Language & Grammar discussion
Grammar Central
>
Language Peeves
Mod
It's like an abbreviation and then some. I sometimes do that with kids' names in class. One kid, called "CJ," I called "C-eej." Same crime, I suppose. But I like coining sobriquets for the kiddies.
... I like using “they” and “their” as singular neutral pronouns. I don’t mind using the neutral “he” or “him,” either (it’s historically neutral, like Man for Mankind, not chauvinistic), but I despise the she/he, her/him construction!The gender question gives me problems, too. For now, I've tried to avoid "they" or "their" as singular neutral. Instead, I'll pluralize the subject somehow ("All patients should see their doctors" instead of "Each patient should see their doctor.") If I keep the singular, I avoid the pronoun altogether ("Each patient should see the doctor").
I have no problem with "his" as a neutral pronoun, but so many other people do that I try to account for their objections when I write.
No matter what, any construction employing a slash (like his/her) is wrong. If they must, writers should say "his or her" before resorting to slashes. The "or" implies the "and." For me, seeing slashes in anything I'm about to read is an automatic sign of lazy thinking, and I often won't read what someone wrote if I notice them.
Really? It seems so awkward to me - "his or her". As a reader, I'd much rather see "his/her" or "he/she", grammatically correct or not. To me it just flows better.
Mod
Instead of "he/she" I've seen "s/he." Worse still?
"s/he"-- yuck! So yes, I think worse still. And it's another sign of laziness, in my opinion.
Sheila -- I'm only saying that if people feel they absolutely must mention both genders, "his or her" is better. "Or" is a word, whereas "/" isn't. So the slash disturbs the flow of my thougts. And yet I can see how the wordiness gets in your way in the opposite case. But ideally, I wish people would avoid both constructions, because they both draw too much attention to themselves.Donna -- I've seen "authoress" before, and thought it totally unnecessary. I like "actress" because I think the distinction is important enough considering that it's art; but I think they'll all be "actors" in the future, and I'm ready to go along with that.
Instead of "chairperson," why not just "chair"? That's an easy way out. Anyone who uses "person" as a suffix only draws glaring attention to some noun that probably shouldn't be the center of attention.
Marilyn Vos Savant, in Parade, once proposed that s/he should be pronounced something like "see-he," giving her approval to the slash in the process. I'm so glad no one took her up on the offer. I just can't see myself going around saying "see-he." Some ideas are best left to die a merciful death.
Mod
Mod
And Donna, I've noted in more than one educational book that authors are using "she" instead of "he," so take heart.
We are fond of chairs, Debbie? Actually, we are fond of dues (as any club needing to turn a profit should be), which is why we're having a "fondue" party for your upcoming 50th. We will also commence a "Moe Watch" at that time, taking turns at our posts out in the topiary.
If you don't mind, I'll stay out of the shrubs for the "Moe Watch." My recent brush with poison ivy has left me wary of many green leafy organisms. I'll be happy to keep a look-out on a roof or behind the dumpster-- I'll even bring some pastries (creme filled) if anyone would like to join me :)
I think a fondue party is perfect! All kinds of yummy things dipped in cheeses or chocolate!
I think a fondue party is perfect! All kinds of yummy things dipped in cheeses or chocolate!
And yet I can see how the wordiness gets in your way in the opposite case. But ideally, I wish people would avoid both constructions, because they both draw too much attention to themselves.Oh, I agree completely with you there. :)
Mod
Try to learn French, where there is no "it." Everything is either feminine or masculine, and the gender doesn't always make sense. For instance, fork and spoon are feminine, but knife is masculine.The neutral pronoun is, I think, a germanic phenomenon that developed with the new English. There used to be a Middle English gender-neutral pronoun, "ou," that meant he or she. This from Wikipedia:
"In 1789, William H. Marshall records the existence of a dialectal English epicene pronoun, singular "ou": "'Ou will' expresses either he will, she will, or it will." Marshall traces "ou" to Middle English epicene "a", used by the 14th century English writer John of Trevisa, and both the OED and Wright's English Dialect Dictionary confirm the use of "a" for he, she, it, they, and even I. This "a" is a reduced form of the Anglo-Saxon he = "he" and heo = "she". By the 12th and 13th centuries, these had often weakened to a point where, according to the OED, they were "almost or wholly indistinguishable in pronunciation." The modern feminine pronoun she, which first appears in the mid twelfth century, seems to have been drafted at least partly to reduce the increasing ambiguity of the pronoun system…"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-n...
I read a lot of magazines while waiting in the car to pick up the kids (better not to get too engrossed in a book and leave the babes out in the rain while I finish my chapter... ). I notice that on pages with several short items, each one will highlight one gender; one item will use he and him and the next will talk about her and she. I have wondered if there is a gender-counter at the publication to make sure it comes out even in the wash!
I've noticed that in some programs and publications dedicated to child-rearing, the authors are using "she" for all children, as a neutral pronoun. I'm not sure how I feel about this. I like the idea that if "he" can be gender neutral, then so can "she." But using "she" this way somehow seems to reinforce the image of child-rearing as a strictly female pursuit.
Yes, children of either sex are referred to as "she."
Donna, that's how you divide perennials -- you shatter them?
Ooh! Dangerous. Better not make you mad. I'll risk it though, and ask whether you think English ought to create/promote/whatever a neutral pronoun for humans? If so, what might it be? Shall we return to "ou"? (How is that pronounced, by the way?) or use some neologism. Perhaps "s'e" or "s-he"... pronounced "see" or something equally peculiar, since several of you seemed so adverse to "see-he"? Or are you in favor of making "he" (and/or "she") the accepted gender-neutral pronoun?
(I'm all for "he", myself. Seems simplest, if we can get the feminists to agree.)
(I'm all for "he", myself. Seems simplest, if we can get the feminists to agree.)
Mod
Mod
Mod
Beast
Bear
Wookie
Blackie
Dumby
Furbag
Rug
Stupid
Hi Lee --No, let's not create a neutral pronoun. There's no end to the devilment that would result from it.
The problem with "he" is that feminists, and now a good portion of the reading public as well, take offense to it. So now we have to torture the language to get a subject/verb agreement without resorting the crude "s/he" construction.
Donna, I do use "it" sometimes, because increasing numbers of people are gender-ambiguous, much to my consternation. I just can't bring myself to say "it" to their faces, though. But what, in fact, are we supposed to call those delightful souls who are poised so artfully on the cusp of either gender?
NE -- Another point of etiquette I learned about animals: We no longer "own" dogs and cats; instead, we're their "guardians."I hadn't heard that until a couple of years ago. I rather like the idea.
Mod
I was never too popular in the hairy underarm set.
Mod
Anyway, I agree about "mankind" yet would not be pleased if they did an every-other-century thing to call it "womankind." No doubt I'd be born in the wrong century. Wait... I already was!
Hee hee! Though I figured the neutral pronoun wouldn't float, it's been interesting to read everyone's take on the issue.
A thought on a different subject here: a lot of other languages write their monetary sign after the numbers. Yet in America, though we SAY "one dollar," we write "$1." Anybody know why?
A thought on a different subject here: a lot of other languages write their monetary sign after the numbers. Yet in America, though we SAY "one dollar," we write "$1." Anybody know why?
We do? That's even worse than the signs I've seen for PED XING, which I'll agree are quite baffling at first. But Pedestrian Crossing is abbreviated so the words will fit on the sign in large enough letters for people in quickly moving vehicles to see. $1 isn't an abbreviation... well, $ is, but the order isn't... Sorry. I get what you're saying: there's no (easily discernable) rhyme or reason. It just //is// and we need to accept it. If we can't, our only recourse is to ponder it in vain on an online discussion board.
(Hm. My attempt at italics above // // seems to have failed. Can anyone give me tips on that?)
Nevermind. I found the formating tips hiding within the (some html is ok) note below.
Mod
Oh, and we still have our beloved "Dead End" and "Slow Children" signs everywhere. Politically incorrect forever, that's New England (the region, not the poster child...).
Mod
Mod
Indeed! And those rascally slow children often cause me to suffer very bad (and repetitive) jokes from my husband. :)
Speaking of signage, I saw one recently on the side of a truck reading "A Ladie's Plumber." Does that make anyone else's eyes hurt? To make it worse, I don't think they were advertising plumbers for ladies. The plumber herself was a woman and the words were under the woman's name, making me think the creator intended the sign to be read as "A Lady Plumber." Not entirely sure on that one. Either way, ugh!
Speaking of signage, I saw one recently on the side of a truck reading "A Ladie's Plumber." Does that make anyone else's eyes hurt? To make it worse, I don't think they were advertising plumbers for ladies. The plumber herself was a woman and the words were under the woman's name, making me think the creator intended the sign to be read as "A Lady Plumber." Not entirely sure on that one. Either way, ugh!
Mod
Accidentally stumbling through online profiles, I have encountered numerous "discrete" individuals, whom I picture as sort of 3-D jigsaw puzzles, with tiny cracks between their pieces.
Mod
According to Bryan Garner: "Discrete means 'separate, distinct'; discreet means 'cautious, judicious.' Discreet is most commonly used in reference to behavior, especially speaking or writing."
from Garner's Modern American Usage
Ruth wrote: "My language peeve? Pant. As a noun, not verb. As in "This stylish linen pant come in three beautiful spring colors."Pant? As if I have only one leg?
R"
I am known to offer "a kudo" when deserved!
No. 1 is "anyways." Ay, ay, ay!
Who gets the blame - author or editor?I'm reading a good book by an MFA, but replete with "He was older than me", etc. Is this acceptable? I'd always thought one should write "older than I (am)"?
Am I being too picky, or justified in being driven bonkers here?
It sounds to me like something within quotes. If it is, it would fall under a speech anomaly. Some people just don't speak good english.
This is a matter of register--the degree of formality. Many people in an informal register would say, "It's me," "My brother is bigger than me." Formal English distinguishes between an ordinary transitive verb such as "hit" (He hit me), and a copula, such as "to be" ("It is I"). Colloquial English uses the objective case of the pronoun after copulas as well as transitive verbs, and uses the objective case in comparisons, too, with the verb "to be" understood ("He is older than I am.") If you take out the "am," colloquial English shifts to "He is older than me." Consider "Hi, baby. It's I." Sounds a bit stuffy, haina?
John wrote: "Who gets the blame - author or editor?I'm reading a good book by an MFA, but replete with "He was older than me", etc. Is this acceptable? I'd always thought one should write "older than I (am)"?..."
Webster's 11th has a good discussion of than over the past few centuries & concludes, "You have the same choice Shakespeare had: you can use than either as a conjunction or as a preposition."
The use of "older than me" has now become quite common, in the UK at least. So much so that saying "older than I" sounds very stilted. So it all boils down to how you want to sound to your reader.
Mod
I think it wouldn't be too much off topic to start a rant on the 'whom/who/huh?' situation.The actual rule is extremely simple, isn't it, 'whom' is for objects and 'who' for subjects. However, depending on the situation, context and who(m) you're with, the correct application of 'whom' seems to be regarded as a tad stilted, even pompous. Calling in style manuals, the bottom line of their advice usually is something in the line of 'trust your sprachgefühl.' Well, if I had any of that I wouldn't consult those manuals, would I? Moreover, being exposed to a choice whether to apply a rule or not is utterly too much for my poor German, law-abiding mind.
I'd be happy to read the thoughts of who(m)ever shares my strong feelings about this issue.
Mod
Me too Ruth! I just know it, but usually can't cite the rule.We have teachers here for that! :-)
Mod
What I especially like is his "Language Change Index" to tell how close the rule is to changing and which, in short, goes like so:
Stage One: Rejected
Stage Two: Widely Shunned
Stage Three: Widespread but...
Stage Four: Ubiquitous but...
Stage Five: Fully Accepted
Here's how he graded who/whom:
1. who as an object not following a preposition: Stage 4.
2. who as an object following a preposition: Stage 2.
3. whom misused as a subject: Stage 1.
4. who in reference to nonhumans: Stage 1.
Interesting, thank you. No.3 is also a classical case of hyper-correctness.
Language & Grammar
Books mentioned in this topic
Learn to Read with Sami and Thomas (other topics)Turtle Wish (other topics)
New Moon (other topics)
Djeet djey? This means "did you eat yet". It drives me absolutely up the wall now. I say it like everyone else does.
The Kansas one, which I told myself I would never, ever say, is worsh for wash. Alas, I am right in the thick of things when it comes to worsh now. I hate it, but I still say it.