[ Contents . Introduction . FAQ . History . Technical . References . Administrivia ]
No.
Loosely speaking, a pronoun is a part of speech that takes the place of other nouns. Although they are usage-dependent, some pronouns are: I, we, he, she, all, it, they, their, who, what, this, one, nothing, everybody, every, both, etc.
Gendered pronouns are those that indicate gender: he, she, him, her, hers, his, hisself or himself, herself, and derivative forms like she'd or he'd. All others, like "it", "one", and the rest listed above, are gender-neutral. Other terms used might be "GNPs", "gender-free pronouns", "GFPs", "epicene pronouns", "natural-gender pronouns" "genderless pronouns", "ungendered pronouns", or a variety of other terms.
You probably already use some GNPs: they, their, and them. Suppose you are expecting a call from someone of unknown gender; traditionally, you might say something like:
"If the person from the insurance company calls, tell him I'll call him back tomorrow."This is inappropriate, because the person calling might be female. It's been argued and taught that the male forms can also be inclusive and gender-neutral, but many people (myself included) disagree. Some alternatives forms that you may have used:
"If the person from the insurance company calls, tell them I'll call them back tomorrow."Some say "them" is inappropriate here, because it is a plural form being applied to a single person. However, the fact that people have used it for centuries in constructions like this indicate that "them" has another definition, and that it is a singular, gender-neutral, third-person pronoun in cases such as this. But it can't be used in specific cases, like "If you see Chris, tell them to come back at five." Instead, the gendered pronouns "her" or "his" would be correct here.
"If the person from the insurance company calls, tell em I'll call em back tomorrow."
This is an example of a neologism, where the word "em" is created to be used as the singular form of "them". This can be used for all forms of the third-person singular: "If you see Chris, tell em to come back at five." Gender is no longer required.
Lots.
Most English pronouns are gender-neutral; it's just the third-person-singular that has gender: "he, she, ...". But English once had gender-neutral pronouns here — "ou" and "a", which evolved out of the Old and Middle English gendered pronouns "he" (male) and "heo" (female). "He" and "heo" began sounding the same, and it's possible that the modern word "she" was created around the twelfth century partially to increase the gender division. These early GNPs eventually died out in common usage.
In later centuries, many people were irritated by the lack of GNPs for third-person-singular, and tried to solve the problem in various ways. Some advocated using "they/them/their" as singulars, since they've been in common usage (in a limited way) for centuries. Others tried other things, including neologism. Today on the net, the following are in active use by many people: "sie, hir", "zie, zir", "e or ey, eir, em". They can be found in email, web pages, newsgroups, FAQs, and probably IRC (although i've not heard of that yet). Many others appear in fiction and non-fiction. References to all of these will be given later.
Depending on how one counts, there are between three and five active groups. The two most popular seem to be "sie, hir, hir, hirs, hirself", (especially "hir"), and "zie, zir, zir, zirs, zirself". The latter apparently came into being after a German-speaking netizen objected to "sie" and "Sie", which in many contexts means "she" in German. Third and fourth, differing only in the first and maybe last word, are "e or ey, em, eir, eirs, eirself or emself". Fifth, some people use "per", from "person", which i assume has the set "per, per, pers, pers, persself", although i've never seen it developed that far. I've not actually seen this in use on the net, but i've seen people on the net who claimed to use it all the time in their own lives. These will all be discussed in detail later in the FAQ.
Before this FAQ, i don't believe there were any standards agreed upon in any formal way; people have just used whatever felt right, or whatever they were first exposed to. Neologism has waxed and waned, and wheels get reinvented over and over. As mentioned, one goal of this FAQ is to standardize the forms and pronunciation of these different sets, and hopefully to get a lot of people to standardize on just one set.
First, please avoid posts that just say something like "I thing GNPs are cool." or "What a bunch of PC bullshit. 'He' is a perfectly good gender-inclusive pronoun." Try to make your posts something that people might want to read. Say something original, rather than something that already appears in this FAQ or that many people have already squeezed all the blood from.
That said, if you've comments to make, try posting to alt.usage.english ("a.u.e"). If you don't get this group at your site, politely ask your provider to add it if they can. Another group, alt.usage.english.neologism, was apparently created by someone who wanted to get all of the GNP crackpots out of alt.usage.english. But alas, it is a poorly chosen name and had no formal discussion, and few sites get the group. I recommend that it be allowed to die. The majority opinion on a.u.e is that a.u.e should not be subdivided at this time. Please note also that the maintainer of the a.u.e FAQ asks people to refrain from GNP discussions, since they "tend to go round and round and never reach a conclusion." Use your judgement.
If the topic comes up in other groups, it's been my experience the various members will cry "Oh no! It's the pronoun thread from hell again! Run!" or "What's this discussion got to do with xxx.yyy.zzz? Please take it to email" . Use your judgement on starting or continuing discussions in other groups. If you have something that you think should be added to the FAQ, you can send email to disabled . If you can think of a better home base than a.u.e for GNP discussions, i'd be glad to hear of it.
Many people (including myself) use things like "they" and "one" to get around the gendered pronoun problem, and they can work quite well in that purpose. But ultimately they are not satisfying solutions, because they only allow for limited types of use. "They" and "them", for example, can be used with indefinite persons by combining with "somebody", "anybody", "no one", "everybody" — as in "if anyone calls, tell them I'm not here." But it can't be (comfortably) used in a sentence like "When Dr. Xia comes they will speak on the topic of 'Degubblefnordocity in Chaotic Valisii'", or "If you see Sally, tell them that i need to get in touch with them."
In effect, this says "third-person singular pronouns may only be used if the sex is known or (using "they") the person is indefinite; otherwise, one must try to work around them." It's restrictive. I want to be able to use a complete, unrestricted set of pronouns, and i prefer not to use "she" even if i do know the person to be female. I far prefer coming up with a completely functional pronoun set over merely making do and contorting all of my writing trying to get around the problem. (To be "complete", all forms of the pronouns must be available for use; for example, instead of saying "If one values his frogs..." or "If one values their frogs...", a complete use of the "one" pronoun set requires "If one values one's frogs...".)
The following passages should make it clear why things like "one", "they", and so forth can not act as these complete pronoun sets.
Start with a paragraph that uses the various masculine forms, and the other words that some would like to use as replacement pronouns. (This paragraph is an extreme case, causing major problems; in actual usage, one would probably have less extreme cases, diffusing the issue out into thousands of smaller problems that create a nagging sense of awkwardness that persists for centuries.)
The masculine form. Subject: he; object: him; possessive adjective: his; possessive pronoun: his; reflexive: himself or hisself.
A person was down at the river bank withdrawing some polliwogs for his froggery, when he heard branches snapping nearby, and saw a creature creeping towards him from out of the forest. Its eyes had a gleam in them that made him think of all the fierceness of a salad, its nose resembled asparagus, its skin was white and bumpy like cauliflower. He fell backward in terror, and it stopped, a monstrous menacing mound of mobile vegetables. More crashings were heard from the forest, and two more creatures appeared above him on either side. The first creature spoke, in a quiet voice, and its breath smelled of root-beer floats and anise. "One should not take the wogs from the river, no no no little meatling. For they are pretty, and we likes to watch them." Another of the creatures spoke, saying "You would be wise to put them back, tiny tasty meatling, so that we doesn't have to savage you." With that, they raised their massive arms, each covered with wriggling things like grated carrots gone mad. He was indignant, feeling the polliwogs to be rightfully his, but under the circumstances he was not inclined to debate the issue. "No, no!" he cried, "I'll put them back! I'll put them back!" Scrambling over to the water's edge, he carefully deposited each one of them. "Yessssss...." they said, their voices starting as whispers and ending in roars, "YEEESSSSSSSSSS!!!! Bwahahahahahahahaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!"
Now make it gender-neutral, using the suggested alternative pronouns as complete sets.
Plurals as singulars: Subject: they; object: them; possessive adjective: their; possessive pronoun: theirs; reflexive: themselves or theirselves.
A person was down at the river bank withdrawing some polliwogs for their froggery, when they heard branches snapping nearby, and saw a creature creeping towards them from out of the forest. Its eyes had a gleam in them that made them think of all the fierceness of a salad, its nose resembled asparagus, its skin was white and bumpy like cauliflower. They fell backward in terror, and it stopped, a monstrous menacing mound of mobile vegetables. More crashings were heard from the forest, and two more creatures appeared above them on either side. The first creature spoke, in a quiet voice, and its breath smelled of root-beer floats and anise. "One should not take the wogs from the river, no no no little meatling. For they are pretty, and we likes to watch them." Another of the creatures spoke, saying "You would be wise to put them back, tiny tasty meatling, so that we doesn't have to savage you." With that, they raised their massive arms, each covered with wriggling things like grated carrots gone mad. They were indignant, feeling the polliwogs to be rightfully theirs, but under the circumstances they were not inclined to debate the issue. "No, no!" they cried, "I'll put them back! I'll put them back!" Scrambling over to the water's edge, they carefully deposited each one of them. "Yessssss...." they said, their voices starting as whispers and ending in roars, "YEEESSSSSSSSSS!!!! Bwahahahahahahahaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!"
It's difficult to follow this in some places, because both the person and the creatures have the plurals applied to them. Some of this could be regained by using "they was" instead of "they were" for the person, but that doesn't work in phrases like "they raised their arms".
One. Subject: one; object: one; possessive adjective: one's; possessive pronoun: one's; reflexive: oneself.
A person was down at the river bank withdrawing some polliwogs for one's froggery, when one heard branches snapping nearby, and saw a creature creeping towards one from out of the forest. Its eyes had a gleam in them that made one think of all the fierceness of a salad, its nose resembled asparagus, its skin was white and bumpy like cauliflower. One fell backward in terror, and it stopped, a monstrous menacing mound of mobile vegetables. More crashings were heard from the forest, and two more creatures appeared above one on either side. The first creature spoke, in a quiet voice, and its breath smelled of root-beer floats and anise. "One should not take the wogs from the river, no no no little meatling. For they are pretty, and we likes to watch them." Another of the creatures spoke, saying "You would be wise to put them back, tiny tasty meatling, so that we doesn't have to savage you." With that, they raised their massive arms, each covered with wriggling things like grated carrots gone mad. One was indignant, feeling the polliwogs to be rightfully one's, but under the circumstances one was not inclined to debate the issue. "No, no!" one cried, "I'll put them back! I'll put them back!" Scrambling over to the water's edge, one carefully deposited each one of them. "Yessssss...." they said, their voices starting as whispers and ending in roars, "YEEESSSSSSSSSS!!!! Bwahahahahahahahaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!"
The use of "one" as a GNP is repetitive, sounds hypothetical or pedantic, sounds strange since "one" is usually used in a reflexive mode, and it can interfere with normal uses of the word "one". Sounds so odd that one might as well just create a GNP instead.
Both forms. Subject: he/she or "he or she"; object: him/her; possessive adjective: his/her; possessive pronoun: his/hers; reflexive: himself/herself or hisself/herself.
A person was down at the river bank withdrawing some polliwogs for his/her froggery, when he/she heard branches snapping nearby, and saw a creature creeping towards him/her from out of the forest. Its eyes had a gleam in them that made him/her think of all the fierceness of a salad, its nose resembled asparagus, its skin was white and bumpy like cauliflower. He/she fell backward in terror, and it stopped, a monstrous menacing mound of mobile vegetables. More crashings were heard from the forest, and two more creatures appeared above him/her on either side. The first creature spoke, in a quiet voice, and its breath smelled of root-beer floats and anise. "One should not take the wogs from the river, no no no little meatling. For they are pretty, and we likes to watch them." Another of the creatures spoke, saying "You would be wise to put them back, tiny tasty meatling, so that we doesn't have to savage you." With that, they raised their massive arms, each covered with wriggling things like grated carrots gone mad. He/she was indignant, feeling the polliwogs to be rightfully his/hers, but under the circumstances he/she was not inclined to debate the issue. "No, no!" he/she cried, "I'll put them back! I'll put them back!" Scrambling over to the water's edge, he/she carefully deposited each one of them. "Yessssss...." they said, their voices starting as whispers and ending in roars, "YEEESSSSSSSSSS!!!! Bwahahahahahahahaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!"
It doesn't exactly flow. Same for "His or her" schemes, though they sound a little better. Although the sentences are correct and agree in number and gender, poetry would be annihilated and sanity would soon be lost, and i like poetry and look favorably on certain forms of sanity. And then there's the issue of whether or not "he" or "she" gets to go first, (most people instinctively put the masculine first), or whether or not they should be alternated for fairness, and if they are alternated should that be done in a random fashion or strictly by taking turns, and blah blah blah.
It. Subject: it; object: it; possessive adjective: its; possessive pronoun: its; reflexive: itself.
A person was down at the river bank withdrawing some polliwogs for its froggery, when it heard branches snapping nearby, and saw a creature creeping towards it from out of the forest. Its eyes had a gleam in them that made it think of all the fierceness of a salad, its nose resembled asparagus, its skin was white and bumpy like cauliflower. It fell backward in terror, and it stopped, a monstrous menacing mound of mobile vegetables. More crashings were heard from the forest, and two more creatures appeared above it on either side. The first creature spoke, in a quiet voice, and its breath smelled of root-beer floats and anise. "One should not take the wogs from the river, no no no little meatling. For they are pretty, and we likes to watch them." Another of the creatures spoke, saying "You would be wise to put them back, tiny tasty meatling, so that we doesn't have to savage you." With that, they raised their massive arms, each covered with wriggling things like grated carrots gone mad. It was indignant, feeling the polliwogs to be rightfully its, but under the circumstances it was not inclined to debate the issue. "No, no!" it cried, "I'll put them back! I'll put them back!" Scrambling over to the water's edge, it carefully deposited each one of them. "Yessssss...." they said, their voices starting as whispers and ending in roars, "YEEESSSSSSSSSS!!!! Bwahahahahahahahaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!"
"It" is very repetitive, having only three forms, is impersonal sounding, and interferes with normal uses of the word "it". The distinction is lost between the person and the creatures, and more generally the distinction is lost between the person and inanimate objects. Most people do not want to be called "it".
Now try using the gender-neutral pronouns formed by turning the plurals of "they/them/their" into singulars, just dropping the initial "th":
GNPs. Subject: ey; object: em; possessive adjective: eir; possessive pronoun: eirs; reflexive: eirself or emself.
A person was down at the river bank withdrawing some polliwogs for eir froggery, when ey heard branches snapping nearby, and saw a creature creeping towards em from out of the forest. Its eyes had a gleam in them that made em think of all the fierceness of a salad, its nose resembled asparagus, its skin was white and bumpy like cauliflower. Ey fell backward in terror, and it stopped, a monstrous menacing mound of mobile vegetables. More crashings were heard from the forest, and two more creatures appeared above em on either side. The first creature spoke, in a quiet voice, and its breath smelled of root-beer floats and anise. "One should not take the wogs from the river, no no no little meatling. For they are pretty, and we likes to watch them." Another of the creatures spoke, saying "You would be wise to put them back, tiny tasty meatling, so that we doesn't have to savage you." With that, they raised their massive arms, each covered with wriggling things like grated carrots gone mad. Ey was indignant, feeling the polliwogs to be rightfully eirs, but under the circumstances ey was not inclined to debate the issue. "No, no!" ey cried, "I'll put them back! I'll put them back!" Scrambling over to the water's edge, ey carefully deposited each one of them. "Yessssss...." they said, their voices starting as whispers and ending in roars, "YEEESSSSSSSSSS!!!! Bwahahahahahahahaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!"
There is some awkwardness here because they are unfamiliar words, but there are no problems with repetitiveness, weird punctuation, overly-wordy sentences, confusion about number, improper use of gender, interference with other existing words, or awkwardness arising from the already-established tones associated with words like "one" and "it". There is a problem of no longer being able to use "he" and "she" to differentiate between two people when a man and a woman are being spoken of, but that problem already exists when people of the same sex are spoken of, so it's not terribly new or difficult. The language is stronger: one can say what one wants to say directly, instead of trying to avoid the third-person-singular pronouns or substituting other pronouns that don't fit as easily. And the similarity in sounds between the singulars "ey, eir, em" and the plurals "they, their, them" aids in comprehension, so that someone who had never heard of GNPs would likely have no trouble understanding "Pat went over to Chris and gave the beer to em."
This is a big topic, not easy to summarize. The most common accusation against GNP users is that it's some sort of "feminist PC thing". Rather than try to give a single compact answer here, i decided to write a long multifaceted thing resembling a Usenet thread. (Actually, much of the inspiration and ideas in it came from Usenet threads, but the things you see here don't bear a strong resemblance to the threads they originated from: most ideas and opinions below have been significantly altered, reworded, chopped to bits and put together with other ideas, moved around, and so forth. Large portions of it are just stream-of-consciousness style writing on my part based on my memory of the various discussions i've seen. If anything, after reading this people should come away with the realization that GNP use is not just a whimsical alteration of the language, and that it's not possible to define any particular "type" of person who is for or against the use of gender-neutral pronouns. Extensive ranting about the "PC" or feminist aspects of GNP use, to the exclusion of considering other motivations, is likely to brand the speaker as someone who is not capable or willing to join in two-way conversations and debates.
How To Tell A Businessman From A Businesswoman
A businessman is aggressive; a businesswoman is pushy.
He is careful about details; she is picky.
He loses his temper because he's so involved in his job; she's bitchy.
He's depressed (hung over), so everyone tiptoes past his office;
she's moody, so it must be her time of the month.
He follows through; she doesn't know when to quit.
He's firm; she's stubborn.
He makes wise judgments; she reveals her prejudices.
He is a man of the world; she's been around.
He isn't afraid to say what he thinks; she's opinionated.
He exercises authority; she's tyrannical.
He's discreet; she's secretive.
He's a stern taskmaster; she's difficult to work for. —Unknown
[ Contents . Introduction . FAQ . History . Technical . References . Administrivia ]
John Williams | Æther Lumina Home
|