8mo ago

Pronouns

You're viewing a single thread.

478 comments

Perhaps we could all just use he/her for everyone because its less typing (e and r right next to each other vs im on him or he on she) and less space taken up on screens and paper? It would end run the haterade bigots looking to stir shit up and the self serving jackasses that inject themselves as the main character in every else's life choices and experiences.
In my own case, I only really take issue with the singular vs plural pronouns because they/them implies multiple people. Declaring they/them as your pronoun feels like an awkward adjustment to force on everyone else, not at all from a gender fluid or gendered language position, just from a logical expedience of exactness of language position.
We make all this shit up anyway, so let's just collectively define a shortest pronoun to represent individuals universally. Equality of respect among peers.
- 'They/them' has been used for singular people for centuries.
  The Oxford English Dictionary traces singular they back to 1375, where it appears in the medieval romance William and the Werewolf. Except for the old-style language of that poem, its use of singular they to refer to an unnamed person seems very modern. Here’s the Middle English version: ‘Hastely hiȝed eche . . . þei neyȝþed so neiȝh . . . þere william & his worþi lef were liand i-fere.’ In modern English, that’s: ‘Each man hurried . . . till they drew near . . . where William and his darling were lying together.’
  https://www.oed.com/discover/a-brief-history-of-singular-they/?tl=true
  
  So that means that's the best way for it to work in the future? Having a distinction between singular and plural is useful, so why *not adjust our language and repurpose the not useful gendered pronouns?
  
  No one said you can't use gendered pronouns.
  
  I understand that, my point is that they're not useful. Or at least it would be much more useful to have a singular and a plural pronoun, because that distinction is more relevant to modern speech.
  
  Language is as useful as people make it and people have been happy to use the singular 'they' along with gendered pronouns for centuries. I don't see the issue.
  
  You could use a similar argument to stop literally any innovation. Things don't have to be an issue to be able to be improved.
  
  Language isn't about innovation unless it is an artificial language. People don't choose their words based on what is innovative.
  
  Are we not intelligent enough to make language whatever we want it to be? We actually do that all the time with political correctness and ungendering words like policeman.
  
  "We" are not under any obligation to make language whatever you want it to be.
  Again, most people have no problem with the singular 'they.' You do. Why should they change to accommodate you?
  
  I'm not obligating anything or asking for any accommodation. I'm trying to make an argument for a better system than what we currently have, whereas you just seem to be saying 'change is stupid'.
  
  Yes and languages evolve. I also worry that your same sort of historial logic can be used in favor of preserving gendered language and traditional gender definitions that is contrary to the goals here.
  I'm arguing for a standard usage, he/her for everyone covers always having a singular standardized pronoun so that they/them can be used as plural pronouns without the potential confusion that you may be talking about more than one person in the same literal contextual frame of a discussion. Preciseness of language improves the quality of communication.
  Even in that example, and perhaps the modern English translation is just incorrect in its wording, "Each man hurried... til they drew near" is still a plural representative form of usage, as 'each man' is an implied amount of more than a singular man.
  To say "Each man hurried... til he drew near... where William and his darling were lying together" creates a confusion of singular subject and does not work since 'each man' and 'they' represents more than a single self identifying entity.
  
  Cool. Good luck getting people to change language they've used for centuries because you want them to.
  
  No, not cool. Languages do in fact change over time, regardless of what you or I may think, do or want.
  I never demanded others conform to what I want, I argued in favor of an idea that has evolved over time from my own personal growth and life experiences, and it's a suggestion that is certainly open for discussion.
  This was shared as a thought out consideration meant to improve on existing language in several ways, including:
  as a compromise and simplified solution on pronoun gendering,
  more exactness when discussing single individuals or multiple individuals,
  and as a pronoun that is inclusive of everyone without having to talk down to people you disagree with.
  I don't know if you just constantly see red when you go to reply on certain thread topics, but not everything is or needs to be a reactionary agitative internet fight. Have a nice day.
  
  You can argue your idea all you want, but language doesn't change because someone has an idea that they think makes sense. That's not how things work.
  
  That's exactly how things work.
  Ideas affect change.
  Not every idea brings change, but exploring new and different ideas is always worth pursuing.
  Our entire civilization is built from, on, and around ideas put into actions.
  
  That's great. Good luck with your media campaign. Or did you plan to change the language by talking to me on Lemmy?
- This person, they understand singular pronouns, if everyone was like them no one would use they or them to refer to one person.
  
  I mean, my only real argument is about efficiency and language exactness for the sake of clarity of meaning. Here's a version based on my suggestion:
  "This person understands pronouns, if everyone was like her then no one would use they are them to refer to one person."
  I'm not attacking pronoun users, I'm advocating for more efficient pronoun usage rather than arbitrarily requiring others to redefine their pronoun usage for every single individual that wants to use a different unique pronoun. Why, you ask? A pronoun is a shortened identifier than can be used in many different instances to represent a noun, in general, individual pronouns are a substitute for individual names.
  Your name is the actually unique identifier more-so than any pronoun is or needs to be.
- Just want to make sure I'm understanding your post:
  Making "he/her" non-gendered: perfectly acceptable.
  Using "they/them" as singular: unacceptable gibberish.
  
  More like...
  Using gendered singular pronouns: kinda weird and pointless
  Using they/them for both singular and plural: possibly confusing
  Making a non-gendered singular pronoun: reduces confusion
  
  They/them as a singular is really not the confusing. You'd have to come up with an extremely contrived example for it to be problematic. People have been using 'they' as a singular pronoun for centuries when the gender isn't known: "Someone left their umbrella, I hope they come back for it."
  
  It's not that contrived to have two subjects in a sentence be a single person and a group of people. I have personally been in situations where someone was confused about the use of the singular them. Obviously it's possible to understand in most circumstances, but why not make it easier? Especially when it's a simple solution that also stops most of the misgendering people experience.
- I've been arguing this for a while and I don't understand why so many people are against it.
  He/Him: okay i guess
  She/Her: weird change and doesn't fit previous convention
  He/Her: actually builds off of each other
  That and while the distinction between Male and Female pronouns is kind of pointless, having a distinction between singular and plural pronouns is actually a helpful feature.

478 comments