Split Thread Pronouns

[Steve]

I'm pretty sure you would have. In something like the following situation.

"Someone bashed into my car at the supermarket but they didn't leave a note".

ETA. The singular they usage hasn't changed. It's always* been used for when people don't know the gender of the person. It's now expanded a little.


*Well back to Chaucer at least.

In that example I am much more likely to use the word ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ . But you are right, that is a valid point.

 

[Helen]

Having only passed enough English courses to enable me to follow a technical education I will accept your explanation and learn from it. Thank you, Helen.

I hope it didn't come off as if I was patronising you, I tend to get carried away when I start talking about the quirks of language...

 

[Steve]

I hope it didn't come off as if I was patronising you, I tend to get carried away when I start talking about the quirks of language...

Not at all. It is obviously a topic you have knowledge in, and I have always preferred that people talk straight and not beat around the bush. There is always something to learn here even though education is no longer in the forum name.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

And yet in 70+ years of speaking English I have rarely used they as singular, and it still sounds rather odd to me.

The word "gay" originates from the Old French "gai," meaning "full of joy or mirth," and has been used in English since the 12th century. That didn't prevent its use from being changed.

The thing is the usage changed in two stages, First by 'gay' being used as an insult and then by the gay community reclaiming it as a positive word. Calling people 'it' has always been negative and I don't want to be part of that stage of making it the used word, and I'm not trans so it wouldn't be my place to decide to reappropriate it.

I don't want to badger you, but I am genuinely interested, in @arthwollipot's example what other word would you use?

Knock knock!
There's someone at the door!
What do they want?

FWIW, I've never suspected for a second that you weren't a native speaker or as fluent in English as one. Actually, more fluent than many.

 

[Steve]

The thing is the usage changed in two stages, First by 'gay' being used as an insult and then by the gay community reclaiming it as a positive word. Calling people 'it' has always been negative and I don't want to be part of that stage of making it the used word, and I'm not trans so it wouldn't be my place to decide to reappropriate it.

I don't want to badger you, but I am genuinely interested, in @arthwollipot's example what other word would you use?




FWIW, I've never suspected for a second that you weren't a native speaker or as fluent in English as one. Actually, more fluent than many.

I conceded that point in my response to jimbob at the top of this page.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Why would it make you sad to show a small courtesy in a form of address that is no skin off your back?

It's a conservative

 

[P.J. Denyer]

I conceded that point in my response to jimbob at the top of this page.

Fair enough, thank you. I honestly wasn't trying for a 'gotcha', I thought I might be missing something obvious.

 

[Steve]

Why would it make you sad to show a small courtesy in a form of address that is no skin off your back?

I get your point, but third person singular is in no way a form of address.

 

[Thermal]

I get your point, but third person singular is in no way a form of address.

Yeah, it's playing a little fast and loose with the concept. Like, if I address you as Mr Steve to your face, and refer to you as Mr Steve to others, to me its all the same. You're there, or you are not, but the thought is directed at/about you personally. For the sake of casual thread banter, I don't think.its a show stopping distinction.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Yeah, it's playing a little fast and loose with the concept. Like, if I address you as Mr Steve to your face, and refer to you as Mr Steve to others, to me its all the same. You're there, or you are not, but the thought is directed at/about you personally. For the sake of casual thread banter, I don't think.its a show stopping distinction.

Yeah, when you're in a conversation with someone and turn and refer to that person to the third person.. Yeah, you might as well be addressing them directly. My perspective.

 

[The Atheist]

Pronouns are the most "stable" words there are in most languages...

You just had to bring horses into the discussion!

At least it might get rid of Tragic Monkey.

Why would it make you sad to show a small courtesy in a form of address that is no skin off your back?

Deja vu.

When I was a kid I had a book titled The Book of Manners.

Probably banned nowadays.

 

[Thermal]

Deja vu.

When I was a kid I had a book titled The Book of Manners.

Probably banned nowadays.

Seriously. I just can't get all worked up about telling someone they are what *I* say they are. Just can't work up a rager over showing them who's boss. If they ain't hurting anyone, they're fine by me.

 

[malbui]

In Irish we used to have a neutral pronoun - ea - that has fallen out of use except in a few fossilised phrases, much in the way that the dative case has vanished. I recognise that languages evolve but I do find it a little sad.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I've literally asked you to use the pronouns I have given for you. Are you so rude as to ignore my wishes in the matter?

I've literally asked you to be respectful of my views on many things, and you've chosen not to do so. From my point of view, you're being rude by assuming you can dictate my use of language.

I've chosen an approach that I think is least objectionable. Given my preference, I would use sex-based pronouns. I won't submit to being forced to play pretend with gender-identity pronouns and alter the use of langauge to align with individual feelings and desires.

If you take offense at sex-neutral language, then you have taken offense.

Your next best option is that I attempt to never use pronouns in reference to you at all. But I guarantee that's going to be awkward and annoying for everyone else.

 

[Emily's Cat]

English is super-easy to degenderise compared to a lot of European languages.

And yet you're complaining that I have done exactly that. And I take extra pains to eliminate ambiguity between singular and plural usage.

 

[arthwollipot]

But sure, pronouns can be confusing, and you have to work around that sometimes, like when there's multiple men and 'he' can refer to either of them. Should the gender-neutral pronoun in English have been something else, though? Possibly, but I think they is there to stay at this point.

Bespoke pronouns have been tried from time to time (Wikipedia lists a bunch) but they've never caught on because not enough people adopt them and they're not as easy to remember.

In French, the answer to "there's someone at the door" would mostly automatically be
"Qu'est-ce qu'il veut ? what does he want ?

Indeed. French has strong grammatical gender. Every noun has one - cars, tables, spaceships. French would be much harder to degenderise than English.

The masculine default is pretty common in English, though (To Serve Mankind, one small step for man) but it doesn't have to be. "Human" is non-gendered, despite the joke that my dad has been making since the 70s ("human" contains "man" so it has to be "huperson" but that contains "son" so it has to be "huperoffspring").

And yet changes to meaning of words are readily accepted all the time - see "gay". There is no question that "it" is both singular and gender neutral. If the gender police could get over their phobia and help to bring it into general use for people it would avoid ambiguity.

As someone else said, "it" is used in English exclusively for inanimate objects. Applying it to people is literally dehumanising.

So who assigns this stuff, the user or referent? If the referent, it becomes maddeningly difficult, as you have to keep a spreadsheet going of who uses what, and not refer to an unknown male as a 'he', because, well... what if he's not? You don't want to appear politically motivated in pronoun usage. Who's right?

The thing is, comparatively very few people use singular "they", so it's actually not that hard to remember. I know three transgender people and maybe four gender nonbinary. Compared to the many gender-normative people I know, it's not a burden. I can remember their names without any difficulty, why should their pronouns be any harder? Like I said to my dad once, if you can remember NRMA, you can remember LGBT.

"Your sadness has no value here."

"Neither does your preference."

A small note here. It's not a "preferred" pronoun. Preference doesn't enter into it. Nor does happiness or sadness. It's just correct, or it's wrong.

I refer to you by your username, theprestige. Using any other name would not be going against your preference, it would just be wrong.

It's not pointless to me. What happened to the easy effort of just being respectful of other people's minor preferences?

Indeed. So why can't you do that? No - why won't you do that?

And yet you're complaining that I have done exactly that. And I take extra pains to eliminate ambiguity between singular and plural usage.

Yes, I called you out because I have freely offered my pronouns right there below my username. It's not ambiguous or hard to know. I'm literally telling you what they are. You chose to ignore that, and that, in my estimation, is rude.

My name in real life is Andrew. It is not Andy. If you call me Andy I will politely ask you to call me Andrew. If you ask why you shouldn't call me Andy, then I will say "because it is not my name". I have politely asked you to refer to me as he/him. If you ask why you shouldn't refer to me as they/them, I will reply "because those are not my pronouns".

 

[Emily's Cat]

Yes, I called you out because I have freely offered my pronouns right there below my username. It's not ambiguous or hard to know. I'm literally telling you what they are. You chose to ignore that, and that, in my estimation, is rude.

My name in real life is Andrew. It is not Andy. If you call me Andy I will politely ask you to call me Andrew. If you ask why you shouldn't call me Andy, then I will say "because it is not my name". I have politely asked you to refer to me as he/him. If you ask why you shouldn't refer to me as they/them, I will reply "because those are not my pronouns".

You don't own pronouns. They aren't property you can lay claim to.

I've made you an offer. I will make my very best attempt to never use pronouns in reference to you, and to only refer to you by your user name (or Andrew if you would like).

I'm not, however, going to abandon my principles and my long-standing practice of using ONLY neutral pronouns just for you.

 

[arthwollipot]

You don't own pronouns. They aren't property you can lay claim to.

Rubbish. They're like my name. That's why they're my pronouns. They're not yours, or anyone else's. They refer to me. They are mine.

I've made you an offer. I will make my very best attempt to never use pronouns in reference to you, and to only refer to you by your user name (or Andrew if you would like).

You can't never use pronouns. It's impossible.

I'm not, however, going to abandon my principles and my long-standing practice of using ONLY neutral pronouns just for you.

Rude.

As it turns out, I don't actually mind you using they/them. I wanted to specifically call you out because of the fact that I have, for a long time, offered my pronouns freely right there under my user name and you chose (choose) to ignore that, which is what I think is rude. But I also wanted to kick off a conversation, which was overdue in my opinion, and which is also why I requested the topic be split from the original.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Rubbish. They're like my name. That's why they're my pronouns. They're not yours, or anyone else's. They refer to me. They are mine.

You can't lay claim to the word "he" or "she" or "they". None of those mean you specifically and individually. They're general words that can be used to refer to pretty much anyone. You don't own them.

You can't never use pronouns. It's impossible.

Read my offer again. Closely this time.

Rude.

It's rude of me to stand by my principles and my long practice? Why would you think it rude?

I get that you don't like it. But just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's rude.

If that were the case, then I could say that it's rude of you to expect me to completely change my beliefs and my habits for you - I mean, who do you think you are that you should be able to command such acquiescence from me, when you offer none in return? Such a thing would suggest that you believe - actually fundamentally believe even if subconsciously - that you are better than me. It would indicate that you think are superior to me, and that I owe you submission.

You're welcome to try to change my beliefs by engaging in respectful and civil discussion, by actually discussing the topic with the intent to understand my perspective. Right now, I don't think you do actually understand my view. I believe that at some point, you started to believe that your view is the only right view, and you closed your mind. I don't think you've ever given any meaningful amount of time actually considering the arguments I have, and even contemplating whether I have a point. You simply ignore anything that disagrees with your belief, and you respond with contempt and insult.

It's really up to you.

As it turns out, I don't actually mind you using they/them. I wanted to specifically call you out because of the fact that I have, for a long time, offered my pronouns freely right there under my user name and you chose (choose) to ignore that, which is what I think is rude.

Again, you think it's rude that I disregard your wants rather than stick by my principles and habits, even when my doing so doesn't offend you?

That seems to suggest some profound arrogance on your part. Why do you believe you're so important that I should betray my own principles in order to increase your happiness? I don't believe for one second that you would give such a concession to me. There's no equality and collaboration in our interactions, arthwollipot. You demand that I sacrifice a deeply held belief so that you aren't mildly annoyed.

I'm not your subordinate, nor am I your inferior.

But I also wanted to kick off a conversation, which was overdue in my opinion, and which is also why I requested the topic be split from the original.

I'm all for it. Hopefully, I've made my position clear regarding how we can interact? Consider it tit-for-tat. We'll start fresh.

 

[arthwollipot]

You can't lay claim to the word "he" or "she" or "they". None of those mean you specifically and individually. They're general words that can be used to refer to pretty much anyone. You don't own them.

I claim my name. I claim my pronouns. They're mine - the correct ways to refer to me. Using them correctly is correct, using them wrongly is wrong.

I'm all for it. Hopefully, I've made my position clear regarding how we can interact? Consider it tit-for-tat. We'll start fresh.

We can continue discussing pronouns without getting personal, if that's what you mean.