Pronoun Problems

[JesusA (imported)]

Any reactions to this article from the Hartford, Connecticut paper? I’m convinced we need some alternative to the “he”/”she” dichotomy, but is this it? I hate using plurals when my meaning is clearly singular.

New Fix To The Pronoun Problem

`Hu' Latest Substitute For `He,' And `She'

By WILLIAM WEIR, Courant Staff Writer

The Hartford (CT) Courant

Friday, June 15, 2007

For at least 150 years, people have been trying to solve the pronoun dilemma.

That would be the dilemma that causes ungainly formations out of fairness to both sexes: "he or she," "him or her," or "s/he." Some avoid the gender question altogether by speaking in the plural, as in "If anyone asks, tell them what they need to know."

Some have taken the more extreme approach of devising entirely new pronouns that specify no gender. "Ne," "hizer," "thon" "shem" and "herm" are just a few that have come along, and faded almost as quickly. They're known as gender-neutral, or epicene, pronouns.

The latest such pronoun comes from DeAnn DeLuna, who teaches literature at Johns Hopkins University. Her creation, "hu," would replace he, she, him, her and his. Because it's just one word, unlike an entire set of pronouns, DeLuna says its easier to use than other gender-neutral pronouns. And the word (pronounced "huh"), trips off the tongue easily.

Gender and pronouns have vexed language watchers for some time. At one point, the English language had no clear female pronoun, so it was a monumental shift when "she" emerged in the 12th century. In 2000, the American Dialect Society chose "she" as its Word of the Millennium.

The matter doesn't prey too heavily on most people's minds, but it sticks in enough people's craws that the debate hasn't gone away.

The most common solution, using "they" or "them," irks grammarians when the subject is singular. "One" is another pronoun substitute, and one that falls short. "When one opens one's book, one will read from it." That's kind of awkward.

Beyond grammatic and aesthetic concerns are the sociopolitical. Folks in the transgender community have long charged that "he" or "she" force them into categories they don't necessarily identify with.

DeLuna says "hu" has been well-received within the transgender community. And she has given her creation a jump-start of sorts: She recently edited a book of essays about the historian J.G.A. Pocock and insisted that the book's writers use the pronoun. "I had to be very tactful," she says, but added that all the contributors went along with it.

It's an uphill battle, DeLuna knows, but she holds out hopes that "hu" will enter everyday speech.

Good luck with that, says Dennis Baron, author of "Grammar and Gender."

"It's hard to say `I gotta a great idea' and get other people to say `let's do it,'" he says. "There's the `you're not the boss of me' response. People want to be correct, but they don't want to be corrected."

Baron says more than 100 different alternative pronouns have been suggested since the mid-19th century. Some are combinations of male and female pronouns, like "heesh." Others borrow from other languages, such as "ta" from the Mandarin. None have taken hold.

"Of all the words in language, pronoun systems tend to be more conservative," says Baron, who teaches at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Change moves at a glacial pace, he says. "'Glacial' in the pre-global warming sense of `glacial.'"

But progress has been made, DeLuna says. Up until the 1960s, few people thought twice about using "he" as an all-inclusive pronoun. But to modern ears, using "he" across the board sounds more jarring than "they."

And gender-neutral pronouns have found limited success in academia. Among Wesleyan students, for instance, the preferred alternative pronouns are "ze," "zim" and their possessive, "hir." But even within the progressive environs of Wesleyan, some professors have reservations about words that haven't made their way into most dictionaries.

Matthew Sharpe, who teaches English at Wesleyan, says he's politically sympathetic to the cause of gender-neutral pronouns. "Aesthetically, though, they rankle," he says in an email. "But so does `their,' which more and more people seem to use as the possessive form of the general pronoun. I don't think we've found a good solution to the problem yet."

As for "hu," DeLuna's pronoun has gained traction in other pockets of academia. Many use it in the online forums of the Chronicle of Higher Education's website. But it's also been frequently ridiculed in the same forums. One post on the word generated 22 web pages of debate.

DeLuna has learned that people take their pronouns seriously. Even her friends have told her "hu" is a little too radical for them. That's fine with her - debate is good.

"I'm interested in people having fun with language," she says. "The idea is just to communicate."

Contact William Weir at [email protected].

http://www.courant.com/features/lifesty ... lines-life

[astronomycat (imported)]

I have always felt the need for a good gender neutral pronoun, and like the article says nothing we have now really works well. I don't know if hu is what we need but I would be willing to give it a try.

Thanks for sharing.

[Old Greebo (imported)]

Sorry, but this article seems silly to me.

There's a long-standing word that is the neuter equivalent of 'he' or 'she'. The singular equivalent of 'they or 'them'. And the word actually figures twelve times in the above artcle.

"It".

OK, I can see that 'it' might be seen to have derogatory connotations. But surely, if a new word were coined with exactly the same meaning, that word would soon acquire exactly the same derogarory connotations?

The appropriation of the word 'gay' to denote homosexuality has merely resulted in the loss of the word's original meaning, while failing to raise the profile of homosexuality to the level of gaiety. Why should saying 'hu' be more pleasing than saying 'it'?

Please don't take this as an anti-gay or anti-neuter rant. It's more a pedantic rant. English is a marvellous, comprehensive language - you can say anything you want in it without having to invent baseless new terms.

[Uncle Flo (imported)]

The word "hu" does not seem to fulfill the need for a better pronoun. --FLO--

[kristoff]

The appropriation of the word 'gay' to denote homosexuality has merely resulted in the loss of the word's original meaning, while failing to raise the profile of homosexuality to the level of gaiety. Why should saying 'hu' be more pleasing than saying 'it'?

Actually, you are quite incorrect. The use of the word 'gay' in the English language to identify one who is same-sex oriented (the term 'homosexual' is regarded by many as pejorative, due to its origins in Bleuler's taxonomy and his condemnations there), significantly pre-dates its use as a word meaning carefree and happy, probably by 200+ years...

Its etymology suggests it was originally used as a code-word for identification as far back as 1650 or so. It dates from the days when women were not permitted on stage in theatre. Often female roles were played by 'gay' men who were known as 'the girls.' From my understanding, the term gay was an English language bastardization of the French term for 'the girls.' The etymology of the word suggests the use of the term 'gay' to mean carefree and such probably dates to the ante-bellum era (1840s or so).

Further, who are you to say that 'gayness' cannot be quite 'gay'? My suggestion is that you are merely exercizing in your statement a condemnatory predisposition.

Aside from that, I would agree with your conclusion, viz., "hu." I believe it is assinine and unnecessary. I believe one should say what one means, and mean what one says. Utilize the most versatile language in the world, choose to write with greater clarity, and as needed, write gender neutral. Otherwise, utilize the standard masculine form and forget apologizing. Or use a feminine form and maintain the same unapologetic stance. Away with the language police.

[jemagirl (imported)]

Sorry, but this article seems silly to me.

There's a long-standing word that is the neuter equivalent of 'he' or 'she'. The singular equivalent of 'they or 'them'. And the word actually figures twelve times in the above artcle.

"It".

OK, I can see that 'it' might be seen to have derogatory connotations. But surely, if a new word were coined with exactly the same meaning, that word would soon acquire exactly the same derogatory connotations?

The appropriation of the word 'gay' to denote homosexuality has merely resulted in the loss of the word's original meaning, while failing to raise the profile of homosexuality to the level of gaiety. Why should saying 'hu' be more pleasing than saying 'it'?

Please don't take this as an anti-gay or anti-neuter rant. It's more a pedantic rant. English is a marvellous, comprehensive language - you can say anything you want in it without having to invent baseless new terms.

"it" is a bit problematic because people use only use that word to describe inanimate objects or animals on the level of insect. People generally would not call their dog it even though the dog would probably not be offended.

For my self I prefer not to be called it. My personal preference is for people to use what ever pronoun they are comfortable using when they are with me at the time. Some times my friends call me she or her, while others see me as a boy. Some people use both male and female pronouns in a single breath to describe me. I just want people to be comfortable.

With respect to the word "gay" I prefer it to homosexual which is a pejorative medical term that has become somewhat obsolete. After all discrimination the LGBT community has experienced I feel it is fair to appropriate what ever term we want to describe ourselves. To that end some of my friends identify as queer or gender queer. It's all fair gay-m as far as I am concerned.

[wolverine1 (imported)]

One thing i've found throughout my nursing career (even as a student) is that what is acceptable language to one person is not to another... For example, one of my colleagues (one of the nicest and politest people i've ever had the pleasure of working with) uses the term 'dear' or 'luv' a lot of them time as a term of endearment when talking with patients - and yet she got reported by one recently as the elderly lady in question thought she was being 'derogatory about her age'!?!

Personally? I think that it's up to each individual to make it clear to others what they find acceptable and what they don't ; there's way too much 'political correctness' in the world as it is and very little of it good - going back to my earlier example, in a more 'liberated' time, that complaint would have been treated for the folly it was but since the advent of 'pc' language? this now means a full complaints procedure has to be followed?? I mean wtf!?!

I just don't see what causes so much fuss? most of our language has the potential to cause offence when used in a particular way, whether it be tone of voice or facial expression or whatever ; to highlight again - I have no problem being called a 'poof' or a 'tart' by my friends/family as they mean it as a joke / non-offensive but I know others that would be sent into a screaming rage in the same situation...

ultimately? I don't think anything will change in respect to our language in our lifetimes ; there will always be someone, somewhere who will find what yer saying offensive and that's just human nature for yer :-\

[IbPervert (imported)]

AAAAHHHHHHH....its like having a flash back to my English 100 class in college...ahhhhhhhhh

runnnnnnnn.......

[Bagoas (imported)]

Frankly, I have never had any problem with "one" and use it regularly where a gender-neutral pronoun is required. What advantage over "one" does "hu" possess ? BTW, terminal vowels are long. I would expect "hu" to be pronounced "hoo" . That's why "huh" has its final "h".

[wolverine1 (imported)]

Frankly, I have never had any problem with "one" and use it regularly where a gender-neutral pronoun is required.

Good point! what is the old saying about how if summat ain't broke don't fix it?