Them, Themself as a singular pronoun

[JayUtah]

Move to resurrect the handwritten othography: ƴ.

Thus, ƴon and ƴonself....

And in the American South, ƴ'all.

 

[Lucian]

If it's good enough for Jane Austen...

Yes, but Austen's spelling and grammar were both pretty bad, apparently.

 

[Lucian]

I twitch too. I was taught by no fewer than three professional female journalism editors, under which I worked a summer in my youth as a layout editor, and also a matronly female librarian whom I served as an assistant for years, that the male pronouns were to be used where gender was uncertain or where a neutral gender was indicated. But to each his own, I guess.

I facetiously advocate the contrivance "thon" and "thonself" (allegedly Middle English, but probably a neologistic portmanteau, that+one) to solve the problem of a gender-neutral personal pronoun. And I think we should resurrect the thorn to spell it with, þon, in homage to political correctness run amok. Yes language changes, which means that there is no "correct" way to misuse third-person plural for a third-person singular.

"Thon" occurs in Middle French. It means "tuna." I'm fairly positive that it was not used as a gender-neutral pronoun in Middle English. In very early Middle English, you might occasionally see þone or ðone (thorn and eth were interchangeable). It comes from an Old English demonstrative pronoun/adjective and means "that (one)." However, it is accusative singular, so it would never be used as a subject. In addition, the accusative and dative merged into the objective case rather quickly in the Middle English period, so specifically accusative forms become rarer. More importantly, it is masculine. The -ne ending shouts from the rooftops that it is singular, accusative, and masculine. Since grammatic gender also disappeared quickly in the Middle English period, þone faded from use.

 

[Nova Land]

... While it's true that in oral communication s/he sounds identical to she so could be considered a return to a gender-specific pronoun, in written communication s/he includes both she and he so is gender-inclusive rather than gender-specific.

So while s/he might not be the best option for spoken communication, it might be the best option for written communication. There's no (grammar) law which says they have to be the same.

Of course it's not a question of grammar law, but as I wrote before: that the consensus of speakers of English is now such that a non gender specific pronoun is being sought, and to return to a gender specific one in that context makes no sense at all.

Why we should stop at written communication, and be content with gender specificity for spoken communication is not at all clear to me.

Because written and spoken language are not the same.

We need to come up with a solution both for written and spoken language. But at present we're at something of a stalemate: there are those who feel that using a gender-specific pronoun to cover both genders is unacceptable, there are those who feel that using a plural pronoun to cover singular cases is unacceptable, and those who feel that coining some brand new word to serve as a singular gender-neutral pronoun for people in general is unacceptable.

It would be nice to be able to come up with a single solution which covers both written and spoken language. But if we can't do that, it's worth considering finding separate solutions for written and spoken language -- or even finding a solution for one and leaving the other unresolved for the time.

No solution has been found yet which is acceptable to all 3 factions in regard to spoken language. But s/he meets all the objections of all 3 factions with regard to written language: (a) It's not a new word, like co or thon or the other coinages which have been proposed over the years; (b) it's not a plural, it's a singular; and (c) it's (literally) gender-inclusive, containing both he and she in its spelling.

So why not adopt s/he as the pronoun used in writing? I'm sure there are many people who will balk at the idea -- but I'd like to see people put forward actual rational reasons why they'd oppose the use of s/he the accepted word for a singular gender-inclusive pronoun in academic papers, newspaper and magazine stories, closed captioning, etc.

Yes, there's a problem when those stories are read aloud. But for speaking, people can continue to use whatever word they currently feel is the right singular pronoun for someone who could be either female or male. Isn't it better to solve part of the problem (written communication) while trying to solve the other (oral communication) than to remain stalemated on both?

Written language and spoken language have always been different, even though many people aren't consciously aware of that. (It's why writing good dialogue for books, movies, television and plays is such an art; what reads well on the page, or sounds good on the stage, is quite different from how people actually talk to each other.) So adopting a word for usage in written communication which does not work well in spoken language is not something new. It would simply be doing consciously something we've been doing unconsciously for centuries.

 

[Nova Land]

I should add: personally, I'm fine with them (and that's what I routinely use in speech and writing). And I think that increasingly as years pass them is going to become the accepted term. When that happens, the use of themself will become increasingly normal-sounding and acceptable as well.

But the people who feel uncomfortable with the use of a plural pronoun for a singular case have just as much right to feel that way as I do to feel uncomfortable with a male pronoun to cover both female and male. You can't consciously control what makes you feel uncomfortable. But you can try to find ways to examine and understand the reasons for the discomfort.

Many of the reasons given over the centuries to justify the use of he and man as general terms to cover both sexes don't make sense when examined, in my opinion. I think considering the use of s/he as an alternative, even though it's not likely to be accepted, might help people understand the irrationality of those justifications and, perhaps, get a better understanding of the (often unconscious) sexism which continues to pervade our culture.

 

[Slowvehicle]

And in the American South, ƴ'all.

ƴis.

 

[John Nowak]

I was taught by no fewer than three professional female journalism editors, under which I worked a summer in my youth as a layout editor, and also a matronly female librarian whom I served as an assistant for years, that the male pronouns were to be used where gender was uncertain or where a neutral gender was indicated. But to each his own, I guess.

Yeah, that's the same way I was taught as well.

Personally, though, I have no real issue with using "them" as an single neuter pronoun. It makes a lot more sense to me than creating a new one.

However, "their self" strikes me as better than "themself."

 

[bruto]

I would suggest that this question is a bit like that of split infinitives and prepositions at the end of sentences: something you should try to avoid if you can, and if you can't, then do your best with what is left.

 

[angrysoba]

Yes, I see your point but it also doesn't answer my question.

If you want to know, I was checking a translation and the Japanese translator put "itself" there: "the user itself" because the user's gender is unspecified. That is clearly wrong, but I was wondering what to change it to. The Japanese said ユーザ自身 so while you could leave it out and it would still make sense, it wouldn't capture that nuance of the Japanese original.

To capture the nuance, maybe you could say it allows the user to personally check X visually.

Japanese can be a nuisance to translate because so much of what needs to be written in English is contextually understood and left out in Japanese、 ね！

 

[Craig B]

No, thatself or itself makes more sense, them is more than one.

What happened to the oranges
I ate them.

What happened to the orange
I ate it/that.

Then you have herself/himself

Not themself though, that is a contradiction in itself.

Then so must "yourself" be a contradiction when used of a single person. When "you" replaced "thou" in the singular, the form "yourself" was coined. When the Royal "we" was abandoned, the singular "Ourself" became obsolete. But at no time were these forms "contradictions".

 

[Craig B]

I facetiously advocate the contrivance "thon" and "thonself" (allegedly Middle English, but probably a neologistic portmanteau, that+one) to solve the problem of a gender-neutral personal pronoun. And I think we should resurrect the thorn to spell it with, þon, in homage to political correctness run amok. Yes language changes, which means that there is no "correct" way to misuse third-person plural for a third-person singular.

There is another principle, however, violated here. Priority of use. It is not only "tuna" in French - even modern French - but is a common demonstrative adjective in the Scots language, and it is very indicative of Ulster Scots speech. There are three demonstrative adjectives in Scots, respectively indicating increasing remoteness from the speaker

This, That, Thon for the English "this", "that", "that one over there".​

It's in common use here in Glasgow, and in many other places.

So perhaps it would cause confusion, in Scotland and Ulster, if it was also used as a personal pronoun. More confusion, I mean, than is occasioned in these countries by its use also in French as the name of a species of fish.

 

[Craig B]

I should add: personally, I'm fine with them (and that's what I routinely use in speech and writing). And I think that increasingly as years pass them is going to become the accepted term. When that happens, the use of themself will become increasingly normal-sounding and acceptable as well.

But the people who feel uncomfortable with the use of a plural pronoun for a singular case have just as much right to feel that way as I do to feel uncomfortable with a male pronoun to cover both female and male. You can't consciously control what makes you feel uncomfortable. But you can try to find ways to examine and understand the reasons for the discomfort.

Many of the reasons given over the centuries to justify the use of he and man as general terms to cover both sexes don't make sense when examined, in my opinion. I think considering the use of s/he as an alternative, even though it's not likely to be accepted, might help people understand the irrationality of those justifications and, perhaps, get a better understanding of the (often unconscious) sexism which continues to pervade our culture.

Then you should be the last person to consider advocating the (conscious) perpetuation of exactly that form of sexism.

 

[Foolmewunz]

The problem, as any PC Feminazi can tell you, is that H/She connotes a binary choice and we have all learned that that is exclusionary.

We really simply need to promote getting back to "one" as a gender-neutral personal pronoun. I'm a bit of an old fart, and if I'm writing about my son, I'm not going to avoid using "he/him" in the next clause. I'm not staking out territory for universal political correctness. But there are a zillion needs for a pronoun to replace a noun,.... like "user", like "citizen", like "customer", etc... within the same sentence, paragraph or article. "One" fits perfectly. "Oneself" would therefore become the reflexive personal pronoun.

The problem, I feel, is in the usage in that it just seems hoity-toity. We simply have to wean ourselves of that perception. One can express oneself without having to imagine having an attack of the vapours under the grape arbor awaiting Mr. Darcy's arrival. Try saying "one" or "one's" or "oneself" without a bad Hollywood-British upper crust accent. It's not so bad, really. And your speech and/or writing is that much clearer and cleaner.

Lookit. We taught Robert Byrd, in a single generation, to get from ****** to niggra to neeee-gra-ow to negro to black to African American. We can certainly teach ourselves to recognize that unlike the speakers of Romance languages, we do not always have to attach a gender to everything. There is a tremendous need for a gender neutral PERSONAL pronoun; and I emphasize "personal" because of the ludicrous proposition I once read that we just neutralize everything and use "it" uniformly. Male/Female/Other... no person is an it.

I vote for One.

 

[Slowvehicle]

The problem, as any PC Feminazi can tell you, is that H/She connotes a binary choice and we have all learned that that is exclusionary.

We really simply need to promote getting back to "one" as a gender-neutral personal pronoun. I'm a bit of an old fart, and if I'm writing about my son, I'm not going to avoid using "he/him" in the next clause. I'm not staking out territory for universal political correctness. But there are a zillion needs for a pronoun to replace a noun,.... like "user", like "citizen", like "customer", etc... within the same sentence, paragraph or article. "One" fits perfectly. "Oneself" would therefore become the reflexive personal pronoun.

The problem, I feel, is in the usage in that it just seems hoity-toity. We simply have to wean ourselves of that perception. One can express oneself without having to imagine having an attack of the vapours under the grape arbor awaiting Mr. Darcy's arrival. Try saying "one" or "one's" or "oneself" without a bad Hollywood-British upper crust accent. It's not so bad, really. And your speech and/or writing is that much clearer and cleaner.

Lookit. We taught Robert Byrd, in a single generation, to get from ****** to niggra to neeee-gra-ow to negro to black to African American. We can certainly teach ourselves to recognize that unlike the speakers of Romance languages, we do not always have to attach a gender to everything. There is a tremendous need for a gender neutral PERSONAL pronoun; and I emphasize "personal" because of the ludicrous proposition I once read that we just neutralize everything and use "it" uniformly. Male/Female/Other... no person is an it.

I vote for One.

One certinly does not disagree, and one uses "one" on this forum for that, and other purposes.

OTH, it seems to one that there is a nuanced difference atween:

"At the end of the lecture, one should return one's splatter-shield, wellies, and censer."

and,

"At the end of the lecture, they should return their [PPE, etc.]."

One suspects it may be, in many cases, no more than an echo of too much Masterpiece Theatre in the 70s...

 

[Craig B]

... I'm a bit of an old fart

Well, none of us is perfect.

and if I'm writing about my son, I'm not going to avoid using "he/him" in the next clause.

Nobody is suggesting that. It's where non-gender specific pronouns are involved that the issue arises. Is your son of a specific gender? Do you know what that gender ls? Then use the appropriate pronoun. No change is required.

 

[zooterkin]

Yes, I see your point but it also doesn't answer my question.

If you want to know, I was checking a translation and the Japanese translator put "itself" there: "the user itself" because the user's gender is unspecified. That is clearly wrong, but I was wondering what to change it to. The Japanese said ユーザ自身 so while you could leave it out and it would still make sense, it wouldn't capture that nuance of the Japanese original.

Is it a nuance that actually needs to be preserved? It appears to be from a user manual, rather than a work of literature; I don't think much would be lost in this case.

 

[Nova Land]

Then you should be the last person to consider advocating the (conscious) perpetuation of exactly that form of sexism.

Good news for you, then. If you will read my comments you will see that I am not advocating the perpetuation of that form of sexism. As I have pointed out repeatedly, s/he is inclusive of both genders.

Personally I'm fine with them. But there are people who are adamant that we can't use a plural to represent a singular. Therefore we have to continue using he, they argue, because there's no acceptable substitute.

But if he doesn't present a problem to the anti-pluralists, then s/he should not either.

Using he means using a masculine pronoun to represent both female and male. Using s/he means using a pronoun which includes both masculine (he) and feminine (she) to represent both female and male. That seems clearly preferable.

No, s/he is not perfect. It's clearly gender-inclusive in written form, but not in oral form. That means its use solves only half the language problem. But isn't solving half the problem is better than solving none of the problem?

 

[ponderingturtle]

No, thatself or itself makes more sense, them is more than one.

Just like you. Thee would never use that as a singular right?

 

[Craig B]

But isn't solving half the problem is better than solving none of the problem?

No, it is assuredly not; because the unsolved half is a reproduction - or, worse, wilful conservation - of the phenomenon that caused the problem in the first place.

 

[Checkmite]

Sure: . . . enables the user themself to visually check . . .

(In point of fact, I chickened out and just went with "herself".)

My cheat: "...enables users themselves to visually check..."