Wouldn’t English Latine and Spanish Latin be pronounce nearly identically?
OK to clarify something mentioned earlier:
“Latin” to refer to this cultural group in English is considered archaic. Something pre-1960. The more modern version is to use the properly Spanish, and gendered, word Latino/Latina (stress on the “i”, which BTW is pronounced like an English “ee”).
The attempt now is to degender the term. However the choice of tacking on an “x” and pronouncing it “Lati-nex”… rubs some of us the wrong way. For one there’s the phonology – in Spanish the sequence of letters “Latinx” would be pronounced “La-tinks” (or “La-tinsh” if you want to go mesoamerican), not “Lati-nex” which sounds like some sort of OTC pharmaceutical.
In a more touchy dimension, the non-Spanish phonology creates a vibe of “this is something some Latin(o/a) person at a US college copied from Anglophone peers” even if it were not so.
Many in the hispanosphere, prefer to do the "neutralizing"by changing the -o/-a ending to “-e”, creating “Latine” (pron. la-tee-neh). (-e is not an automatic marker of gender-neutral but there are far more gender-neutral words with -e endings than with -o).
No, the point is that as with “Latino”, you’d be pronouncing it as if in Spanish.
To this one, older or more establishmentarian members of our population may still roll our eyes (especially at things like, “¡Bienvenides, amigues!”) but concede “at least that’s pronounceable”.
No, AFAICT, the term Latine is pronounced with three syllables. (ETA: as JRDelirious explains.)
But they are not spelled the same. “Latin” doesn’t look like a typo. “Latine” does - in fact autocorrect tries to remove the “e” for me.
Ah, okay, that makes sense. Thanks!
I think you’re right for the most part. I’m not sure how long we’ll continue to see people posting their preferred pronouns on LinkedIn or when the use of Latinx will just be an odd curiosity like womyn is now. But even I have changed the gendered words I use in many of my writings. Though I still use he and she but I can afford to be a little old fashioned I guess.
Yeah, my take on overall trends (which the future may or may not bear out) is roughly that
-
usages that allow people to pay less attention to individual gender specificities, like singular “they” and the gender-neutral honorific “Mx.”, will endure;
-
usages that require people to pay more attention to individual gender specificities, like explicitly listing one’s pronouns on everything and coining multiple new terms for pronouns and gender identities, will fade out.
Other factors can override these general tendencies, of course: according to that notion the gender-neutral “Latinx” should have had staying power, but it was just too clunky and artificial in Spanish.
Given the surprisingly high percentage of Hispanic folks who have said they find “Latinx” to be cumbersome and stupid, I’d choose a different term. LIke, umm, Hispanic.
For what it’s worth, which probably isn’t much, the box that people could check one the survey I just circulated was “Latinx/Hispanic.”
As I (poorly) understand it, the two terms largely but not 100% overlap. So including them both is at least a nod in the direction of acknowledging that the two terns can share space, but are not identical - just as the categories 18-25 and 26-40 could be merged into an 18-40 group, but we acknowledge that the groups are adjacent, not neccessarily identical.
I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone use Latinx in a real life conversation. If the people that it is supposed to refer to don’t use it, the chances of it sticking are pretty small.
Is this true in general, or just in academia and writing? Because I haven’t noticed any particular drop in the use of he or she in casual conversation. Maybe it just doesn’t register with me.
I pointed this out in an earlier thread about this. The pronunciation is just begging for racists to start using the word “tinks” as a slur. Chinks, tinks - pretty soon all derogatory ethnic terms will rhyme.
To endure, it would have to be generally accepted in the first place, and this is barely on the radar in the US.
I read that (at least as of now) it is considered a distinct Americanism, so (like Filipinx) the advice is not to use it for a general audience, lest people be at best bemused, quite likely offended. Furthermore, it is not really used by Spanish-speaking Americans either.
Certainly it was used by some American academic somewhere at least once, but if you are a member of that circle you probably already know it and where it may be used.
I agree that there seems to be a push to eliminate gender in language, and I’m not sure why that is needed. Maybe that will end up being a fad. To my eyes and ears, the use of the singular “they” will always look like it is texted by a 14 year old girl. It just looks wrong and was not what I was taught in school. I understand things change, but this change seems forced.
I do agree that the generic he is not compatible with modern thinking and that “he or she” can get cumbersome and it becomes difficult to write a complex sentence with six or seven "he or she"s but what we did for years was simply to restructure the sentence so that it didn’t occur so often.
As far as Latinx, the only times I have heard about it are debates about using the word like in this thread. What is wrong with using Hispanic in that context?
You mean the concept of Latin America is archaic, or…? It does seem more appropriate in most everyday cases to talk about Brasileiros, Cubanos, etc.; how often are you talking about Latin America or Latinos?
“Neutralising” the ending makes it latīna, in Latin (neuter plural)
I work with a woman who is a Latina who enthusiastically uses “Latinx” when referring to a mixed gender group of people of Hispanic origin or descent, and also with another woman who finds it stupid. So I do hear it in real life, as well as gendered usage.
Yes
Given its origins, and its uptake by some Hispanic academics e.g. in PR, I’d have to say no.
Again, see the usage of it and similar terms like hermanx and ninx by Puerto Rican academics. No.
Yes, given the uptake outside academia has been more with younger people, I think it will be normalized in the circles it’s currently used. But not in general usage.
I’ve heard others like it because x is common in Nahuatl.
I have never heard Latinx used in the UK. Latin yes, but only if you don’t know the exact nationality. It means ‘somewhere in south Europe’ Italy/Spain/Portugal/France, the countries who speak Latin derived languages. South Americans are not very thick on the ground. Certainly use of the term Latin is nothing to do with the ancient Latin language itself, the understanding of which, is the preserve of a minority who had it beaten into them as part of a privileged private education. Our current Prime Minister is a example of a proud Latin speaker. We already have lots of names for him and his ilk.
However, I shall inquire about Latinx amongst the denizens of my local college, where the folks are much consumed by the nuances of gender, identity politics and the correct forms of address.
Those things have always been common in casual conversation. It was academia and writers/publishers/editors who stifled their use in the written word. So they have had more room to decline there than in casual conversation.
More like, in everyday American English usage it’s still normal to refer to people “from Latin America”(* ) but it sounds old-fogeyed to say someone is “a Latin” as opposed to “a Latino man” (**). The by now well established distinction between using identifiers as adjective vs. generic noun.
(* ) The designator “América Latina” was coined around the mid 1800s by writers trying to emphasize cultural commonality in the face of lack of political unity, and the emergence of Anglo-american power. I have a very strong feeling that none of those writers bothered asking the Aymara or Quiché what they thought about it.
(** ) BTW that brings up another element in this confusion – are these terms expected to become “universal” for all Latino/Hispanic peoples everywhere, or only for those within the American-English sphere, or is it more for purposes of communicating with Anglophones?
Which brings up another touchy issue among the community in the USA, namely the not-unjustified perception that Anglo-USAmerican culture views “Mexican” as the “default standard Hispanic”.
Latinx always impressed me as pretty stupid, but as with so many ever-changing cultural descriptors, I’ll do my best to keep up w/ current trends. Which likely means - since I don’t use such descriptors all the time - I’ll remain confused, undoubtedly will use non-optimal terms, and will provide various individuals ample basis for taking offense.
Might be better to not even try and use one of many terms I KNOW everyone will consider inappropriate and insulting! 
Eh. Puerto Ricans are American. And the major objection to “Latinx” is that it is a term coined by American English speakers that ignores how Spanish phonology works. Even if X is common, the pronunciation of Latinx is odd, as if were spelled “latínex.”
“Latine” has the advantage of actually being proposed by atual Spanish speakers, and being pronounced using standard Spanish (or Portuguese) orthography. It lacks that imperialist aspect, and so I think is more likely to catch on.
It’s not like Latinx has that much adoption yet. Even you mention it as being adopted by academics in Puerto Rico, not the general public. The terminology we eventually settle on for gender-neutral Latino/a is still largely up in the air.