Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site spar.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!decwrl!spar!michael From: michael@spar.UUCP (Not Bill Joy) Newsgroups: net.nlang Subject: Re: Pronouns devoid of gender connotations Message-ID: <371@spar.UUCP> Date: Fri, 28-Jun-85 05:11:51 EDT Article-I.D.: spar.371 Posted: Fri Jun 28 05:11:51 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 1-Jul-85 06:29:38 EDT References: <2718@decwrl.UUCP> <337@spar.UUCP> <6473@boring.UUCP> Reply-To: ellis@spar.UUCP (Not Bill Joy) Organization: Schlumberger Palo Alto Research, CA Lines: 56 Summary: > = [Jack Jansen] >> Subjective: We need a programmer. {S/he,they,one?} must have 5 years' >> programming experience in C. > We need a programmer. Five year programming experience > in C is required. >> Possessive: The applicant must know how to tie {his/her,their,one's?} >> shoes. > Applicants must know how to tie their shoes. >> Objective:When you see John's secretary, give {him/her,them,one?} this >> memo. > No problem here, since this is speaking language. The > person saying this probably knows the gender of John's > secretary... > [How can YOU say I probably know the correct gender? It's MY example! -me] > > ...Otherwise just ask "Could you give this > to John's secretary?". > [Bogus.. that's not saying the same thing at all! -me] > >What I'm trying to say is the following: We don't have to make up new words >to write gender-less language. In the cases where it is really important >(like advertisments, etc), you can just re-organise your sentences to >circumvene the problem. In manuals and the like, you can use 'one'. In >cases that aren't covered by this, you pick one of he/she, and alternate. I agree that in carefully worded prose, the techniques you have suggested are effective, especially when the intended audience expects or requires a conservative formal style. But there are many other contexts where rewording requires more effort than I care to put out. Like when writing DrivelNet articles, for instance. Your suggestion is particularly worthless in daily speech, where you have no power to edit the sentence you are responding to, and where the necessary mental effort is prohibitive... Somebody else: We have hired a new programmer. Me: What day do they start? And do they know C? Incorrect? Yes. But it is handy, understandable, and natural, especially to those who have not allowed themselves to be brainwashed by so many grammar texts. No doubt, you can show me some way to reword `my' response. And that would miss the point. English already has a sex-ambiguous third person anaphoric pronoun. It has been in colloquial use for a long time -- in spite of the condemnation of grammarians. Certain recent changes in society appear to favor abandoning what was at one time a harmless artificial rule. -michael