The evolution of the English Language

[TwoBitTxn]

I never though I would post here but here it goes.

I have been amazed as I have watched a significant evolution in the English language take place.

The whole driver behind this evolution is the attempt to de-sexist the way we speak and write.

For the longest time the term "he" has been used as both a singular masculine form and a singular neuter form. The second form meaning a single individual when the sex was either not known, or desired not to be stated to protect anonymity.

The evolution took us through a short phase where proper writing was he/she as a singluar neuter form, but this is obviously too cumbersome.

So comes the slow evolution of they/them as a singular neuter form. They/them was originally a plural neuter form. I have frequently seen it misused in newspapers. A graduate school classmate was docked heavily on a paper for using they/them as a singluar term. I hear it more and more in speach and it grates a nerve with me. Being Texan, I know I don't have the best grammar sometimes, but I can still get my pronouns right.

I guess I'm done ranting.

TwoBit

 

[simbrooks]

I have not heard or seen they/them ever used to signify a singular person, except when "they" is used to describe a singular in the past tense - which i would say is fine.

Now taking the word "man" off of certain positions and adding in "person" just jumbles up a lot of things - i dont care if my foreman is a man or woman, should a manager be a personager? The English language (in its many forms in different countries) is not a perfect language, but purposefully using a word in the wrong way is hard to take and can make you grate your teeth. I am even trying to accept some Americanizations that make my teeth grate - most of them involve "ize" or "ized"!!

 

[Scubaguy62]

As in verbalize or dramatized????

 

[TwoBitTxn]

I have not heard or seen they/them ever used to signify a singular person, except when "they" is used to describe a singular in the past tense - which i would say is fine.

"They" in the past or present tense is a plural pronoun. It's not written as "they/them" that may be my fault. But "they" or "them" are both slowly changing to be accepted as singluar neuter pronouns as well as plural pronouns.

The English language is a dynamic language. It always will be. I can handle all of the new vocabulary words that are added each year.

This is one that I am having a hard time with.

 

[emn057]

In my English classes we weren't allowed to use "they" as a singular pronoun, which is understandable. But we also weren't allowed to use "he" for a general singular pronoun. So, instead, we had to make the antecedent plural so that we could use "they" and be politically correct and not offend anyone.

Example:

Instead of saying, "A writer should use gender neutral pronouns so that he does not offend anyone."

We were instructed to say, "Writers should use gender neutral pronouns so that they do not offend anyone."

This was okay sometimes, but other times it was a complete pain trying to rework the sentence to be plural. Sometimes a singular noun just works better.

I understand and completely support fighting for equality between men and women, but this is a little excessive IMHO.

 

[Walter]

I can't believe you guys are upset over a small change designed not to offend wopersons.

 

[simbrooks]

I can't believe you guys are upset over a small change designed not to offend wopersons.

Are these the same wopersons that deal out a whole lot of whoopass about this?

 

[WJL]

In my English classes we weren't allowed to use "they" as a singular pronoun, which is understandable. But we also weren't allowed to use "he" for a general singular pronoun. So, instead, we had to make the antecedent plural so that we could use "they" and be politically correct and not offend anyone.

Example:

Instead of saying, "A writer should use gender neutral pronouns so that he does not offend anyone."

We were instructed to say, "Writers should use gender neutral pronouns so that they do not offend anyone."

This was okay sometimes, but other times it was a complete pain trying to rework the sentence to be plural. Sometimes a singular noun just works better.

I understand and completely support fighting for equality between men and women, but this is a little excessive IMHO.

In my business, we have to do a lot of writing. Generally the purpose of the writing is to persuade the target audience to adopt our view on some disputed point. So it is important, among other things, not to alienate the target audience with unintended distractions, such as getting them irritated over your use of masculine and feminine pronouns.

Often you just don't know in advance what type of person will be reading your little missives. Some readers are offended by the use of masculine pronouns, some by feminine pronouns, some by bizzare "gender-neutral" terms (e.g. "jury foreperson"), and some (perhaps overlapping the first three categories) by the misuse of plural pronouns when a singular form is grammatically correct.

The way I deal with this is to try to avoid constructions using singular pronouns. The previous paragraphs are examples of this. I try to avoid strange inventions such as "mailperson" and "fireperson" by using different terms - "mail carrier" and "fire fighter". When it is necessary to use singular pronouns, I interchange masculine and feminine forms on a more or less equal basis.

I sympathize with the yearning to return to the "good old days" when the masculine form was used to designate any interminate antecedent, but I also see the point of the feminists - if it really desn't matter, why not default to the feminine form?

 

[Walter]

Actually, the correct terms are "Letter Carrier" and "Rural Letter Carrier." Those were the terms prior to PC and the woperson's movement.

 

[emn057]

In my business, we have to do a lot of writing. Generally the purpose of the writing is to persuade the target audience to adopt our view on some disputed point. So it is important, among other things, not to alienate the target audience with unintended distractions, such as getting them irritated over your use of masculine and feminine pronouns.

Often you just don't know in advance what type of person will be reading your little missives. Some readers are offended by the use of masculine pronouns, some by feminine pronouns, some by bizzare "gender-neutral" terms (e.g. "jury foreperson"), and some (perhaps overlapping the first three categories) by the misuse of plural pronouns when a singular form is grammatically correct.

The way I deal with this is to try to avoid constructions using singular pronouns. The previous paragraphs are examples of this. I try to avoid strange inventions such as "mailperson" and "fireperson" by using different terms - "mail carrier" and "fire fighter". When it is necessary to use singular pronouns, I interchange masculine and feminine forms on a more or less equal basis.

I sympathize with the yearning to return to the "good old days" when the masculine form was used to designate any interminate antecedent, but I also see the point of the feminists - if it really desn't matter, why not default to the feminine form?

I see what you're saying. I'm a girl, and I don't feel alienated when people use a masculine pronoun to refer to a person in general. I understand that that's just the way the English language has traditionally worked. But like you said, I guess there will always be some people that are offended. It just seems like people make such a big deal over such a small thing. Maybe we should just simplify the whole thing and start refering to a singular person as "it."