Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!ora!ambar From: tdaniels@athena.mit.edu (Troy E Daniels) Newsgroups: soc.feminism Subject: Re: Return of the killer pronouns Message-ID: <1991Jan29.213937.7568@athena.mit.edu> Date: 26 Feb 91 19:17:32 GMT References: Sender: ambar@ora.com (Jean Marie Diaz) Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lines: 18 Approved: ambar@ora.com In article , bfu@ifi.uio.no (Thomas Gramstad) writes: > In my native language there are three different "kinds" or patterns > of nouns, 'masculinum', 'femininum' and 'neutrum'. The word for > 'human' is neutrum, which means that a direct translation would > give: human -- it -- its -- itself etc. Would this work in English, > or is 'it' too associated with 'things'? In English, "it" refers to something of neither sex. Males are he, females are she, and everything else is it. An animal may be referred to as "it," especially if its sex is unknown. (See previous sentence for an example.) Trying to call humans "it" would only be done if you were trying to be very insulting. It carries a very strong implication that the pronoun refers to something non-human. (Evolutionists and English teachers aren't in complete agreement, apparently.) Troy Daniels tdaniels@athena.mit.edu