JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Move to resurrect the handwritten othography: ƴ.
Thus, ƴon and ƴonself....
And in the American South, ƴ'all.
Move to resurrect the handwritten othography: ƴ.
Thus, ƴon and ƴonself....
If it's good enough for Jane Austen...
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.
... 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.
And in the American South, ƴ'all.
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.
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.
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".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.
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 speakerI 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.
Then you should be the last person to consider advocating the (conscious) perpetuation of exactly that form of sexism.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.
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.
Well, none of us is perfect.... I'm a bit of an old fart
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.and if I'm writing about my son, I'm not going to avoid using "he/him" in the next clause.
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.
Then you should be the last person to consider advocating the (conscious) perpetuation of exactly that form of sexism.
No, thatself or itself makes more sense, them is more than one.
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.But isn't solving half the problem is better than solving none of the problem?
Sure: . . . enables the user themself to visually check . . .
(In point of fact, I chickened out and just went with "herself".)
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.
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.
"It" is the non-gender specific pronoun currently used for babies and young children. I find this quite natural, and use it myself.the ludicrous proposition I once read that we just neutralize everything and use "it" uniformly. Male/Female/Other... no person is an it.
"It" is the non-gender specific pronoun currently used for babies and young children. I find this quite natural, and use it myself.We can use the pronoun it to refer to very small children and babies when we speak generally about them, or when we do not know their gender ...Das Kind - "child" - is neuter also in German.
"The baby in the flat next door is always awake and it just never seems to stop crying."
Or when speaking generally about children, as also noted in my source. These are the same conditions in which we use "they" for a singular adult. We could therefore equally well use "it" for an adult in this context, but that seems disrespectful; while we are content to use "it" for children.Indeed but only if you do not know the gender of the child.
Or when speaking generally about children, as also noted in my source. These are the same conditions in which we use "they" for a singular adult. We could therefore equally well use "it" for an adult in this context, but that seems disrespectful; while we are content to use "it" for children.
Not too late to notice that "children" is the plural form of a noun, not a pronoun. It is the pronoun used in place of the noun "child" that in certain cases - where the sex of the child is unknown, or where the reference is to the general, rather than the particular - may be the neuter form "it".Child
Children
Difference
He She, or She He
They
Different
It's late![]()
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.
I vote for One.
For example, if a tabloid newspaper had an important story about the Queen buying a new hat or something, they might have a picture of Her Majesty wearing said hat, with a headline saying "One has a nice new hat, Ma'am!"
"It" is the non-gender specific pronoun currently used for babies and young children. I find this quite natural, and use it myself.We can use the pronoun it to refer to very small children and babies when we speak generally about them, or when we do not know their gender ...Das Kind - "child" - is neuter also in German.
"The baby in the flat next door is always awake and it just never seems to stop crying."
In this fragment, "they" refers back to "the user". For that reason, "one" is not a valid alternative in my view. Of course, one could write instead:In order to make a backup. the user has to choose the menu option X. Then a window pops up, and they have to choose the directory where the backup will be stored
Once you use "one", you're stuck with it and cannot vary back to "the user", and it becomes very stilted IMHO.In order to make a backup. one has to choose the menu option X. Then a window pops up, and one has to choose the directory where the backup will be stored.