Dominion Strategy Forum
Miscellaneous => General Discussion => Topic started by: Kuildeous on November 04, 2016, 08:25:58 am
-
I went to a training course on business writing because I feel it's always good to brush up on my grammar. Subject/verb agreement came up, and this lead to the ever-troubling pronoun to match with "everybody."
The instructor reiterated the classic rule that you say, "everybody will hand in his," or "everybody will hand in his or her." I've noticed lately that there are people pushing for allowing for, "everybody will hand in their." In short, with a lack of a generic pronoun (since calling a person an "it" is considered rude), many are arguing that "they" should be used as a generic singular pronoun.
Her response to this was interesting. She said that while this passes muster in America, it's when you get into the international community that this can cause issues. This makes some sense. After all, when a nonnatives learn English, they are taught rigorously the rules of the language, and I'm sure that they aren't taught that "they" is singular. English is confusing enough as it is.
You're the only international community I'm a part of that I trust and respect, so I pose this to non-Americans. Does this assessment ring true with you? Is using "they" as singular perplexing? Is this only an American thing?
The instructor also said that only in America do we consider using, "he or she." The other nations (even Canada) only use "he" as a generic singular pronoun. Any experiences in that?
-
One should choose one's words carefully, or maybe not . Their is multinational now. His and hers always was, or were.
-
As far as I'm concerned, "they" as a nonspecific singular pronoun has existed in the language for ages.
Certainly for as long as I have been alive (and able to speak).
If a non-native speaker is not being taught that it can be used that way, then their teacher is failing them.
-
Singular they has been used for literally hundreds of years across multiple dialects of English. The prescriptivist movement to force it to only be used plurally is a relatively recent phenomena (early 1900s).
Adopting a new word is much harder and invites scrutiny from those who actively reject or mock it. They is almost universally understood in context (albeit with some confusing edge cases) and isn't intrusive or unfamiliar. Basically it's the best we have, and it's very far from the most confusing commonly accepted practice in English.
No matter what the intentions were, using he/him as the default pronoun implicitly asserts male is the default gender. The origins of this pronoun usage are when women weren't respected with the same agency as men, and as women were seen with more agency people just couldn't be bothered to stop so they made up a rule saying that's somehow the right way to do it. Nah. We have they!
His or her is better, but - not everyone is a his or her. Also it's really clunky in many contexts to use three words every time you could have used one. So they it is!
-
Mh. I like it.
-
"Some bastard" is the best generic singular 3rd person pronoun.
-
As a non-native English speaker, I've never been taught singular 'they' in school. But I think it should be common practice to use 'they' in this situation, both in and out of school. It's such an elegant solution to the problem.
-
We've already discussed this, you bastard.
-
I've studied English for 13 years at school and nobody ever formally taugt me what pronoun to use in these cases. I guess I just picked it up while reading books.
Despite being different than my mothertongue, "they" always felt natural and not confusing at all, and it was when I first came to the Internet that I found out that its use was controversial.
-
I kind of figured. The instructor was fairly adamant about not using "they," and I was wondering if the business world was truly unwilling to accept "they" or not. It sounds like the claim that this is only an American thing does not hold water.
I'll likely continue my transition to using "they" as singular third person. I'm still accustomed to "he" or "she." Sometimes I've just swapped them back and forth if gender wasn't relevant.
Now if I can just stop using the colon incorrectly.
-
I kind of figured. The instructor was fairly adamant about not using "they," and I was wondering if the business world was truly unwilling to accept "they" or not. It sounds like the claim that this is only an American thing does not hold water.
I'll likely continue my transition to using "they" as singular third person. I'm still accustomed to "he" or "she." Sometimes I've just swapped them back and forth if gender wasn't relevant.
Now if I can just stop using the colon incorrectly.
So long as you're only using it on the toilet, you should be fine.
-
I kind of figured. The instructor was fairly adamant about not using "they," and I was wondering if the business world was truly unwilling to accept "they" or not. It sounds like the claim that this is only an American thing does not hold water.
I'll likely continue my transition to using "they" as singular third person. I'm still accustomed to "he" or "she." Sometimes I've just swapped them back and forth if gender wasn't relevant.
Now if I can just stop using the colon incorrectly.
So long as you're only using it on the toilet, you should be fine.
Aw, shit.
-
For the record, there are certainly plenty of Canadians who are fine with using singular they, myself included.
-
a distinct neutral pronoun would be very good but science hasn't caught up yet
-
a distinct neutral pronoun would be very good but science hasn't caught up yet
and at this point a few million edgelord neckbeards and dudebros would endlessly mock anyone who either used or asked to be referred to by those pronouns sooooooooooooooooo
-
I'm in the UK, and I was taught in school that singular they is just plain wrong. Now it's my preferred personal pronoun... times change, and language needs to adapt along with social progress.
My problem with "him or her", "ladies and gentlemen" and the like is that they're still implicitly enforcing the idea that gender is binary and that it's only valid to be one or the other... which I assert is wrong, because I'm a gender-agnostic person in most contexts.
-
I think the best prescription is "her".
Using the male pronoun briefly gets the idea across, with an technical inaccuracy that is not that confusing, but with an unfortunate selection if the male pronoun based on society formerly being largely patriarchal. It makes sense for one to not want that source if cause to continue to lurk in the pronoun choice.
"She" has the same inaccuracy, one that is totally acceptable and understood, but the source of the choice of pronoun is to avoid the one we had before whose cause was undesirable. Which is an ok cause to have lurking.
The poor singularity of "they" is just objectively more grammatically confusing and obfuscating than "she" in most contexts. Since it is terse and excludes about half of all people, it is clear in its refusal to try to account for every possibility.
(Some grammar errors in a grammar post. But I'm mobile)
-
I think the best prescription is "her".
Using the male pronoun briefly gets the idea across, with an technical inaccuracy that is not that confusing, but with an unfortunate selection if the male pronoun based on society formerly being largely patriarchal. It makes sense for one to not want that source if cause to continue to lurk in the pronoun choice.
"She" has the same inaccuracy, one that is totally acceptable and understood, but the source of the choice of pronoun is to avoid the one we had before whose cause was undesirable. Which is an ok cause to have lurking.
The poor singularity of "they" is just objectively more grammatically confusing and obfuscating than "she" in most contexts. Since it is terse and excludes about half of all people, it is clear in its refusal to try to account for every possibility.
(Some grammar errors in a grammar post. But I'm mobile)
I see "she" and "her" cropping up more and more for this kind of usage. I do find it, uh, peculiar sometimes when "she" is being used to refer to generic singular hackers or other malicious parties.
"She" gives me the sense that the writer is trying to play a balancing act with the historic use of "he". It doesn't feel like a permanent solution and gives this sense of "I deserve this because of what happened in the past". Some people are okay with that thinking though.
"She" also doesn't solve the binary gender objection eh no only "his or her" really brings up that issue.
-
The poor singularity of "they" is just objectively more grammatically confusing and obfuscating than "she" in most contexts. Since it is terse and excludes about half of all people, it is clear in its refusal to try to account for every possibility.
I'm missing the part about how "they" excludes half of all people. Could you elaborate?
-
"she" is the antecedent there.
-
'They' is fine.
'It' is fine too. The latter one is easier for me; has counterparts in Dutch.
-
I'm a native English speaker and didn't hear singular "they" when a child, so I'm probably forever cursed for it to sound not quite right. I'm still in favor of it because the alternatives are awful.
-
I also endorse 'y'all'.
-
I also endorse 'y'all'.
I'm sure I also speak on behalf of the others when I sincerely thank you for the endorsement.
-
I also endorse 'y'all'.
I prefer "you guys".
-
I also endorse 'y'all'.
I prefer "you guys".
I usually say this but some people I know specifically don't like to be referred to by "guys", so I've been moving toward "you all" or "everybody" or "you peeps".
-
There's always 'dudes'!
-
"you peeps".
What do you mean, "you peeps"?!
-
I also endorse 'y'all'.
I prefer "you guys".
I usually say this but some people I know specifically don't like to be referred to by "guys", so I've been moving toward "you all" or "everybody" or "you peeps".
Oh hey, I actually have friends that use "you peeps".
-
There's always 'dudes'!
Both "dudes" and "guys" are understood by some many to be historically male, which makes them less suitable than ungendered alternatives like "folks", "y'all" and "peeps". Personally, I often say "guys" for multi-gender groups, but I tend to wish it wasn't the first thing that springs to mind.
-
I also endorse 'y'all'.
I prefer "you guys".
I usually say this but some people I know specifically don't like to be referred to by "guys", so I've been moving toward "you all" or "everybody" or "you peeps".
That's why I don't refer to them by "guys", but "you guys".
-
There's always 'dudes'!
Both "dudes" and "guys" are understood by some many to be historically male, which makes them less suitable than ungendered alternatives like "folks", "y'all" and "peeps". Personally, I often say "guys" for multi-gender groups, but I tend to wish it wasn't the first thing that springs to mind.
Gender-specifying 'dudes' is sexist!
-
There's always 'dudes'!
Both "dudes" and "guys" are understood by some many to be historically male, which makes them less suitable than ungendered alternatives like "folks", "y'all" and "peeps". Personally, I often say "guys" for multi-gender groups, but I tend to wish it wasn't the first thing that springs to mind.
Gender-specifying 'dudes' is sexist!
Yeah, history and society tend to be sexist :-( Even if lots of people would prefer to use it in a totally generic way now, the historical connotations are still there. Responsible users of the term should respect that for plenty of people hearing it, it will have gendered connotations, and quite rationally so.
(See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dude for some etymology stuff).
-
There's always 'dudes'!
Both "dudes" and "guys" are understood by some many to be historically male, which makes them less suitable than ungendered alternatives like "folks", "y'all" and "peeps". Personally, I often say "guys" for multi-gender groups, but I tend to wish it wasn't the first thing that springs to mind.
Gender-specifying 'dudes' is sexist!
Yeah, history and society tend to be sexist :-( Even if lots of people would prefer to use it in a totally generic way now, the historical connotations are still there. Responsible users of the term should respect that for plenty of people hearing it, it will have gendered connotations, and quite rationally so.
(See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dude for some etymology stuff).
It's certainly a very layered word.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RL1Vcn8yX1g
-
There's always 'dudes'!
Both "dudes" and "guys" are understood by some many to be historically male, which makes them less suitable than ungendered alternatives like "folks", "y'all" and "peeps". Personally, I often say "guys" for multi-gender groups, but I tend to wish it wasn't the first thing that springs to mind.
Gender-specifying 'dudes' is sexist!
Yeah, history and society tend to be sexist :-( Even if lots of people would prefer to use it in a totally generic way now, the historical connotations are still there. Responsible users of the term should respect that for plenty of people hearing it, it will have gendered connotations, and quite rationally so.
(See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dude for some etymology stuff).
It's certainly a very layered word.
Do you find any non-ironic equivalents with women using the word between themselves, though?
I just tried googling for women saying "dude", and mostly I get a lot of hits that are forum-style questions from men about what it means if a girl calls them "dude" -- the conclusion being that it's not something they're comfortable with, or it's something they find unusual. I'd argue that it's still a gendered term if it's used massively asymmetrically across genders, and also that male users of the word probably aren't very aware of how non-male listeners would perceive it anyway.. so basically it's not a top candidate for a gender-neutral term.
Also, the vid is funny, but you could kind of imagine them saying "potato" and pretty much having the same conversation :-)
-
I have a female friend that uses 'dude' almost exclusively for pronoun use, and we use 'dude' when addressing each other. That dude knows what's up. At any rate, it's not like I was seriously proposing 'dude' for dominant use. It's slightly out of place in, for example, formal writing.
The video doesn't exactly work with 'potato', as it isn't a word you use to address people. Though, we could use 'potato' as a gender-neutral pronoun. Maybe you have something here....
-
In Goodburger, Ed very much likes to sing a song that goes "I'm a dude, he's a dude, she's a dude, cause we're all dudes." I was led to believe it is a progressive word.
-
In Goodburger, Ed very much likes to sing a song that goes "I'm a dude, he's a dude, she's a dude, cause we're all dudes." I was led to believe it is a progressive word.
QEDude
-
A colleague a level above us referred to me and a colleague of the opposite sex from me as "these guys", less than sixty seconds after my post. Piping hot anecdotes for you guys. No need to thank me it's my duty
-
but you could kind of imagine them saying "potato" and pretty much having the same conversation :-)
Or "chicken".
-
No human has worth, so we ought to refer to everyone as 'it'!
-
No matter what the intentions were, using he/him as the default pronoun implicitly asserts male is the default gender.
I want to bring this up, just as an interesting historical thing, but in Latin, the default gender basically was female for most inanimate objects. There was a third form for neuter, but female was used the most, with the male form second, and neuter last. I'm not sure why this is, but it's interesting to compare that to today with phrases like "fireman" instead of say "fireperson".
-
How about we just use 'pleb'?
-
i think shared disdain for the phrase "you guys" could be a novel way to unite the southern and feminist voting blocs
-
No matter what the intentions were, using he/him as the default pronoun implicitly asserts male is the default gender.
I want to bring this up, just as an interesting historical thing, but in Latin, the default gender basically was female for most inanimate objects. There was a third form for neuter, but female was used the most, with the male form second, and neuter last. I'm not sure why this is, but it's interesting to compare that to today with phrases like "fireman" instead of say "fireperson".
Well, it definitely was female for all trees and plants, and usually for abstract concepts too (pretty much everything that in english ends with -ity, like dignity, and many more), but outside that I'm not convinced a majority of the other words being feminine.
This post (http://forum.wordreference.com/threads/genders-of-latin-nouns-what-percentage-of-each.2106529/#post-10547883) on wordreference's forums from somebody that counted nouns in a Latin dictionary seems to indicate that 45% of latin nouns are feminine. (vs 33% masculine and 21% neuter). They are not divided by semantic field, but I'm inclined to think that feminine's plurality is due to all those the abstract nouns being feminine rather than due to a skewed distribution in the "concrete objects" set.
That was all for today, see you tomorrow for the next episode of Classical Pedant.