Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site sphinx.UChicago.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!mmar
From: mmar@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Mitchell Marks)
Newsgroups: net.women,net.nlang
Subject: Re: Non-sexist language (new pronoun?!)
Message-ID: <678@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 16-Jun-85 02:54:03 EDT
Article-I.D.: sphinx.678
Posted: Sun Jun 16 02:54:03 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 18-Jun-85 07:25:59 EDT
References: <11267@brl-tgr.ARPA> among others, <290@wuphys.UUCP>
Organization: U. Chicago - Computation Center
Lines: 58
Xref: linus net.women:5491 net.nlang:2911


Bryan Coughlan suggests that the solution to the "he or she" problem
is the creation of a new word, but acknowledges that it would be difficult
for such a coinage to catch on.
     The difficulty is not in the incorporation of new words per se -- after
all, that much happens all the time.  But pronouns in English are a closed
class (as they are in any language).  We don't resist new nouns or verbs
or adjectives in the same way, because there are already so many, and because
the corresponding semantic field is open.
    I remember seeing suggestions for gender-neutral pronouns in the middle
or perhaps early seventies.  None of them has caught on.  One system had
'shem' for the accusative or objective (i.e. the equivalent of 'her' or 'him')
and something like 'hesh' for the possessive, but I don't recall the
nominative.  It would be fun to collect the various attempts, and see which
are the most plausible; but I don't think we can pin our hopes for non-
sexist language on any scheme of this sort.
	In writing, 's/he' works pretty well, but I don't see how to transfer
it to speech.  And in any case, if given a distinctive pronunciation it would
run up against the closed-class problem, the slowness with which the pronoun
system changes.
	My favorite choice would be to make hay out of a trend that's
already happening anyway.  This is the habit which someone who has a stake
in prescriptive grammar would describe as ``using a plural pronoun where
you have a singular antecedent''; but I would resist that description, and
instead say that it involves taking the form of a plural pronoun and accepting
it as a new singular.  The usage is familiar though nonstandard:

          Has someone left their book up here?
          If anyone imagines that, they're crazy!
          When someone speaks to you, look them in the face.

(The last example also shows the potential for 'you' as another sort of
indefinite.)
	I resist describing this as being reanalysis of the indefinite as
plural, since sometimes you hear the reflexive with -selF:

          *? I think a person should exercise and take good care of themselves.
          ok I think a person should exercise and take good care of themself.

	A big problem with this suggestion, I admit, is getting yourself to
use it in your academic and professional writing, where a certain brand of
standard English is expected.  If you wrote 'sher' it would be obvious that
you've intentionally used a special form, with a special purpose; whether your
reader likes that or not, still they won't think you've just accidentally
slipped into substandard usage, as they might with 'they'.
	But apart from that last point, I suggest that it's in a better
position than any of the coined-word solutions to overcome the closed-class
problem, because:
	1.  All the forms (they, them, their, theirs) are already in
	    the language (though themself is nonstandard) as pronouns.
	2.  The usage as singulars also already exists (though currently
            branded as substandard).

If anyone thinks this is a wrong-headed approach, I hope THEY'll explain why.

                --Mitch Marks @ UChicago 
                  ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!mmar