Posted on 06/24/2007 2:29:33 PM PDT by rhema
For at least 150 years, people have been trying to solve the pronoun dilemma.
That would be the dilemma that causes odd word formations out of fairness to both genders: "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 people 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 came along and faded 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 it's 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 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 grammatical and aesthetic concerns are the sociopolitical. Folks in the transgender community have long charged that "he" or "she" forces 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 said, 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 got a great idea' and get other people to say 'let's do it,' " he said. "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 has taken hold.
"Of all the words in language, pronoun systems tend to be more conservative," said Baron, who teaches at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. Change moves at a glacial pace, he says.
But progress has been made, DeLuna says. 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."
Gender-neutral pronouns have found limited success in academia. Among Connecticut Wesleyan students, for instance, the preferred alternative pronouns are "ze," "zim" and their possessive, "hir." But even within the progressive environs of that university, 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 said in an e-mail. "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."
DeLuna has learned people take their pronouns seriously. Even her friends have told her "hu" is a little too radical. That's fine with her - debate is good.
"I'm interested in people having fun with language," she said. "The idea is just to communicate."
AS THE AUTHOR of textbooks, I have posted bail quite a few times for the language police who inflict their sandbox rules upon our culture and mediocrity upon our literature. In my neophyte days, I employed the masculine pronoun in my texts, using only "he" and ˜him," in the anthropomorphic sense. People began jumping from windows, so I embraced pluralism. Every example had its participants and pronouns doubled. I used "theys,""thems," and even "yuns," whenever western Pennsylvania coal-mining roots overpowered the grammar hammer.
When my dedication to pluralism resulted in two CEOs running one company, I returned to singularism and mixed my "he's and "she's" together.
Users began counting the number of "he's" and "she's," checking for equal pronoun distribution. An editor vetoed my suggested dedication for the first gender equity edition: "AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION TEXT. ALL PRONOUNS WELCOME." . . .
English cannot be modified all so easily, but let’s see how these modifiers do with Arabic. That will be entertaining.
Why, why, why can’t liberals just leave speech alone? The language is probably their most-favored tool...they think if they can control the language, they can ultimately control the world.
“Hu”, eh? I have seen “hir” in lieu of him or her, but only by moonbats over the internet. Same for “womyn”, another affectation.
Well, I’m in favor of using the plural. The Romance languages have gender neutral pronouns, it seems the only place they survive in English is in the plural. Besides, I don’t think it is so bad.
Hey no flaming if any of youse disagree with me!
Things were much easier (and more gramatically correct) back in the old days, when “he” was the universal pronoun, representing man, woman, and, for all I know, the rest of the animal kingdom. “Anyone,” “everyone,” “everybody” and “anybody” are all singular, so it’s grating to hear someone say: “If anyone is interested, THEY should call.” Or “Every parent should bring THEIR child to school.” Our society is getting dumb and dumber in the name of political correctness. I’m a woman, but I still use “he” as the universal pronoun.
They speak nonsense most of the day and fallacy the rest.
How about this, for “he, she, or it”: “h’rshit”, drop that a few times in conversation with one of these kooks and see what happens.
DeLuna says "hu" has been well-received within the transgender community.
Well, then, that's good enough for me. I think we should all embrace it.
"When hu opens hu's book, hu will read from it." That's kind of stupid.
???
Yes, the Romance languages have an “it”, even the sky has a “sex” in any of them.
Didn’t Don Imus get in a lot of trouble for using a gender-neutral pronoun? Didn’t he refer to some Palasaides Princesses as “nappy-headed hus”?
If the idea were simply to communicate, we would not be having this discussion. The whole point of "gender-neutrality" is to intimidate and indoctrinate, not to communicate.
AND:
DeLuna says "hu" has been well-received within the transgender community.
Well, then, that's good enough for me. I think we should all embrace it.
Excellent suggestion!
"'I always wanted to be the opposite sex', It said."
"Then It said, 'I never knew my father, and that is what made me a woman today'"
“If anyone is interested, THEY should call.” Or “Every parent should bring THEIR child to school.”
“If interested, please call.”
“All parents should bring their children to school.” Both are grammatically acceptable.
I agree as you do to use “he” as a general pronoun.
I've heard California linguistics professors complain about the white, middle-class hegemony our current grammar system wields over oppressed minorities. Maybe hu will set the captives free.
But in Hebrew, “hu” is “he” and “he” is “she” and, oh fuggetaboutit.
I've visited a few lefty listservs on occasion. The denizens of those sites would view your new pronoun as pretty tame, I'm guessing.
Glad to see you got your mind right, Luke. Rally 'round that rainbow flag.
I think I need to buy a vowel, Alex.
“He” as representative of both genders has been perfectly acceptable for a long time. I see no reason to change.
“If anyone asks, tell them what they need to know.”
What is wrong with, “If anyone asks, answer the question?”
For every sexual sin the atheists/liberals want to decriminalize, there is something they want to outlaw in the name of "reason" and "justice."
Our imperious language masters would probably dictate that Hebrew change its pronouns.
In every place except leftist academia and publishing circles, unfortunately.
“..some Palasaides Princesses ..”
As the proud mom of a true Jersey Girl, I gotta say, Palisades Princesses is pretty good!
Most people are still unclear about the rules for it’s and its, many on this forum sad to say.
As for the he/she connundrum -—lots of ways to avoid that problem.
“DeLuna says “hu” has been well-received within the transgender community”
And when everyone knows this it should put an end to this nonsense. For most purposes language is better the more precise it is. This person wants sacrifice precision on the altar of political correctness. If you want change, don’t worry. Pretty soon we’ll be using El, La, and Usted.
I really wanted to say, "Ma'am, I'm sorry the English language offends you, but I see no reason to change a thousand years of the King's English to placate your sensibilities." Because we were trying to sell our proposal, I instead said "I'm sorry. I'll be more clear. 'He or she'."
Man, that gagged me.
Apparently these jerks never took Latin, French, or German classes either.
You mean like how Ebonics set blacks free and Spanglish set Hispanics free?
The English language already has a gender-neutral single object and subject pronoun (it) and a corresponding possessive pronoun (its). We typically use this pronoun for persons who disclaim identity with male and female genders, but declare theirs as “other/please specify.” We also use “it” to refer to nonliving things, entities without gender, asexually reproducing organisms, hermaphrodites, and animals of unknown or irrelevant gender.
BS. Only to a certain kind of hyper-sensitive modern ears.
I've seen a lot of textbooks that use "she" instead. I fail to see how that's an improvement.
Sounds like something from Dr. Seuss.
And, when they're imposing rules on our language, they do so [quoting Jennings' column cited earlier] "Using superficial determinants, they rule with a judgmentalism they condemn and a demanding conformity defiant of their individualism dogma. They live by facile rules that too easily dismiss anything or anyone who provokes thought. Ironic that the age of diversity should produce monolithic literature."
Speaking of ridiculous....ping.
He is hu, she is hu, even an it is a hu?
What will all the hu’s down in hu-ville do?
Where does "man" in "humankind" fit in?
Shouldn't it be "hu-person-kind"? Then you have "son" in "per-son." Where do the daughters fit in?
Maybe we should all communicate using stick figures. And change the signs on restrooms. You know the stick figures that connote a female with the shape of a dress instead of a man wearing pants.
Hell, all men should wear drsses and pants. Oh wait, the Scots do that.
Nevermind.
They do?? OK, mia hermano, whatever you say.
;^)
Right: Horton hears a Hu
That community is most notable for the innovative use of things other than pronouns. In any case human beings do not have "genders." Words have genders. Human beings have sexes. Vive la Différence.
Such acrobatic stupidity (one is reminded of a diver doing a one and a half gainer into a dry pool) as DeLuna's neologism will not "catch on" unless it is mandated, and the real language Nazis know that perfectly well. It will be coming soon to academia, bet on it. There tortured syntax is perfectly justified as long as it is the interest of (shudder) "gender and social justice."
But the control of language is not the control of thought despite some decades of earnest academic asseveration to the contrary. It isn't even really the control of language. That has, to my knowledge, happened only in one extraordinary case, and Latin has been dead for a very long time now.
Those folks have a mental disorder. We are being preached to about giving the mentally ill preference when we use the English language. That makes US insane as well.
PC should take it’s rightful place, well hidden behind that huge rock, where all lies hide, never to be bowed to or spoken again.
If you'd followed the anthropomorphic he with a reference to the King's English, you'd probably still be doing hard time.
Sure does....and it would sound ridiculous using it in prose, or any other normal communication.
Hu’s on first?
Wryly and elegantly stated!
Hu’s on first?
I'm perpetually thankful for the winsome and witty FReeper community.
You’ll let me know when this is settled.
As distinguished from the mutually exclusive category of academic communication.
I think it's irrevocably settled on this forum. Of course, we may all be targeted for language internment camps if the loony-left academics get their way.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.