ze etc is that it is really rare to find words which are essentially invented and go on to be used widely. Most of the time, some other word is used/adapted etc.
Comment
-
- Mar 2008
- 29880
- An oasis in the middle of Somerset
- Bath City FC; Porthcawl RFC;Wales in most things.
- Fig roll - deal with it.
I would have to go through the piece again but there was one sentence where the pronoun sounded clunky (and, I think, confusing if I hadn't realised the subject). I don't think it was "they" or "their" as, as has been mentioned, they (ha) are pretty regularly used anyway as 'singular' It's here, by the way, if you want a listen.
Comment
-
I really dislike the use of 'they/their' in the singular - as has been documented on these fair pages once or twice. In written (and spoken) English, it can cause considerable confusion when not being used in the plural.
As has been covered on that other concurrent thread, new words and phrases are created all the time. Now that non-specific gender has finally been accepted, would it not be beyond the pale to create a gender-neutral pronoun?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jah Womble View PostI really dislike the use of 'they/their' in the singular - as has been documented on these fair pages once or twice. In written (and spoken) English, it can cause considerable confusion when not being used in the plural.
As has been covered on that other concurrent thread, new words and phrases are created all the time. Now that non-specific gender has finally been accepted, would it not be beyond the pale to create a gender-neutral pronoun?
That's right. I don't recognize that. I don't recognize another person's right to decide what words I'm going to use, especially when the words they want me to use, first of all, are non-standard elements of the English language and they are constructs of a small coterie of ideologically motivated people. They might have a point but I'm not going to say their words for them.
I like singular "they" as a pronoun. I remember that I used it a lot as a kid when telling stories especially to adults. I would tend to "my friend" and "they" - which would always prompt demands from the adult that I identify and gender "my friend" - which always seemed weird as that information wasn't relevant to the story and referred to a person they didn't know.
Little reminder that the conventions of binary gender aren't reflective of a natural reality but are coercively applied to us from a young age.
Comment
-
Those are all generics rather than singulars. Each refers either to an unknown number or unknown individuals or both.
English is actually unusually ungendered for a European language. Most have developed where almost everything must be assigned a gender, from a choice of two which English does not have much of and is not so rigid about even when it does. A ship might be 'she' but 'it' also works, etc. Given that, it ought to be one of the easier ones to create a new term reflecting a changed cultural perception.Last edited by Janik; 10-10-2018, 07:29.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Bizarre Löw Triangle View PostBut we use singular "they" all the time without thinking about it.
You're of course correct that ambiguous use of any pronoun can cause confusion ('my aunt told my sister that she was overweight'), but when the actual number of individuals cannot immediately be determined, well, to me that's at another level entirely.
Comment
-
Finnish is a very ungendered language. Not only are there no genders for eg objects, but he and she are the same word, 'hän', it doesn't distinguish, and informally people use the word 'se', which is the word 'it'. "When will Dave arrive" – "it should be here at eight" etc.
Society miraculously does not collapse.
Comment
-
Let me tell you about the dual meaning of 'on' in French. It's supposed to be a third-person-singular pronoun like he/she, only used for a person (never an object or a thing), and most often used as such in popular sayings, or to refer to a hypothetical or indeterminate person. Probably closest to 'one' in English, and similarly a bit archaic-sounding when used as a singular pronoun.
Now this is actually a bit weirder than 'they' because in addition to shifting from singular to plural, 'on' has also shifted from third to first person: in addition to its more traditional use, it is also widely used nowadays as an informal synonym for 'nous' (we), even though the verbs that follow it are still conjugated as singular. In spoken French, most people would use 'on' (followed by a singular verb) rather than 'nous' (followed by a plural verb) as a matter of course to mean 'we', unless in a situation that requires formal language.
Anyway my point is, this causes zero confusion in French as the context makes it obvious which meaning is intended. So I struggle to think of a situation where using 'they' as singular would cause "considerable confusion" to be honest.Last edited by Fussbudget; 10-10-2018, 12:18.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Fussbudget View PostLet me tell you about the dual meaning of 'on' in French. It's supposed to be a third-person-singular pronoun like he/she, only used for a person (never an object or a thing), and most often used as such in popular sayings, or to refer to a hypothetical or indeterminate person. Probably closest to 'one' in English, and similarly a bit archaic-sounding when used as a singular pronoun.
Now this is actually a bit weirder than 'they' because in addition to shifting from singular to plural, 'on' has also shifted from third to first person: in addition to its more traditional use, it is also widely used nowadays as an informal synonym for 'nous' (we), even though the verbs that follow it are still conjugated as singular. In spoken French, most people would use 'on' (followed by a singular verb) rather than 'nous' (followed by a plural verb) as a matter of course to mean 'we', unless in a situation that requires formal language.
Anyway my point is, this causes zero confusion in French as the context makes it obvious which meaning is intended. So I struggle to think of a situation where using 'they' as singular would cause "considerable confusion" to be honest.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Fussbudget View PostAnyway my point is, this causes zero confusion in French as the context makes it obvious which meaning is intended. So I struggle to think of a situation where using 'they' as singular would cause "considerable confusion" to be honest.
I personally don't find it efficient, is all. Viz: 'One of the new schoolteachers was talking to your parents and they didn't seem happy.' Who? The new teacher or your parents?
Comment
-
Perhaps my example wasn't the best, but in yours both parties are 'female singular' anyway, so differentiation would always be necessary - what I'm trying to illustrate is an ambiguity between singular and plural, which shouldn't really need to exist.
I don't think many will agree, but to my mind at least, this highlights a flaw in the language.
Comment
Comment