FREE TAPATALK APP

Puppycow · 16th May 2012, 09:27 PM

I recently learned something interesting about the grammatical history of the English language:

"You" used to be plural (it still is grammatically plural: we say "you are" not "you is"). The singular form of "you" was "ye" or "thou." But nowadays nobody uses "ye" or "thou" anymore, and "you" is generally thought of as singular despite the fact that it is treated as plural for grammatical purposes.

Now it is becoming increasingly common for people to use "they" instead of "he" as a singular personal pronoun in cases where the sex of the person being referred to is undetermined. But traditionalists still resist this change, especially in writing. Why don't we all just embrace the change and get over it? Start teaching it in school. Put it in the style guides.

ehcks · 16th May 2012, 09:35 PM

I've used it that way for years. There isn't any single word to replace it, and I'm not writing "he or she."

Jeff Corey · 16th May 2012, 09:55 PM

I use it whenever I can. Back in the 60s, when all the she/he, he or she, and other awkward stuff started, I just used they or them. Some editors agreed.

Lucian · 16th May 2012, 10:04 PM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

I recently learned something interesting about the grammatical history of the English language:

"You" used to be plural (it still is grammatically plural: we say "you are" not "you is"). The singular form of "you" was "ye" or "thou." But nowadays nobody uses "ye" or "thou" anymore, and "you" is generally thought of as singular despite the fact that it is treated as plural for grammatical purposes.

Now it is becoming increasingly common for people to use "they" instead of "he" as a singular personal pronoun in cases where the sex of the person being referred to is undetermined. But traditionalists still resist this change, especially in writing. Why don't we all just embrace the change and get over it? Start teaching it in school. Put it in the style guides.

No, "ye" was never singular. In Old English the second person nominative plural was "ge" (pronounced "yay," more or less). The "g" became a "y" in Middle English ("ye"). The modern form "you" actually comes from the Old English dative or accusative plural form "eow" (and variant spellings, which evolved into "you").

Jeff Corey · 16th May 2012, 10:21 PM

Meow?

Lucian · 16th May 2012, 10:44 PM

Originally Posted by Jeff Corey

Meow?

Not exactly. [pedant] The "eo" is a diphthong that no longer exists in most dialects of English. Strictly speaking, I believe the "eo" in "Beowulf" should be pronounced as a diphthong rather than as two separate vowels, but nobody pronounces it that way (unless they're reading/reciting passages of the poem). I believe the "w" in "eow" is also pronounced as a consonant. Not all the variants actually have the "w," however. [/pedant]

SezMe · 16th May 2012, 10:47 PM

It's probably inevitable but it grates on my ear nonetheless.

Dragonrock · 16th May 2012, 11:02 PM

I made up the word "wey" as a singular third-person non-gender specific pronoun. What surprised me was the ease with which I could add into the paper. I even used it a couple of times without thinking after I was finished with the paper.

Puppycow · 17th May 2012, 02:02 AM

Originally Posted by Dragonrock

I made up the word "wey" as a singular third-person non-gender specific pronoun. What surprised me was the ease with which I could add into the paper. I even used it a couple of times without thinking after I was finished with the paper.

Lots of people have tried to make up new words to serve the function, but they never catch on. "They" is catching on organically, so all that really remains to complete the process is for grammarians to accept it as proper English and update their textbooks and style guides.

Puppycow · 17th May 2012, 02:08 AM

Originally Posted by SezMe

It's probably inevitable but it grates on my ear nonetheless.

But don't all the alternatives bother you too?

"He" is sexist. "He or she" is cumbersome. "She" makes you sound like a radical feminist.

"They" is the one that bothers me least.

Belz... · 17th May 2012, 03:09 AM

If I can't tell the gender, I'll use "it".

The Greater Fool · 17th May 2012, 06:53 AM

S/he ?

Pulvinar · 17th May 2012, 07:42 AM

Edited by Loss Leader:

Deleted for Rule 10. It was clever but it crossed the line.

crimresearch · 17th May 2012, 08:26 AM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

I recently learned something interesting about the grammatical history of the English language:

"You" used to be plural (it still is grammatically plural: we say "you are" not "you is"). The singular form of "you" was "ye" or "thou." But nowadays nobody uses "ye" or "thou" anymore, and "you" is generally thought of as singular despite the fact that it is treated as plural for grammatical purposes.

Now it is becoming increasingly common for people to use "they" instead of "he" as a singular personal pronoun in cases where the sex of the person being referred to is undetermined. But traditionalists still resist this change, especially in writing. Why don't we all just embrace the change and get over it? Start teaching it in school. Put it in the style guides.

Wasn't this myth debunked in the other grammar thread?

The notion that 'they', and 'which', and 'Because' are taboo is superstition, nothing more.

PetersCreek · 17th May 2012, 09:43 AM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

But don't all the alternatives bother you too?

"He" is sexist. "He or she" is cumbersome. "She" makes you sound like a radical feminist.

...and if you try to equitably alternate between "he" and "she", you're inconsistent.

SezMe · 17th May 2012, 01:02 PM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

But don't all the alternatives bother you too?

No.

Originally Posted by Puppycow

"He" is sexist.

No, it's not. It's convention. I'll give you that it probably arose out of times when women weren't considered much but that doesn't mean its continued usage is sexist.

Originally Posted by Puppycow

"He or she" is cumbersome.

Yes.

Originally Posted by Puppycow

"She" makes you sound like a radical feminist.

Aw, c'mon. Radical feminist? Are you a sock for Rush?

autumn1971 · 17th May 2012, 01:19 PM

If "they" is good enough for Shakespeare, it's good enough for me.

Almo · 17th May 2012, 02:26 PM

I use "they" in my game rules. "He/she" and "he or she" is horrible.

The best alternative is to use he, then when you're talking about another instance, use she, then switch around. That seems ok to me, but I still prefer "they".

MusicMan · 18th May 2012, 06:21 PM

Originally Posted by SezMe

It's probably inevitable but it grates on my ear nonetheless.

Yup. I think there's no turning back now, but using "they" as a singular pronoun drives me nuts. To me, it's almost as bad as "like" and "you know."

Dragonrock · 18th May 2012, 07:15 PM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Lots of people have tried to make up new words to serve the function, but they never catch on. "They" is catching on organically, so all that really remains to complete the process is for grammarians to accept it as proper English and update their textbooks and style guides.

The paper was about how we could improve the english language. I never expected it to go anywhere and it didn't.

Silly Green Monkey · 19th May 2012, 09:40 AM

Isn't that use of 'they' centuries old, which would make everyone claiming that the newfangled use of the word is getting on their nerves Methuselahs?

Darat · 19th May 2012, 09:50 AM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

I recently learned something interesting about the grammatical history of the English language:

"You" used to be plural (it still is grammatically plural: we say "you are" not "you is"). The singular form of "you" was "ye" or "thou." But nowadays nobody uses "ye" or "thou" anymore, and "you" is generally thought of as singular despite the fact that it is treated as plural for grammatical purposes.

Now it is becoming increasingly common for people to use "they" instead of "he" as a singular personal pronoun in cases where the sex of the person being referred to is undetermined. But traditionalists still resist this change, especially in writing. Why don't we all just embrace the change and get over it? Start teaching it in school. Put it in the style guides.

You mean apart from many English speakers brought up in such places as Lancashire and the Yorkshire counties?

Darat · 19th May 2012, 09:54 AM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Lots of people have tried to make up new words to serve the function, but they never catch on. "They" is catching on organically, so all that really remains to complete the process is for grammarians to accept it as proper English and update their textbooks and style guides.

Yeah I even noticed it in that contemporary playwright that's getting a bit of popular attention these days, what was his name - oh that's it Shakespeare!

This is nice little article about it: http://www.dailywritingtips.com/is-“...gular-pronoun/

JoeBentley · 19th May 2012, 09:55 AM

"Thon" (literally a shortening of "That One") was proposed as a gender neutral pronoun by Charles Crozat Converse in 1884 and actually made it into a couple of editions of Funk and Wagnells.

Mick Houlahan · 19th May 2012, 11:44 AM

Sounds weird, looks weird on the page. Maybe it's inevitable, but there's always an alternate way to phrase things.

zooterkin · 19th May 2012, 12:26 PM

Originally Posted by Darat

Yeah I even noticed it in that contemporary playwright that's getting a bit of popular attention these days, what was his name - oh that's it Shakespeare!

This is nice little article about it: http://www.dailywritingtips.com/is-&...gular-pronoun/

That popular woman writer called Austin or Austen does it too...

According to this page, the usage goes back to the late 1300s.

MsFortune · 11th June 2012, 06:01 PM

Originally Posted by SezMe

No, it's not. It's convention. I'll give you that it probably arose out of times when women weren't considered much but that doesn't mean its continued usage is sexist.

Just because it's convention / tradition does not mean that we need to continue it, especially when that convention arose in situations where women were considered second class citizen.

We can change conventions.

Really. Look at the last couple of hundred of years. For this planet, ended slavery (mostly), invented The Bomb, put people in space, allowed women to vote, etc.

Do you think that for some reason grammatical conventions are sacred?

Eudaemonic Plague · 18th June 2012, 05:01 PM

Originally Posted by MsFortune

Just because it's convention / tradition does not mean that we need to continue it, especially when that convention arose in situations where women were considered second class citizen.

We can change conventions.

Really. Look at the last couple of hundred of years. For this planet, ended slavery (mostly), invented The Bomb, put people in space, allowed women to vote, etc.

Do you think that for some reason grammatical conventions are sacred?

The real question is, should we, in this case? You've already given your answer, so how about telling us just how this convention (if it is, indeed, merely a convention) harms anyone? Do you speak any languages which use gender?

IMHO, this isn't much different from ignorant people getting upset because someone uses a word that sounds similar to another word which offends them. It's a case of choosing to being offended, where no offense is given.

Jorghnassen · 18th June 2012, 06:41 PM

They is stupid, whoever came up with the idea.

Really, it's not my fault English doesn't have a "on" which excludes the person speaking.

psionl0 · 18th June 2012, 11:57 PM

The last time I started a thread like this the general consensus regarding gender neutral pronouns was, "who cares"?

I find it difficult to believe that the entire English speaking world is so lacking in imagination that they co-opt an existing (plural) word instead of inventing new words.

Nevertheless, I will go along with "they" when it becomes more popular.

zooterkin · 19th June 2012, 01:19 AM

Originally Posted by psionl0

The last time I started a thread like this the general consensus regarding gender neutral pronouns was, "who cares"?

I find it difficult to believe that the entire English speaking world is so lacking in imagination that they co-opt an existing (plural) word instead of inventing new words.

Nevertheless, I will go along with "they" when it becomes more popular.

And, as was pointed out in that thread, it's hardly a neologism. If half a millennium of usage is not enough, what threshold do you set?

ETA: I should perhaps have said "new usage", rather than "neologism", since it's an existing word. The main point remains.

brodski · 19th June 2012, 01:35 AM

Originally Posted by psionl0

I find it difficult to believe that the entire English speaking world is so lacking in imagination that they co-opt an existing (plural) word instead of inventing new words.

Do you?

zooterkin · 19th June 2012, 01:47 AM

Originally Posted by brodski

Do you?

I see what you did there...

Darat · 19th June 2012, 02:08 AM

Originally Posted by zooterkin

I see what you did there...

I think you meant to say "I see what thou did there...

"

commandlinegamer · 19th June 2012, 02:38 AM

Þe use of þey is indeed a þorny problem.

zooterkin · 19th June 2012, 05:11 AM

Originally Posted by commandlinegamer

Þe use of þey is indeed a þorny problem.

Well, obviously, I was using a 'y' as a stand in for the 'Þ' character, in a multi-layered reference. Yes, that's it...

supaluminal · 19th June 2012, 05:50 AM

The Chinese use the same word (tā) for both female and male personal pronouns, and for a long time (that I'm aware of anyway) also used the same character(他). It was only in the 20th century that a character was re-purposed as a female character (她), and when the sex is unclear or unimportant the original "male" version is used.

Which leads to the amusing situation that Chinese speakers who are relatively new to English will often refer to a female as he, as in speech the distinction is not really made.

16th May 2012, 09:27 PM	#1
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 16,014	"They" as a gender-neutral singular pronoun I recently learned something interesting about the grammatical history of the English language: "You" used to be plural (it still is grammatically plural: we say "you are" not "you is"). The singular form of "you" was "ye" or "thou." But nowadays nobody uses "ye" or "thou" anymore, and "you" is generally thought of as singular despite the fact that it is treated as plural for grammatical purposes. Now it is becoming increasingly common for people to use "they" instead of "he" as a singular personal pronoun in cases where the sex of the person being referred to is undetermined. But traditionalists still resist this change, especially in writing. Why don't we all just embrace the change and get over it? Start teaching it in school. Put it in the style guides.
	__________________ “Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Major Major it had been all three.” ― Joseph Heller, Catch-22

16th May 2012, 09:35 PM	#2
ehcks Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 1,717	I've used it that way for years. There isn't any single word to replace it, and I'm not writing "he or she."
ehcks Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 1,717	__________________ Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor

16th May 2012, 10:04 PM	#4
Lucian Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 2,571	Originally Posted by Puppycow I recently learned something interesting about the grammatical history of the English language: "You" used to be plural (it still is grammatically plural: we say "you are" not "you is"). The singular form of "you" was "ye" or "thou." But nowadays nobody uses "ye" or "thou" anymore, and "you" is generally thought of as singular despite the fact that it is treated as plural for grammatical purposes. Now it is becoming increasingly common for people to use "they" instead of "he" as a singular personal pronoun in cases where the sex of the person being referred to is undetermined. But traditionalists still resist this change, especially in writing. Why don't we all just embrace the change and get over it? Start teaching it in school. Put it in the style guides. No, "ye" was never singular. In Old English the second person nominative plural was "ge" (pronounced "yay," more or less). The "g" became a "y" in Middle English ("ye"). The modern form "you" actually comes from the Old English dative or accusative plural form "eow" (and variant spellings, which evolved into "you").
Lucian Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 2,571	__________________ skepticalhumanities.com virtualskeptics.com

16th May 2012, 10:44 PM	#6
Lucian Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 2,571	Originally Posted by Jeff Corey Meow? Not exactly. [pedant] The "eo" is a diphthong that no longer exists in most dialects of English. Strictly speaking, I believe the "eo" in "Beowulf" should be pronounced as a diphthong rather than as two separate vowels, but nobody pronounces it that way (unless they're reading/reciting passages of the poem). I believe the "w" in "eow" is also pronounced as a consonant. Not all the variants actually have the "w," however. [/pedant]
Lucian Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 2,571	__________________ skepticalhumanities.com virtualskeptics.com

16th May 2012, 11:02 PM	#8
Dragonrock Militant Elvisian Tacoist Join Date: May 2002 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 9,859	I made up the word "wey" as a singular third-person non-gender specific pronoun. What surprised me was the ease with which I could add into the paper. I even used it a couple of times without thinking after I was finished with the paper.
	__________________ ...it rings a bell in my head that just don't chime...--pillory There is no God but the Great Taco In The Sky and Elvis is his prophet.

16th May 2012, 09:55 PM	#3
Jeff Corey New York Skeptic Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 13,797	I use it whenever I can. Back in the 60s, when all the she/he, he or she, and other awkward stuff started, I just used they or them. Some editors agreed.

16th May 2012, 10:21 PM	#5
Jeff Corey New York Skeptic Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 13,797	Meow?

16th May 2012, 10:47 PM	#7
SezMe post-pre-born Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Santa Barbara, CA Posts: 16,639	It's probably inevitable but it grates on my ear nonetheless.

17th May 2012, 02:02 AM	#9
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 16,014	Originally Posted by Dragonrock I made up the word "wey" as a singular third-person non-gender specific pronoun. What surprised me was the ease with which I could add into the paper. I even used it a couple of times without thinking after I was finished with the paper. Lots of people have tried to make up new words to serve the function, but they never catch on. "They" is catching on organically, so all that really remains to complete the process is for grammarians to accept it as proper English and update their textbooks and style guides.
	__________________ “Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Major Major it had been all three.” ― Joseph Heller, Catch-22

17th May 2012, 02:08 AM	#10
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 16,014	Originally Posted by SezMe It's probably inevitable but it grates on my ear nonetheless. But don't all the alternatives bother you too? "He" is sexist. "He or she" is cumbersome. "She" makes you sound like a radical feminist. "They" is the one that bothers me least.
	__________________ “Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Major Major it had been all three.” ― Joseph Heller, Catch-22

17th May 2012, 03:09 AM	#11
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details... Posts: 28,971	If I can't tell the gender, I'll use "it".
	__________________ The Onmyouza Theatre, An unofficial international fanclub forum dedicated to the Japanese heavy metal band Onmyo-Za. "In the interests of time and space, it is not unreasonable to cite one point at a time. Citing 30 is the equivalent of citing none. Obviously." - Robert Prey

17th May 2012, 06:53 AM	#12
The Greater Fool Critical Thinker Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Las Vegas, NV, USA, Earth, Sol, Milky Way Posts: 474	S/he ?
	__________________ - "Who is the Greater Fool? The fool? Or the one arguing with the Fool?" [Various; Uknown] - "If you want to make someone hate you, explain to them, logically and politely, why they are wrong." [Phil Simborg] - "Believe in those who seek the truth; doubt those who find it." [Andre Gide]

17th May 2012, 08:26 AM	#14
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618	Originally Posted by Puppycow I recently learned something interesting about the grammatical history of the English language: "You" used to be plural (it still is grammatically plural: we say "you are" not "you is"). The singular form of "you" was "ye" or "thou." But nowadays nobody uses "ye" or "thou" anymore, and "you" is generally thought of as singular despite the fact that it is treated as plural for grammatical purposes. Now it is becoming increasingly common for people to use "they" instead of "he" as a singular personal pronoun in cases where the sex of the person being referred to is undetermined. But traditionalists still resist this change, especially in writing. Why don't we all just embrace the change and get over it? Start teaching it in school. Put it in the style guides. Wasn't this myth debunked in the other grammar thread? The notion that 'they', and 'which', and 'Because' are taboo is superstition, nothing more.
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618

17th May 2012, 09:43 AM	#15
PetersCreek Muse Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 551	Originally Posted by Puppycow But don't all the alternatives bother you too? "He" is sexist. "He or she" is cumbersome. "She" makes you sound like a radical feminist. ...and if you try to equitably alternate between "he" and "she", you're inconsistent.
PetersCreek Muse Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 551	Last edited by PetersCreek; 17th May 2012 at 09:44 AM.

17th May 2012, 01:02 PM	#16
SezMe post-pre-born Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Santa Barbara, CA Posts: 16,639	Originally Posted by Puppycow But don't all the alternatives bother you too? No. Originally Posted by Puppycow "He" is sexist. No, it's not. It's convention. I'll give you that it probably arose out of times when women weren't considered much but that doesn't mean its continued usage is sexist. Originally Posted by Puppycow "He or she" is cumbersome. Yes. Originally Posted by Puppycow "She" makes you sound like a radical feminist. Aw, c'mon. Radical feminist? Are you a sock for Rush?

17th May 2012, 01:19 PM	#17
autumn1971 Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 1,465	If "they" is good enough for Shakespeare, it's good enough for me.
	__________________ 'A knave; a rascal; an eater of broken meats; a base, proud, shallow, beggardly, three-suited, hundred-pound, filthy, worsted-stocking knave; a lily-livered, action-taking knave, a whoreson, glass-gazing, superservicable, finical rogue;... the son and heir of a mongral bitch: one whom I will beat into clamorous whining, if thou deniest the least syllable of thy addition."' -The Bard

17th May 2012, 02:26 PM	#18
Almo Masterblazer Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Montreal, Quebec Posts: 6,414	I use "they" in my game rules. "He/she" and "he or she" is horrible. The best alternative is to use he, then when you're talking about another instance, use she, then switch around. That seems ok to me, but I still prefer "they".
	__________________ Almo! My Blog "No society ever collapsed because the poor had too much." — LeftySergeant "It may be that there is no body really at rest, to which the places and motions of others may be referred." –Issac Newton in the Principia

18th May 2012, 06:21 PM	#19
MusicMan Student Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Traffic light capital of the U.S. Posts: 33	Originally Posted by SezMe It's probably inevitable but it grates on my ear nonetheless. Yup. I think there's no turning back now, but using "they" as a singular pronoun drives me nuts. To me, it's almost as bad as "like" and "you know."

18th May 2012, 07:15 PM	#20
Dragonrock Militant Elvisian Tacoist Join Date: May 2002 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 9,859	Originally Posted by Puppycow Lots of people have tried to make up new words to serve the function, but they never catch on. "They" is catching on organically, so all that really remains to complete the process is for grammarians to accept it as proper English and update their textbooks and style guides. The paper was about how we could improve the english language. I never expected it to go anywhere and it didn't.
	__________________ ...it rings a bell in my head that just don't chime...--pillory There is no God but the Great Taco In The Sky and Elvis is his prophet.

19th May 2012, 09:40 AM	#21
Silly Green Monkey Cowardly Lurking in the Shadows of Greatness Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Colorado Posts: 3,093	Isn't that use of 'they' centuries old, which would make everyone claiming that the newfangled use of the word is getting on their nerves Methuselahs?

19th May 2012, 09:50 AM	#22
Darat Lackey Administrator / JREF Forum Liaison Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 64,974	Originally Posted by Puppycow I recently learned something interesting about the grammatical history of the English language: "You" used to be plural (it still is grammatically plural: we say "you are" not "you is"). The singular form of "you" was "ye" or "thou." But nowadays nobody uses "ye" or "thou" anymore, and "you" is generally thought of as singular despite the fact that it is treated as plural for grammatical purposes. Now it is becoming increasingly common for people to use "they" instead of "he" as a singular personal pronoun in cases where the sex of the person being referred to is undetermined. But traditionalists still resist this change, especially in writing. Why don't we all just embrace the change and get over it? Start teaching it in school. Put it in the style guides. You mean apart from many English speakers brought up in such places as Lancashire and the Yorkshire counties?
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

19th May 2012, 09:54 AM	#23
Darat Lackey Administrator / JREF Forum Liaison Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 64,974	Originally Posted by Puppycow Lots of people have tried to make up new words to serve the function, but they never catch on. "They" is catching on organically, so all that really remains to complete the process is for grammarians to accept it as proper English and update their textbooks and style guides. Yeah I even noticed it in that contemporary playwright that's getting a bit of popular attention these days, what was his name - oh that's it Shakespeare! This is nice little article about it: http://www.dailywritingtips.com/is-“...gular-pronoun/
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

19th May 2012, 09:55 AM	#24
JoeBentley Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Norfolk, VA Posts: 1,823	"Thon" (literally a shortening of "That One") was proposed as a gender neutral pronoun by Charles Crozat Converse in 1884 and actually made it into a couple of editions of Funk and Wagnells.
	__________________ - Opinions require evidence and no before you ask defining something as "Something doesn't require evidence" doesn't count. - In extreme cases continuing to be wrong when you've been repeatedly proven to be wrong is a form of rudeness. - Major in philosophy. That way you can also ask people "why" they would like fries would that.

19th May 2012, 11:44 AM	#25
Mick Houlahan Thinker Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Lion's Pride Inn, Goldshire Posts: 215	Sounds weird, looks weird on the page. Maybe it's inevitable, but there's always an alternate way to phrase things.

19th May 2012, 12:26 PM	#26
zooterkin Nitpicking dilettante Moderator Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Berkshire, mostly Posts: 25,021	Originally Posted by Darat Yeah I even noticed it in that contemporary playwright that's getting a bit of popular attention these days, what was his name - oh that's it Shakespeare! This is nice little article about it: http://www.dailywritingtips.com/is-&...gular-pronoun/ That popular woman writer called Austin or Austen does it too... According to this page, the usage goes back to the late 1300s.
	__________________ The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell Zooterkin is correct Darat Nerd! Hokulele Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232

11th June 2012, 06:01 PM	#27
MsFortune Scholar Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 58	Originally Posted by SezMe No, it's not. It's convention. I'll give you that it probably arose out of times when women weren't considered much but that doesn't mean its continued usage is sexist. Just because it's convention / tradition does not mean that we need to continue it, especially when that convention arose in situations where women were considered second class citizen. We can change conventions. Really. Look at the last couple of hundred of years. For this planet, ended slavery (mostly), invented The Bomb, put people in space, allowed women to vote, etc. Do you think that for some reason grammatical conventions are sacred?
MsFortune Scholar Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 58

18th June 2012, 05:01 PM	#28
Eudaemonic Plague Thinker Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Champaign, Illinois Posts: 137	Originally Posted by MsFortune Just because it's convention / tradition does not mean that we need to continue it, especially when that convention arose in situations where women were considered second class citizen. We can change conventions. Really. Look at the last couple of hundred of years. For this planet, ended slavery (mostly), invented The Bomb, put people in space, allowed women to vote, etc. Do you think that for some reason grammatical conventions are sacred? The real question is, should we, in this case? You've already given your answer, so how about telling us just how this convention (if it is, indeed, merely a convention) harms anyone? Do you speak any languages which use gender? IMHO, this isn't much different from ignorant people getting upset because someone uses a word that sounds similar to another word which offends them. It's a case of choosing to being offended, where no offense is given.
	Last edited by Eudaemonic Plague; 18th June 2012 at 05:02 PM. Reason: fixed a word

18th June 2012, 06:41 PM	#29
Jorghnassen Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: The realm of ideas Posts: 3,884	They is stupid, whoever came up with the idea. Really, it's not my fault English doesn't have a "on" which excludes the person speaking.
	__________________ "Help control the local pet population: teach your dog abstinence." -Stephen Colbert "My dad believed laughter is the best medicine. Which is why several of us died of tuberculosis."- Unknown source, heard from Grey Delisle on Rob Paulsen's podcast

18th June 2012, 11:57 PM	#30
psionl0 Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: 31°58'S 115°57'E Posts: 4,893	The last time I started a thread like this the general consensus regarding gender neutral pronouns was, "who cares"? I find it difficult to believe that the entire English speaking world is so lacking in imagination that they co-opt an existing (plural) word instead of inventing new words. Nevertheless, I will go along with "they" when it becomes more popular.

19th June 2012, 01:19 AM	#31
zooterkin Nitpicking dilettante Moderator Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Berkshire, mostly Posts: 25,021	Originally Posted by psionl0 The last time I started a thread like this the general consensus regarding gender neutral pronouns was, "who cares"? I find it difficult to believe that the entire English speaking world is so lacking in imagination that they co-opt an existing (plural) word instead of inventing new words. Nevertheless, I will go along with "they" when it becomes more popular. And, as was pointed out in that thread, it's hardly a neologism. If half a millennium of usage is not enough, what threshold do you set? ETA: I should perhaps have said "new usage", rather than "neologism", since it's an existing word. The main point remains.
	__________________ The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell Zooterkin is correct Darat Nerd! Hokulele Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232 Last edited by zooterkin; 19th June 2012 at 01:24 AM.

19th June 2012, 01:35 AM	#32
brodski Tea-Time toad Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,159	Originally Posted by psionl0 I find it difficult to believe that the entire English speaking world is so lacking in imagination that they co-opt an existing (plural) word instead of inventing new words. Do you?
brodski Tea-Time toad Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,159

19th June 2012, 01:47 AM	#33
zooterkin Nitpicking dilettante Moderator Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Berkshire, mostly Posts: 25,021	Originally Posted by brodski Do you? I see what you did there...
	__________________ The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell Zooterkin is correct Darat Nerd! Hokulele Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232

19th June 2012, 02:08 AM	#34
Darat Lackey Administrator / JREF Forum Liaison Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 64,974	Originally Posted by zooterkin I see what you did there... I think you meant to say "I see what thou did there... "
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

19th June 2012, 02:38 AM	#35
commandlinegamer Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Mazes of Menace Posts: 5,991	Þe use of þey is indeed a þorny problem.
	__________________ He bade me take any rug in the house.

19th June 2012, 05:11 AM	#36
zooterkin Nitpicking dilettante Moderator Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Berkshire, mostly Posts: 25,021	Originally Posted by commandlinegamer Þe use of þey is indeed a þorny problem. Well, obviously, I was using a 'y' as a stand in for the 'Þ' character, in a multi-layered reference. Yes, that's it...
	__________________ The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell Zooterkin is correct Darat Nerd! Hokulele Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232