Is there a gender-neutral substitute for "his or her"?

[PAFasdf]

***
As writer Deborah Cameron points out, the sentence "The man went berserk and killed his neighbor's wife" is unobjectionable on its surface. But stop to think: why "his neighbor's wife" instead of "one of his neighbors"?
***

Because his neighbor's wife doesn't live with that neighbor?


*******************************
LINK TO COLUMN: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/...for-his-or-her

[Syme]

Originally Posted by PAFasdf

***
As writer Deborah Cameron points out, the sentence "The man went berserk and killed his neighbor's wife" is unobjectionable on its surface. But stop to think: why "his neighbor's wife" instead of "one of his neighbors"?
***

Because his neighbor's wife doesn't live with that neighbor?

Simple, he only had one neighbour

[postpic200]

Originally Posted by PAFasdf

***
As writer Deborah Cameron points out, the sentence "The man went berserk and killed his neighbor's wife" is unobjectionable on its surface. But stop to think: why "his neighbor's wife" instead of "one of his neighbors"?
***

Because his neighbor's wife doesn't live with that neighbor?

Because if you say his neighbor's wife, you know the person he killed was female, married and live close enough to be call a neighbor.. If you just say one of his neighbors, you don't know what gender the person was that was killed, nor do you know if they were wed or unwed.

[Inner Stickler]

If he had killed the man, would you expect the paper to say, "his neighbor's husband,"?

[postpic200]

Originally Posted by Inner Stickler

If he had killed the man, would you expect the paper to say, "his neighbor's husband,"?

I would, but I'm not most people. A far better way to have put his is He kill, Jane Smith of 1186 1st Street. Jane Smith lived next door to her killer and was married to Ted Smith.

You have all the information, and don't have to worry about his or her.

[raspberry hunter]

Huh. I'd have expected "The woman went berserk and killed her neighbor's husband."

I guess I assume that the man is more likely to know the male neighbor better, and the woman is more likely to know the female neighbor better. But I see the point.

[Little Nemo]

"Man went berserk and killed woman next door"

[Powers]

Didn't we just have this conversation? Complete with the exact same arguments?


Powers &8^]

[moronpolitics]

While it may SEEM as if grammar is ruled by tightlipped school marms with threatening rulers tapping against their palms or old men with monocles in ivy covered halls in reality usage is ruled by what ordinary people do in their speech and writing. It takes a while for the rule writers (not makers you see) to get around to formalizing this usage in books and declaring it correct. However, listening to people speak I have declared that "his/or her" will not be replaced by some new word although some have made suggestions. It will be replaced by what I call and urge YOU to call the "indefinite plural" definition: The indefinite plural indicates one and of an indefinite group that might be of either gender and therefore the gender specific pronouns "he" and "she" or "his" and "her" are inappropriate. Examples.

Someone picked up the money and then THEY left in a yellow car.

A person took my dog and I hope THEY decide to return it.

When someone loses an item it is kept in the lost and found for a month before THEIR property is donated to charity.

In all of these examples it is obvious the subject is singular just as the speaker/writer is a single person but THEY used the INDEFINITE PLURAL to replace "his or her" or "he or she". I posit that YOU have heard this usage a million times and hopefully giving it a name, to wit, "the indefinite plural" will help formalize this rule. Tell you local school marm.

[PJMom]

Originally Posted by moronpolitics

While it may SEEM as if grammar is ruled by tightlipped school marms with threatening rulers tapping against their palms or old men with monocles in ivy covered halls in reality usage is ruled by what ordinary people do in their speech and writing. It takes a while for the rule writers (not makers you see) to get around to formalizing this usage in books and declaring it correct. However, listening to people speak I have declared that "his/or her" will not be replaced by some new word although some have made suggestions. It will be replaced by what I call and urge YOU to call the "indefinite plural" definition: The indefinite plural indicates one and of an indefinite group that might be of either gender and therefore the gender specific pronouns "he" and "she" or "his" and "her" are inappropriate. Examples.

Someone picked up the money and then THEY left in a yellow car.

A person took my dog and I hope THEY decide to return it.

When someone loses an item it is kept in the lost and found for a month before THEIR property is donated to charity.

In all of these examples it is obvious the subject is singular just as the speaker/writer is a single person but THEY used the INDEFINITE PLURAL to replace "his or her" or "he or she". I posit that YOU have heard this usage a million times and hopefully giving it a name, to wit, "the indefinite plural" will help formalize this rule. Tell you local school marm.

This is essentially what I would have said in response to the original question, but after reading the sentence it hit me that a more appropriate question would address the inference in the sentence that, in killing the neighbor's wife, the offense was to the live spouse.

[Inner Stickler]

I always like to ask opponents of the singular they how to correctly fix the sentence, "Let me know if your mother or your father changes their mind."

[Powers]

Originally Posted by Inner Stickler

I always like to ask opponents of the singular they how to correctly fix the sentence, "Let me know if your mother or your father changes their mind."

"Let me know if one of your parents changes his or her mind."


Powers &8^]

[moronpolitics]

and, in the example you used notice you used the indefinite plural and everybody knows you mean "his or her" from the context. On the other subject of killing his neighbor's wife had the killer been a woman this author would have written, "The woman killed her neighbor's husband." The way the original sentence indicates their might have been something sexual or otherwise affecting the marital relationship between the couple that had one spouse killed. This isn't some weird sexist political correctness problem. It just indicates some additional information that the author knows or suspects, but can't state absolutely.
There's a guy across the street from me that I speak to 3 or 4 times a month when I see him outside to comment on someone who moved into or out of the neighborhood or had the cops over etc. I have only spoken to his wife once in that way and it was because of a local emergency where people may have been at risk. My wife on the other hand speaks to the women a couple of times a month, but rarely the man. This is "normal". If I started going over and joking around with the woman several times a month while she was going into the house my wife, her husband and likely SHE HERSELF would ask me exactly what I thought I was doing. This is also "normal". If someone shoots me... The Dallas Morning News is very PC... the news headline would say "Man Shoots Neighborhood Lothario". No pronouns involved.

[Inner Stickler]

Well, you've changed the sentence, which is fine, (although, I also wonder if you solve clogged sinks by taking out a wall) but I was thinking more in terms of people who insist that the masculine embraces the feminine.

[Powers]

Originally Posted by Inner Stickler

Well, you've changed the sentence, which is fine, (although, I also wonder if you solve clogged sinks by taking out a wall) but I was thinking more in terms of people who insist that the masculine embraces the feminine.

Well such persons are hardly the only opponents of singular they.


Powers &8^]

[Cheryl44]

In English, the male pronouns (he/his/him) are both masculine and neuter. If you are unsure of a person's gender, it is grammatically correct to use he to refer to the person.

[tapu]

An Argument for Generic Singular "They"

I wrote this up quite casually, but I do have an M.A. in Ling from Univ. of CA. and did some work in this area of the field.

http://tapu-tapu-tapu.blogspot.com/2...ular-they.html

[Giles]

Originally Posted by Cheryl44

In English, the male pronouns (he/his/him) are both masculine and neuter. If you are unsure of a person's gender, it is grammatically correct to use he to refer to the person.

It is also "grammatically correct" to refer to a person of unknown gender as "it" or as "they". For example (if you doubt that "it" can be used):
* I heard the Smiths have a new baby: do you know what sex it is?
* I was told that a person called to see me when I was out: was it a man or a woman?

So the pronouns that can be used to refer to "a baby" or to "a person" are "he", "she" and "it" -- neatly illustrating that English has no gender, since the nouns "baby" and "person" have no grammatical gender. In French, which does have grammatical gender, if you use "une personne" to refer to a person, you must use the feminine "elle" to refer to the person, regardless of whether the person is female, male or of unknown gender.

And it's not correct to say that "the male pronouns (he/his/him) are both masculine and neuter." They have no gender: what you can say is that the pronouns (he/his/him) can be used to refer to male people, male animals, and people of unknown gender -- and you should also say that many people do not like using he/his/him for people of unknown gender, and prefer using they/their/them instead.

[tapu]

Originally Posted by Powers

"Let me know if one of your parents changes his or her mind."


Powers &8^]

What if you don't know whether their parents are MF. FF, or MM? Go with "their." Language is natural, and it's all headed there anyway.

[Powers]

Originally Posted by tapu

What if you don't know whether their parents are MF. FF, or MM? Go with "their." Language is natural, and it's all headed there anyway.

Just because language is natural doesn't mean I have to acquiesce to every cockamamie idea that comes along and gains some measure of traction. Heck, we never should have let "you" become singular; doing it for "they" would just be compounding the error.


Powers &8^]

[Powers]

Originally Posted by tapu

An Argument for Generic Singular "They"

I wrote this up quite casually, but I do have an M.A. in Ling from Univ. of CA. and did some work in this area of the field.

http://tapu-tapu-tapu.blogspot.com/2...ular-they.html

"Even then, Canadian, gay, whatever, you've marked yourself as kind of prissy."

This line reads as bigoted, and poisons whatever other point you were trying to make.


Powers &8^]

[Giles]

Originally Posted by Powers

Heck, we never should have let "you" become singular ...

Originally Posted by Powers

This line reads as bigoted, and poisons whatever other point you were trying to make.

So, if thou hadst thy way, thou wouldst need to decide whether to say "thou wast trying to make" or "thou wert trying to make" in that last sentence. Fortunately, other speakers of English have agreed that it's not worthwhile to have to remember all those extra irregular verb forms. Thou mayst thank thy god for that.

[Inner Stickler]

Originally Posted by Powers

"Even then, Canadian, gay, whatever, you've marked yourself as kind of prissy."

This line reads as bigoted, and poisons whatever other point you were trying to make.


Powers &8^]

I'm not seeing it. Can you explain further why you think it's bigoted, bearing in mind that tapu is, I believe, a lesbian?

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by moronpolitics

Someone picked up the money and then THEY left in a yellow car.

A person took my dog and I hope THEY decide to return it.

When someone loses an item it is kept in the lost and found for a month before THEIR property is donated to charity.

In all of these examples it is obvious the subject is singular just as the speaker/writer is a single person but THEY used the INDEFINITE PLURAL to replace "his or her" or "he or she". I posit that YOU have heard this usage a million times and hopefully giving it a name, to wit, "the indefinite plural" will help formalize this rule. Tell you local school marm.

Yeah, but that sucks.

[Powers]

Originally Posted by Giles

So, if thou hadst thy way, thou wouldst need to decide whether to say "thou wast trying to make" or "thou wert trying to make" in that last sentence. Fortunately, other speakers of English have agreed that it's not worthwhile to have to remember all those extra irregular verb forms. Thou mayst thank thy god for that.

We already remember multiple verb forms for each verb; what's one or two more?


Powers &8^]

[Powers]

Originally Posted by Inner Stickler

I'm not seeing it. Can you explain further why you think it's bigoted, bearing in mind that tapu is, I believe, a lesbian?

Leaving aside the question of how I was supposed to know that, painting both gay people and Canadians as nigh-universally "prissy" strikes me as quite obviously problematic.


Powers &8^]

[Irishman]

There's already a meme "Gay, or just British?" Seems a variant. "Gay, or just Canadian?"

[Inner Stickler]

Originally Posted by Powers

Leaving aside the question of how I was supposed to know that, painting both gay people and Canadians as nigh-universally "prissy" strikes me as quite obviously problematic.


Powers &8^]

Or a reference to the fact that the former group is known for using female pronouns regardless of sex and the second is famous for a higher than normal standard of politeness.

[Powers]

Originally Posted by Inner Stickler

Or a reference to the fact that the former group is known for using female pronouns regardless of sex and the second is famous for a higher than normal standard of politeness.

Hardly an improvement, implying that politeness is "prissy". Also, it makes for an odd definition of "normal" to imply that an entire country is on one side of the dividing line. The only context in which I could possibly view Canadians as overly polite is in comparison to certain elements of U.S. culture.


Powers &8^]

[Inner Stickler]

Well, uh, ok then. I'll alert everyone who makes jokes about Canadians being polite that Powers doesn't think it's a real stereotype.

[tapu]

Originally Posted by Powers

"Even then, Canadian, gay, whatever, you've marked yourself as kind of prissy."

This line reads as bigoted, and poisons whatever other point you were trying to make.


Powers &8^]

It's called parody, or humor if you prefer.... Actually never mind. You don't have it.

[tapu]

Originally Posted by Irishman

There's already a meme "Gay, or just British?" Seems a variant. "Gay, or just Canadian?"

Yes! That. It's a form of humor--parody-- that is sophisticated, and really anti-bigotry. It says we all know these stereotypes exist; let's acknowledge them, show our power over them, and move on from there.

I find there are very few who don't get this. But once they don't, they won't. I'm not sure what the determining factor(s) could be....

[Powers]

Insulting stereotypes are still insulting. And I've never heard this "Canadians are prissy" one before.

I've found that "I was just joking" and "Can't you take a joke" are the last refuges of the boorish.


Powers &8^]

[tapu]

Eh, bite me. Humor is a matter of taste.

[Powers]

Originally Posted by tapu

Humor is a matter of taste.

Well, that's at least an improvement over your previous statements on the topic.


Powers &8^]

[drewder]

Originally Posted by Inner Stickler

If he had killed the man, would you expect the paper to say, "his neighbor's husband,"?

Honestly, I would assume that the fact that it is his neighbor's wife being mentioned in such a way that there was some significance to the relationship. Like a man was secretly involved in a homosexual relationship with his neighbor. His neighbor's wife found out about the relationship and put an end to it. The man went berserk and killed his neighbor's wife.

[tavaritz]

Originally Posted by Cheryl44

In English, the male pronouns (he/his/him) are both masculine and neuter. If you are unsure of a person's gender, it is grammatically correct to use he to refer to the person.

No they are not: They/their/them is proper English when you don't know the gender of the singular agent. But alas, most americans don't believe this as their schoolmarms have told them something else.

As a Finn I personally use she/hers/her reflecting the Swedish use. We in Finland don't have the problem as our version (hän, etc.[1]) isn't gender specific at all.

[1] The list of various declinations is long and even controversial so I'm not going to present it here.

[Powers]

Originally Posted by tavaritz

They/their/them is proper English when you don't know the gender of the singular agent. But alas, most americans don't believe this as their schoolmarms have told them something else.

Yeah yeah yeah. To the extent there is such a thing as "proper" English, the idea that "they" is singular is only gaining the barest of acceptance for formal writing. It grates not because "schoolmarms" took a silly and unnecessary stand against it, but because they scan to most native English readers as plural.

"You", another plural that has acquired the singular sense as well, has had centuries of steady use and disuse of its antecedent ("thou"). "They" has had centuries of singular use, but not exclusive and not steady. We still have "it" and "he" and "she" and all three are still in use, unlike "thou".


Powers &8^]

[Inner Stickler]

It scans that way because of schoolmarms.

[Freakenstein]

Originally Posted by Giles

And it's not correct to say that "the male pronouns (he/his/him) are both masculine and neuter." They have no gender: what you can say is that the pronouns (he/his/him) can be used to refer to male people, male animals, and people of unknown gender -- and you should also say that many people do not like using he/his/him for people of unknown gender, and prefer using they/their/them instead.

That's so unfair. Females have their own pronoun, why can't We males have one too?

Originally Posted by Powers

Heck, we never should have let "you" become singular; doing it for "they" would just be compounding the error.

'We'? That would be...?

Originally Posted by tavaritz

No they are not: They/their/them is proper English when you don't know the gender of the singular agent.

Since You are a Finn Your assertion is quite bold, I should imagine.

We in Finland don't have the problem as our version (hän, etc.[1]) isn't gender specific at all.

[1] The list of various declinations is long and even controversial so I'm not going to present it here.

True, but in informal language the word 'se' is used mostly ( meaning 'it' ) and it indeed is the original word. ( 'Hän' was actually used when a person spoke about a third person speaking about oneself ( like in 'it said he wouldn't come here' ).
It's pronounced like 'hand' without 'd', so let's all start using 'han' and maybe in a few decades there won't be any problems...
( Also, I'm not aware of any controversy or at least can't remember any at the moment ).

[qazwart]

Back in the 1960s, there was a riddle that went like this:

A boy and his father were taking a ride in a car. The car had an accident. The father died, and the boy was taken to the hospital and was in need of emergency sugary. The doctor looked at the boy, and said "I can't operate on this boy, he's my son!

How can this be?

I think the answer would be more obvious now than back then. (The mother was the doctor), but it messed people up looking for all sorts of strange relationships (The doctor was the boy's Godfather!... The boy was adopted, and the father who died was his adopted father!)

Yes, male pronouns use to be considered nurtured when the sex was unknown: When a school set out the following note: "Your child will not be allowed to go unless he brings his parents permission slip by tomorrow." applies to both boys and girls. However, we are now uncomfortable with this construct.

Historically, it was quite common to use the singular they. The practice was discouraged in the late 19th century when a lot of grammar rules were foisted on the language to make it more in line with Latin. This is where you get such rules as "You can't start a sentence with because", and "Don't split infinitives". It's also the period of time when the word "ain't" left our language.

I use they, their, and them as singular because it's cleaner than saying his/her, he/she combinations. Languages evolve over time, and the singular they is making a comeback.

[Powers]

Originally Posted by Freakenstein

'We'? That would be...?

Anglophones.


Powers &8^]

[Powers]

Originally Posted by qazwart

The practice was discouraged in the late 19th century when a lot of grammar rules were foisted on the language to make it more in line with Latin. This is where you get such rules as "You can't start a sentence with because", and "Don't split infinitives". It's also the period of time when the word "ain't" left our language.

The rule against starting a sentence with "because" makes a lot of sense. It doesn't seem nearly as arbitrary or unnecessary as the rule against splitting infinitives.


Powers &8^]

[Inner Stickler]

Because I left early, the party was lame.