![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
I'm having a little trouble accepting the Spivak referenced in the article. They way Spivak is referenced, it makes it seem like it is an accepted part of the language. I could imaging a non-English speaker from, for example, China reading this article and thinking that the Spivak is actually part of the language.
I'd like to see the Spivak moved to the article on Nomic, where it is used. It's an online shorthand and a game language, like leet-speak. At most there should be a link to Spivak in this article, under invented languages. Sorry if this sounds snarky, but the Spivak detracts greatly from the article. Markspace 15:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC) (Gojira)
In books on early American history, I often see the term "souls" used, where I would expect "men and women" to be used in 1990 era writing. For example,
For example, "... the Pilgrims who sailed on the Mayflower in 1620 ... Today there are tens-of-millions of individuals descended from these brave souls." http://mayflower.org/
Although I know little about linguistics, I was bold and added "soul" to the list in the main article. (And removed " a man " -- yes, it is commonly used as a pronoun, but I doubt someone who is trying to avoid a gender-specific pronoun would pick "a man" instead).
-- DavidCary 02:32, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Just curious as to the redirect from "epicene pronoun", as I thought that term was considered more technically correct. I wasn't able to find mention of it on the talk page. Was there ever a reason given for the redirect? - Kasreyn 21:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if the PIE section belongs. The modern descendants of the words noted are generally not gender-specific either (except for *swe, where in German and Dutch sich/zich means "oneself", and the related word sein/zijn today means "his"). The information about reconstructed PIE is so scarce, that it's impossible to tell how they referred to "him" and "her". 惑乱 分からん 19:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
..is pretty poor. Hardly anything has any references, and the survey of languages is a) uneven and b) mostly uninformative, as the majority of the entries say essentially 'Language (group) X does not distinguish genders in its pronouns'.
I have some ideas about how to restructure it, which I will think about if I have time. -- ColinFine 09:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
The articles makes claims by word choice instead of by material support or logic. For example, the word reform implies without proving that there is something morally wrong with language not gender-neutral, a sort of reasoning by innuendo.
For another example of poor scholarhood, look at one phrase in the introduction:
Since the 1960's many people have felt this forced distinction in English and other languages to be unsatisfactory ... .
Many people? Who? References, please? Only since the 1960s and never before? Why say the phrase "English and other languages" instead of just "languages?" Unsatisfactory to whom and why? The arguments are weak and poorly outlined. Forced is a loaded word implying unfair power. One is only forced to the degree that one wishes to communicate in the chosen language. Your keyboard is forcing you to use only the keys on it. Perhaps this forced action should be resisted.
In regards to English, I am satisfied with the convention of using one non-gender-neutral pronoun or the other when the gender is uncertain, so long as we can agree on which one to use. Consider that for an awfully long time, the agreement to use the masculine worked! This notion that we should now use a generic feminine because she happens to contain he in it is silly! (Should we now call ourselves huwoman instead of human?) Readers will simply believe that the person or people referenced were indeed all female. With the masculine as a convention, they should make no such assumption, which is the point of the entire exercise. If yes is the answer to "Does the reader understand that there could be gender-uncertainty or mixed gender in this case?" then the job is done. He may not like it but that, frankly, is immaterial.
The example about blacks and whites is a wholly inappropriate analogy, as there is no language convention, agreement, or standard by which one uses white to refer to both. Don't be swayed by baldly fallacious logic!
This is not a human rights or unfair discrimination issue. It's just an artifact of language and the article needs rewriting or heavy editing to reflect that.
I am personally flexible enough to use newly invented gender-neutral pronouns, but that's not going to happen any time soon on a large enough scale for anyone to understand me if I start doing so.
Yes, as a grammar-lover I dislike using they to mean he or she. It is grammatically incorrect. But by the dictates of the unwashed masses, that's what's come and it is here to stay. Ya gotta love language. -- Erik Eckhardt 09:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
here:
Worth including? Kasreyn 08:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Please read this slowly and carefully:
A book made in the distant past will very likely tell you that the word "he" is a legal generic pronoun. However, according to what sounds natural to me, "she" makes more sense than "he", because "she" already contains "he" in its letters. How about other forms of the pronoun?? As for other forms, neither word already contains the letters of the other word in it, so the best solution is simply to use the forms of "she", unless you want to create new words, which can be hard to get accepted. This gives us the following pronouns:
Examples:
How often do people ask questions about what word to use as a generic pronoun?? Please identify to yourself which word, "he" or "she" sounds more logical to you for whatever reason. Please make sure it is a reason based entirely on what YOU say, not on what other people tell you.
Where is a better place on the Internet for such a thing??
I got to http://alt.usage.english and it appears that no such URL exists on the Internet.
One can pretty easily find a gender neutral pronoun that's quite accepted--one simply needs to see it for oneself to believe. As long as one's mind is open. -- Stancollins 01:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
The section on French explains why singular they isn't "an option" or something in French. This is the English page, but none of the other language subsections treat the question of "why no singular they?". Thus, I'm removing it. Dave 08:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Hi. I don't think that makes much difference, because the French on is not equivalent to "they". Two differences:
Can someone explain to me what Islandic is doing among the languages with gender-neutral pronouns? Little surprisingly for a Germanic language, the entry actually states the opposite, or am I overlooking something? -- Ibn Battuta 21:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
The current "Neologisms" table shows ones as the possessive of one, obviously in parallel with the non-use of apostrophes in other possessive pronouns. (Technically, one is not a neologism, having been around at least since Mark Twain, and in not-uncommon use in major modern English dialects.) But I was under the impression that one's is the correct indefinite (formal) possessive pronoun, as if one is more like a noun. This is supported by the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary, which features an example of this use. The American Heritage Book of English Usage shows a similar example. Merriam-Webster Online is somewhat disdainful of the pronoun, not providing any possessive-use example (and confusingly calling it first-person, as if it is only used as a formal substitute for I et al). But no reference I found so far omits the apostrophe. Unless someone can cite opposing evidence, we should probably change ones to one's in the table. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
"Xir" redirects here, but the word is not mentioned in the article. Probably it should be? // habj 23:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Is 'thon' a contraction of 'the one'? 'The one feeds the ones self'? > 'Thon feeds thonself'. -- Haldrik ( talk) 05:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Should we mention languages like Hindi, which have gender-neutral pronouns, but are not gender neutral because the verb ending has to agree with the gender? These make the problems that English has seem insignificant [1]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Q Chris ( talk • contribs) 15:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello dudes and dudettes of Wikipedia! (Wait, I mean 'people' of wikipedia - unless 'dude' itself is gender-neutral? What?)
It has come under my all-seeing gaze that a certain wikipedian (whom I shall refer to as 'Mr. X') has edited back my changing of 'kiss' to 'endanger'.
While perhaps Mr. X has been endangered many a time, possibly inducing a sort of shell-shock whenever he comes across the word, I suspect this not to be the case!
Indeed, I suspect that this Mr. X has committed a HORRENDOUS crime! This is something I would never want to come across, nevermind accuse somebody of, but it is with a heavy heart I accuse Mr. X of...
Lengthism!
It is to this end that I let all people - be they gender neutral or otherwise - decide what verb should go there! No word too obscure, too long, too short, too average will be avoided! -- Arkracer 13:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Looking at the "Neologisms" table, it is unclear what verb forms are usually used with singular they. The "Nominative" column uses a verb in the past tense which is the same for singular and plural subjects. The "Reflexive" column uses the subject form too, and it's verb is in the present tense. However, the example for singular they seems wrong to me:
They likes themself/themselves
I am not a linguist, but I'm pretty sure that you'd use "like" rather than "likes". The intro to singular they seems to bear this out:
"Singular" they remains morphologically and syntactically plural (it still takes plural forms of verbs).
I'll be bold and change that one example, but I think the whole "Nominative" column should have its examples changed to be in present tense so that the different verb forms (laugh versus laughs) are clear. I hesitate to do this because I wonder if any other neologisms in the chart use plural verb forms.
BlckKnght ( talk) 01:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
The subject of gender-neutral pronouns embraces two totally different phenomena: pronouns that traditionally do not mark gender and pronouns/periphrastics that have been invented/reassigned in modern times out of political considerations. I'd like to split the article into
Gender-neutral_pronoun_in_genderless_languages (naturally occurring forms)
Gender-neutral_pronoun_in_gender-marked_languages (political)
Gender-neutral_pronoun_in_English (political, with English deserving its own page)
Does anyone object to that?
Thank you, UserAccount001 ( talk) 05:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
The section on generic usage is excellent and would improve the article "Gender-neutral pronoun". And it doesn't really fit here.
Does anyone object to my moving the section?
UserAccount001 ( talk) 15:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Neither Klingon pronouns nor the Klingon verb prefix system makes a distinction between male and female subjects or objects. The pronoun ghaH represents s/he and chaH they (for language-using beings). Klingon has separate it/they pronouns for the inanimate.
Reference: The Klingon Dictionary, by Marc Okrand c 1987. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.65.13.59 ( talk) 15:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
However, pronouns in English belong to a closed word class, to which no new items can normally be added.
This is simply false, and certainly not NPOV. Some of the pronouns in the table (especially Spivak and sie/hir) are in common use in the transgender and genderqueer community. David-Sarah Hopwood ( talk) 03:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Should mention that "thon" was actually included in a respectable mainstream ca. 1900 dictionary... AnonMoos ( talk) 07:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Might be nice if there was a link at the top for those looking for the proper syntax in Wikipedia (MOS link). Still don't know where it is... Morphh (talk) 17:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Norrie May-Welby. First person ever to legally be genderless. 24.189.90.68 ( talk) 10:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Which should be used?
Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(text_formatting)#Words_as_words says that both are acceptable.
However, the overuse of quotation marks in the text makes it look cumbersome. Should italics be used consistently instead? XP1 ( talk) 05:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Should people read about hitting and bleeding while trying to learn about gender-specific pronouns?
What's the point of that table of neologisms? I've never heard any of those before and it's overwhelmingly unlikely they will ever be used. It just seems too prominently placed for such a stupid and useless set of information. - Stoph 21:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
The topic is gender-neutral pronoun - but the English language portion reads more like an original research essay on sexism in language. Which, although interesting sociologically, is not of help grammatically for those doing research on language rules. The arguments about The inlcusion of "it" as gender neutral is just wrong. Neutral means of "either" gender. It is neither gender - the exact opposite of gender neutral. The only third person Gender neutral pronouns in English are: One, They, Their (and sometime "he" when used in place of one.) The rest, although compelling is not relevant to the topic. Additionally, many, many sections lack any citation WP:V and appear to be the conclusions of the editor WP:NOR. Therefore, I am tagging this article with a cleanup notice. - Davodd ( talk) 02:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Why are "it" and "its" listed as being gender-specific near the top of the article when they are not? — Paul G 11:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
"It" is a neuter gender pronoun... FilipeS 23:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I disagree that "it" is gender-neutral. If I understand well the meaning of "gender-neutral", the idea is that it must be a word which can be used to refer to a male or a female person, without revealing their gender. This cannot be done with "it", not because it specifies a gender, but because in standard English it is never used to refer to people. See also grammatical gender, and gender-specific pronoun. FilipeS 22:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Which is a rare exception to the rule that "it" means "neither male nor female". FilipeS 10:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Even if the gender of of a less-than-familiar baby is known, is it appropriate to use any pronoun to describe the baby without implicitly asserting arbitrary political, legal, or social perspectives? For instance, "it" implies non-personhood when in many legal systems beliefs of personhood are defined at or before birth, whereas "he/she" implies social gender vs biological sex as well as personhood according to some. Omniphobe ( talk) 00:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
"It" can also be used in a gender-neutral way referring to animals: Did you see that cat that just ran across the street? No, I didn't see it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcwell ( talk • contribs) 09:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Suppose that instead of 'he' and 'she', we had different pronouns for people with different coloured skin. When referring to a black person we'd say 'ne', and when referring to a white person we'd say 'ge'. For example:
Or, in normal English:
It's a pretty silly idea, and it's clear to see how racist it could be. Yet we follow exactly the same idea with regards to gender -- our language is very sexist. And think of romance langauges which assign a gender to every rock, tree, and stone! Is this something that should be changed - and if so, how?
I moved the above sermonette here, because it's not encyclopedic. It's an appeal to the reader to agree.
We could revise it by reporting that some people (or many people) believe that this or that is "silly" or "racist" or "sexist". -- Ed Poor
Expressing that idea directly in the article as fact may be NPOV.
However, I encourage you to to quote an influential essay expressing that idea:
"A Person Paper on the Purity of Language" by Douglas R. Hofstadter, collected in Metamagical Themas: questing for the essence of mind and pattern. 1985 (reviewed at http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~susan/bib/nf/h/hofstdtr.htm ).
"Of course the people who are "pushing", as you put it, these pronouns have an agenda. The agenda is fairness and equal representation for certain minorities" - women are a minority? Oh, dear ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.94.86 ( talk) 09:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
I have attempted to add a little linguistic perspective to this article, including a statement of the problem in the first paragraph and the observation that speakers of English are simply switching from he-her etc. to they and their. I did not say, what I think, that none of these other solutions will ever happen. This article is fundamentally POV, isn't she?
I also think the treatment of other languages ignores the whole idea of grammatical gender, wherein the gender is attached to articles and modifiers and considerably simplifies sentence structure. Ortolan88 16:35 Dec 3, 2002 (UTC)
Perhaps it would make sense to completely delete the section on other languages? I'm not really qualified to say what tortures have been inflicted on them, and no info is better than badly expressed/researched info.
Well, singular they is widespread. Universal male is widespread (though becoming less so). Recasting to avoid the issue (eg into plural, 2nd person) is widespread. 'he or she' is widespread. All of these are mentioned/linked in the article.
The options in the entry which aren't widespread are 'it', 'one', and 'neologisms and slang'. The first two are occasionally suggested by opponents to (eg) singular they, and are worth mentioning here, I think. The neologism section points out that most of these are "the failed ideas of dead people".
Seems to be a bit of duplication now: how many links to singular they do we need? ;-) - Martin
Ahh: I would consider singular they to be an example of a gender-neutral pronoun. 'he or she' is discussed briefly under the table marked 'dual'. Only one paragraph, though, and it's not NPOV (dang!). - Martin
I just restored a rewritten version of the " singular they" paragraph to this article and put it back as the second paragraph. This gives some proportion to this article.
A passing link to the singular they is not enough:
I am too polite to say that in the article, but I feel strongly that the solution chosen by average speakers of the language, chosen out of a combination of good manners and wanting to speak and write smoothly, should have a prominent place in this article lest naive readers think the only solution is one of the clumsy, ideology-ridden solutions touted in the rest of the article. Ortolan88
I don't promote it. It grates on my ear too. However, my belief is that it is not necessary to promote it because it is happening anyway. And, if I may say so, usage panels and the like are always very conservative and up-tight, and generally are prescriptive rather than descriptive. If I encountered the singular they in an article I was editing, I would take it out and replace it by rewording. Personally, I use her most of the time. That does not change my belief that the singular they is the solution, but I don't say so in the article, except to note that people have done it since the 1500s and are doing it even more today than ever. Ortolan88 19:11 Dec 4, 2002 (UTC)
I just put the singular they back again! I don't know who is taking out, but it is a mistake. Look, the article cannot be NPOV if it ignores the most common solution to this problem. I know it is ungrammatical. I know that many worthy people are addressing this problem with more formal solutions, but to suppress the common solution is the worst form of political correctness and I will keep putting the singular they back in this article forever. Ortolan88 19:28 Dec 4, 2002 (UTC)
Four mentions of singular they is preferable treatment and four screensful of politically correct claptrap isn't? Ortolan88
"And, if I may say so, usage panels and the like are always very conservative and up-tight" - that's hysterical, politically-motivated claptrap. No, they are not 'always' those things. Sometimes, some of their members are. And the point is: are you disputing the 82% figure, or are you just slinging mud so as to deflect attention from it? If you think that figure is a lie, come out and say so. If not, address the point instead of resorting to agenda-driven insults. I too, regard that sentence about the student as wholly unacceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.94.86 ( talk) 09:57, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
In swedish the word "hen" is invented as a gender-neutral pronoun, instead of "hon" (female) and "han" (male), but it's not an officially established word in the swedish language. Should it be mentioned?
"Yt" may deserve a mention as an invented neutral pronoun: Ian McDonald uses it in River of Gods as the pronoun used for people of a third, artificial, "nute" gender. That's of course not the same as a pronoun that does not imply any gender, but I think it's still relevant, especially as a contrast to Xe, etc. -- Duesentrieb-formerly-Gearloose (?!) 10:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
—Whose cage is this?
—This cage is its. Njál 21:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
—Whose cage is this?
— *This cage is its.
This is not a matter of opinion, this is flat out wrong, under all circumstances.
English has no neuter possessive pronoun. You are confusing the neuter possessive determiner 'its'--which does exist--with the neuter possessive pronoun, which (in English) does not. Analogy: 'my' (my book) is to 'mine' (the book is mine) as 'his' is to 'his' as 'its' is to -- what? Nothing. There is no analogy there.
For further information, please refer to English personal pronouns. Mathglot ( talk) 22:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
The neuter poss pron (*This cage is its) has had a reference since version 123929080 of 2007-04-18 14:19 pointing to http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50122404, but there is no such page and I have removed the reference from the article.
A search for information about a neuter possessive pronoun has not turned up any reliable sources. If someone can substantiate that this pronoun exists in English, please add a reference, otherwise this cell in the table should be blanked out. Mathglot ( talk) 19:32, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
If you want to refer to something in a gender-unspecific way, repeat the original noun. "The person went to the window; the person looked outside." If it's just a hypothetical (unrealized) person, then use 'he'. As in the German 'man' or english 'one'.
This article is ridiculous.
MM962 04:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the thoughtful response. You seem to be writing about English. Let's consider what the article says. Here it is (stripped of links, etc.), with my comments:
Some people would argue that 'he' and its different forms are sex-neutral. Otherwise, though, this seems unexceptionable.
Seems obviously true to me.
"Is used" seems an overstatement. I'd say "is an option". Otherwise, though, this seems unexceptionable.
I see no suggestion that this challenge is to be praised or regretted. (I dislike this bit, in that it suggests that singular they is new. It isn't.)
This may be contentious if it's taken to imply that there is a problem to which solutions are needed. But to me it's clear that this instead goes back to statement that A speaker may not know or may want to avoid specifying a person's gender. Well, such speakers may see a problem, and if they do then here are they may see as solutions. Again, non-judgemental. -- Hoary 06:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I think repeating the noun becomes very tedious in any kind of serious writing. For a lot of signage it's okay to just neglect nouns where it is understood anyone reading is the subject, but for any lengthy piece with multiple characters, it becomes increasingly difficult to avoid pronouns or call everyone 'one.' Would you ever, for example, write the sentence 'Jackie picked up Jackie's books and left.' ? The name is gender neutral, maybe there's a desire from the author not to reveal the gender (or not be ignorant enough to think gender is a dichotomy), but the English language is so steeped in gender politics it makes it difficult to write naturally without gender. It's giving me a headache trying to think how to indicate possession without gender in the 3rd person when you've mentioned the character's name. Not sure it is possible. It's plenty easy to say 'one should pick up one's books' or 'no shirt no shoes no service,' but you have to name the gender when you've mentioned someone's name in a sentence already. Or play some ridiculous game where you give indications in other ways that the books people to Jackie, so when Jackie picks up 'the books' you know Jackie possesses them by virtue of some round-about implication. Maybe you don't think it's a big deal to choose a gender, but then do you have to choose if a character is blonde, has a certain kind of hair, a certain height, a certain job? Do you have to alienate hermaphrodites? It's definitely a tricky problem. ~anon March 8th 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.174.4 ( talk) 18:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Can we get the pronunciation added for the invented pronouns? They are words that many people would not have ever seen, let alone heard, so I think putting the pronunciation in parenthesis would be a good idea.
This section just states what any person—of any viewpoint—would automatically know. It seems to be pure political correctness. In general, transgender individuals prefer to be referred to by the gender pronoun appropriate to the gender with which they identify. Really? People prefer their preferences? How strange. Aboctok ( talk) 08:23, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
This doesn't appear to be an article about an aspect of grammar. It seems to just be an article about an aspect of English-language grammar, along with some sociological discussion on how some people find grammatical gender offensive. Perhaps this should instead be moved to Gender-specific pronouns in English? Dewrad 03:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, this is "just" an article about an aspect of English-language grammar, written in the English language, the language that just happens to be the world-wide language today of diplomacy, business and commerce, aviation, and computer-programming. tttecumseh —Preceding undated comment added 22:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC).
Diplomacy, business, commerce, aviation and computer progamming? In France the language of aviation is French. In Europe more people speak German or French than English as first and/or second language - also in the EU-Administration and in diplomatic circles. In China computer programmes are written in Chinese. In the United States Spanish is gaining ground as first and second language by the day. Let alone the rest of the continent. In northern and central Africa the language of diplomacy and business is Arabic or French. In most of the former Eastern Block countries one gets by perfectly with Russian. I hate these anglophones being so damn self-righteous when it comes to their language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.177.80.23 ( talk) 15:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Don't you mean anglophiles, since that term connects with the attitude you are talking about? To presume anglophones in general to be self-righteous seems prejudiced. The statement you criticized is actually very reasonable, when we are talking about international activity. The language of aviation in France might well be French, but when French pilots operate internationally, what language is used? When Europeans or Africans conduct international business, what language do they use most often? When people in former Eastern Bloc countries engage with the non-Russian speaking world, what language is most common? I don't doubt you, that the practice exists, in China, of programming in a local language. But do you seriously suggest that when IT people do international business, programs are often written in Chinese? I find inappropriate anglophilia as backward and as irritating as any other primitive excuse for reason. But let's be realistic—the importance of English as an international language lies in its prevalence across international boundaries, not its alleged importance in a particular place. Aboctok ( talk) 09:25, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Is there any reason to keep this article separate from gender-neutral pronoun? Would they not be better dealt with in a single article (with both types of pronoun described together, for each language)? Victor Yus ( talk) 13:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Is there any reason to keep this article separate from gender-specific pronoun? Would they not be better dealt with in a single article (with both types of pronoun described together, for each language)? Victor Yus ( talk) 13:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
This section either needs to be removed or expanded. It has no citations, seems opinion-based, and doesn't really get any point across. What, exactly, does "singular they, has a long history." mean? Tardusted ( talk) 00:56, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
In German, the word "man" is used. In other context, a reader might guess that both genders are reflectet in the text. Saemikneu ( talk) 19:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
The German "man" is not the equivalent of the English "man." That would be "der Mann." German "man" is translated as English's gender-neutral "one," and they're pronounced somewhat differently as well. Obviously they are etymologically related but this doesn't mean that "men" is accepted as a stand-in word for people of all genders. -- Quamobrem ( talk) 07:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
The section on Mandarin says:
Having asked a native speaker of Mandarin, I believe there are two problems with this passage. (1) I believe it should say " 他 is now always [not 'sometimes'] restricted to meaning 'he'." (2) 它 (tā) is currently used for objects, animals, and gods, not just objects; and 牠 and 祂 are never seen except in writings from around the 1930s.
Could someone familiar with the current state of the written language look at this and correct the article if necessary? 75.183.96.242 ( talk) 18:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I would think that it's possible Thai or Lakota and possibly other cultures would have pronouns for transgendered, specifically ladyboys, in historical use. Also, are there transgendered activists pushing a new gender specific trio of words? All of the pronouns in the Invented section are gender neutral? Alatari ( talk) 07:29, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
With emphasis added to mark the word in question, the second to last sentence in the lead is:
Am I correct in assuming that the intended meaning of the word I emphasised in the quote should be "sexes"? If so, then we should correct that; I do understand that people confuse "gender" and "sex" all the time, but I don't think we should perpetuate the confusion at WP. — al-Shimoni ( talk) 23:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
---"Gender" is simply used in linguistic lexicon. "Sex" is not appropriate as words do not have genitalia.--- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.110.33.31 ( talk) 13:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Original text (now heavily modified) imported from h2g2. I'm the original author (Researcher number 129960), and I copied only the unedited version, to which I retain a copyright. Martin
The introduction is logically confused. In particular, the last paragraph is in the wrong place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.94.86 ( talk) 09:45, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
"Invented pronouns" seems like loaded/POV language, implying that the traditional pronouns are somehow natural. I think we should change the term to something else. Perhaps "modern" or "non-traditional." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:FFC0:20:C96A:2FB0:CFA0:F43C ( talk) 22:02, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
I miss discussion of / forms: "he/she" as distinct from "he or she". My own feeling is that can draw attention to the words rather than to what is being said, or is an inappropriate precision ("legalism"). But I would be interested in other opinions. (I was on the verge of editing out another editor's change of "he" to "he/she" but I decided to seek guidance first. TomS TDotO ( talk) 10:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
They can be abbreviated in writing as "he/she", "(s)he", "s/he", "him/her", "his/her", "himself/herself", but when spoken have no accepted abbreviation. With the exception of "(s)he" and "s/he", one still has the choice of which pronoun to place first.
A conversation about the Wikipedia Manual of Style's stance on the generic he and gender-neutral language that started on this talk page has progressed to two RfCs at the village pump. Further opinions are welcome. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 19:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
This is off the main subject of the article, but it's a custom in English to use 'she' for ships. Russian ships are masculine. That section could be made less culturally biased. Wyvern 19:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
I'm having a little trouble accepting the Spivak referenced in the article. They way Spivak is referenced, it makes it seem like it is an accepted part of the language. I could imaging a non-English speaker from, for example, China reading this article and thinking that the Spivak is actually part of the language.
I'd like to see the Spivak moved to the article on Nomic, where it is used. It's an online shorthand and a game language, like leet-speak. At most there should be a link to Spivak in this article, under invented languages. Sorry if this sounds snarky, but the Spivak detracts greatly from the article. Markspace 15:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC) (Gojira)
In books on early American history, I often see the term "souls" used, where I would expect "men and women" to be used in 1990 era writing. For example,
For example, "... the Pilgrims who sailed on the Mayflower in 1620 ... Today there are tens-of-millions of individuals descended from these brave souls." http://mayflower.org/
Although I know little about linguistics, I was bold and added "soul" to the list in the main article. (And removed " a man " -- yes, it is commonly used as a pronoun, but I doubt someone who is trying to avoid a gender-specific pronoun would pick "a man" instead).
-- DavidCary 02:32, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Just curious as to the redirect from "epicene pronoun", as I thought that term was considered more technically correct. I wasn't able to find mention of it on the talk page. Was there ever a reason given for the redirect? - Kasreyn 21:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if the PIE section belongs. The modern descendants of the words noted are generally not gender-specific either (except for *swe, where in German and Dutch sich/zich means "oneself", and the related word sein/zijn today means "his"). The information about reconstructed PIE is so scarce, that it's impossible to tell how they referred to "him" and "her". 惑乱 分からん 19:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
..is pretty poor. Hardly anything has any references, and the survey of languages is a) uneven and b) mostly uninformative, as the majority of the entries say essentially 'Language (group) X does not distinguish genders in its pronouns'.
I have some ideas about how to restructure it, which I will think about if I have time. -- ColinFine 09:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
The articles makes claims by word choice instead of by material support or logic. For example, the word reform implies without proving that there is something morally wrong with language not gender-neutral, a sort of reasoning by innuendo.
For another example of poor scholarhood, look at one phrase in the introduction:
Since the 1960's many people have felt this forced distinction in English and other languages to be unsatisfactory ... .
Many people? Who? References, please? Only since the 1960s and never before? Why say the phrase "English and other languages" instead of just "languages?" Unsatisfactory to whom and why? The arguments are weak and poorly outlined. Forced is a loaded word implying unfair power. One is only forced to the degree that one wishes to communicate in the chosen language. Your keyboard is forcing you to use only the keys on it. Perhaps this forced action should be resisted.
In regards to English, I am satisfied with the convention of using one non-gender-neutral pronoun or the other when the gender is uncertain, so long as we can agree on which one to use. Consider that for an awfully long time, the agreement to use the masculine worked! This notion that we should now use a generic feminine because she happens to contain he in it is silly! (Should we now call ourselves huwoman instead of human?) Readers will simply believe that the person or people referenced were indeed all female. With the masculine as a convention, they should make no such assumption, which is the point of the entire exercise. If yes is the answer to "Does the reader understand that there could be gender-uncertainty or mixed gender in this case?" then the job is done. He may not like it but that, frankly, is immaterial.
The example about blacks and whites is a wholly inappropriate analogy, as there is no language convention, agreement, or standard by which one uses white to refer to both. Don't be swayed by baldly fallacious logic!
This is not a human rights or unfair discrimination issue. It's just an artifact of language and the article needs rewriting or heavy editing to reflect that.
I am personally flexible enough to use newly invented gender-neutral pronouns, but that's not going to happen any time soon on a large enough scale for anyone to understand me if I start doing so.
Yes, as a grammar-lover I dislike using they to mean he or she. It is grammatically incorrect. But by the dictates of the unwashed masses, that's what's come and it is here to stay. Ya gotta love language. -- Erik Eckhardt 09:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
here:
Worth including? Kasreyn 08:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Please read this slowly and carefully:
A book made in the distant past will very likely tell you that the word "he" is a legal generic pronoun. However, according to what sounds natural to me, "she" makes more sense than "he", because "she" already contains "he" in its letters. How about other forms of the pronoun?? As for other forms, neither word already contains the letters of the other word in it, so the best solution is simply to use the forms of "she", unless you want to create new words, which can be hard to get accepted. This gives us the following pronouns:
Examples:
How often do people ask questions about what word to use as a generic pronoun?? Please identify to yourself which word, "he" or "she" sounds more logical to you for whatever reason. Please make sure it is a reason based entirely on what YOU say, not on what other people tell you.
Where is a better place on the Internet for such a thing??
I got to http://alt.usage.english and it appears that no such URL exists on the Internet.
One can pretty easily find a gender neutral pronoun that's quite accepted--one simply needs to see it for oneself to believe. As long as one's mind is open. -- Stancollins 01:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
The section on French explains why singular they isn't "an option" or something in French. This is the English page, but none of the other language subsections treat the question of "why no singular they?". Thus, I'm removing it. Dave 08:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Hi. I don't think that makes much difference, because the French on is not equivalent to "they". Two differences:
Can someone explain to me what Islandic is doing among the languages with gender-neutral pronouns? Little surprisingly for a Germanic language, the entry actually states the opposite, or am I overlooking something? -- Ibn Battuta 21:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
The current "Neologisms" table shows ones as the possessive of one, obviously in parallel with the non-use of apostrophes in other possessive pronouns. (Technically, one is not a neologism, having been around at least since Mark Twain, and in not-uncommon use in major modern English dialects.) But I was under the impression that one's is the correct indefinite (formal) possessive pronoun, as if one is more like a noun. This is supported by the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary, which features an example of this use. The American Heritage Book of English Usage shows a similar example. Merriam-Webster Online is somewhat disdainful of the pronoun, not providing any possessive-use example (and confusingly calling it first-person, as if it is only used as a formal substitute for I et al). But no reference I found so far omits the apostrophe. Unless someone can cite opposing evidence, we should probably change ones to one's in the table. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
"Xir" redirects here, but the word is not mentioned in the article. Probably it should be? // habj 23:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Is 'thon' a contraction of 'the one'? 'The one feeds the ones self'? > 'Thon feeds thonself'. -- Haldrik ( talk) 05:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Should we mention languages like Hindi, which have gender-neutral pronouns, but are not gender neutral because the verb ending has to agree with the gender? These make the problems that English has seem insignificant [1]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Q Chris ( talk • contribs) 15:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello dudes and dudettes of Wikipedia! (Wait, I mean 'people' of wikipedia - unless 'dude' itself is gender-neutral? What?)
It has come under my all-seeing gaze that a certain wikipedian (whom I shall refer to as 'Mr. X') has edited back my changing of 'kiss' to 'endanger'.
While perhaps Mr. X has been endangered many a time, possibly inducing a sort of shell-shock whenever he comes across the word, I suspect this not to be the case!
Indeed, I suspect that this Mr. X has committed a HORRENDOUS crime! This is something I would never want to come across, nevermind accuse somebody of, but it is with a heavy heart I accuse Mr. X of...
Lengthism!
It is to this end that I let all people - be they gender neutral or otherwise - decide what verb should go there! No word too obscure, too long, too short, too average will be avoided! -- Arkracer 13:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Looking at the "Neologisms" table, it is unclear what verb forms are usually used with singular they. The "Nominative" column uses a verb in the past tense which is the same for singular and plural subjects. The "Reflexive" column uses the subject form too, and it's verb is in the present tense. However, the example for singular they seems wrong to me:
They likes themself/themselves
I am not a linguist, but I'm pretty sure that you'd use "like" rather than "likes". The intro to singular they seems to bear this out:
"Singular" they remains morphologically and syntactically plural (it still takes plural forms of verbs).
I'll be bold and change that one example, but I think the whole "Nominative" column should have its examples changed to be in present tense so that the different verb forms (laugh versus laughs) are clear. I hesitate to do this because I wonder if any other neologisms in the chart use plural verb forms.
BlckKnght ( talk) 01:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
The subject of gender-neutral pronouns embraces two totally different phenomena: pronouns that traditionally do not mark gender and pronouns/periphrastics that have been invented/reassigned in modern times out of political considerations. I'd like to split the article into
Gender-neutral_pronoun_in_genderless_languages (naturally occurring forms)
Gender-neutral_pronoun_in_gender-marked_languages (political)
Gender-neutral_pronoun_in_English (political, with English deserving its own page)
Does anyone object to that?
Thank you, UserAccount001 ( talk) 05:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
The section on generic usage is excellent and would improve the article "Gender-neutral pronoun". And it doesn't really fit here.
Does anyone object to my moving the section?
UserAccount001 ( talk) 15:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Neither Klingon pronouns nor the Klingon verb prefix system makes a distinction between male and female subjects or objects. The pronoun ghaH represents s/he and chaH they (for language-using beings). Klingon has separate it/they pronouns for the inanimate.
Reference: The Klingon Dictionary, by Marc Okrand c 1987. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.65.13.59 ( talk) 15:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
However, pronouns in English belong to a closed word class, to which no new items can normally be added.
This is simply false, and certainly not NPOV. Some of the pronouns in the table (especially Spivak and sie/hir) are in common use in the transgender and genderqueer community. David-Sarah Hopwood ( talk) 03:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Should mention that "thon" was actually included in a respectable mainstream ca. 1900 dictionary... AnonMoos ( talk) 07:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Might be nice if there was a link at the top for those looking for the proper syntax in Wikipedia (MOS link). Still don't know where it is... Morphh (talk) 17:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Norrie May-Welby. First person ever to legally be genderless. 24.189.90.68 ( talk) 10:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Which should be used?
Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(text_formatting)#Words_as_words says that both are acceptable.
However, the overuse of quotation marks in the text makes it look cumbersome. Should italics be used consistently instead? XP1 ( talk) 05:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Should people read about hitting and bleeding while trying to learn about gender-specific pronouns?
What's the point of that table of neologisms? I've never heard any of those before and it's overwhelmingly unlikely they will ever be used. It just seems too prominently placed for such a stupid and useless set of information. - Stoph 21:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
The topic is gender-neutral pronoun - but the English language portion reads more like an original research essay on sexism in language. Which, although interesting sociologically, is not of help grammatically for those doing research on language rules. The arguments about The inlcusion of "it" as gender neutral is just wrong. Neutral means of "either" gender. It is neither gender - the exact opposite of gender neutral. The only third person Gender neutral pronouns in English are: One, They, Their (and sometime "he" when used in place of one.) The rest, although compelling is not relevant to the topic. Additionally, many, many sections lack any citation WP:V and appear to be the conclusions of the editor WP:NOR. Therefore, I am tagging this article with a cleanup notice. - Davodd ( talk) 02:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Why are "it" and "its" listed as being gender-specific near the top of the article when they are not? — Paul G 11:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
"It" is a neuter gender pronoun... FilipeS 23:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I disagree that "it" is gender-neutral. If I understand well the meaning of "gender-neutral", the idea is that it must be a word which can be used to refer to a male or a female person, without revealing their gender. This cannot be done with "it", not because it specifies a gender, but because in standard English it is never used to refer to people. See also grammatical gender, and gender-specific pronoun. FilipeS 22:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Which is a rare exception to the rule that "it" means "neither male nor female". FilipeS 10:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Even if the gender of of a less-than-familiar baby is known, is it appropriate to use any pronoun to describe the baby without implicitly asserting arbitrary political, legal, or social perspectives? For instance, "it" implies non-personhood when in many legal systems beliefs of personhood are defined at or before birth, whereas "he/she" implies social gender vs biological sex as well as personhood according to some. Omniphobe ( talk) 00:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
"It" can also be used in a gender-neutral way referring to animals: Did you see that cat that just ran across the street? No, I didn't see it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcwell ( talk • contribs) 09:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Suppose that instead of 'he' and 'she', we had different pronouns for people with different coloured skin. When referring to a black person we'd say 'ne', and when referring to a white person we'd say 'ge'. For example:
Or, in normal English:
It's a pretty silly idea, and it's clear to see how racist it could be. Yet we follow exactly the same idea with regards to gender -- our language is very sexist. And think of romance langauges which assign a gender to every rock, tree, and stone! Is this something that should be changed - and if so, how?
I moved the above sermonette here, because it's not encyclopedic. It's an appeal to the reader to agree.
We could revise it by reporting that some people (or many people) believe that this or that is "silly" or "racist" or "sexist". -- Ed Poor
Expressing that idea directly in the article as fact may be NPOV.
However, I encourage you to to quote an influential essay expressing that idea:
"A Person Paper on the Purity of Language" by Douglas R. Hofstadter, collected in Metamagical Themas: questing for the essence of mind and pattern. 1985 (reviewed at http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~susan/bib/nf/h/hofstdtr.htm ).
"Of course the people who are "pushing", as you put it, these pronouns have an agenda. The agenda is fairness and equal representation for certain minorities" - women are a minority? Oh, dear ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.94.86 ( talk) 09:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
I have attempted to add a little linguistic perspective to this article, including a statement of the problem in the first paragraph and the observation that speakers of English are simply switching from he-her etc. to they and their. I did not say, what I think, that none of these other solutions will ever happen. This article is fundamentally POV, isn't she?
I also think the treatment of other languages ignores the whole idea of grammatical gender, wherein the gender is attached to articles and modifiers and considerably simplifies sentence structure. Ortolan88 16:35 Dec 3, 2002 (UTC)
Perhaps it would make sense to completely delete the section on other languages? I'm not really qualified to say what tortures have been inflicted on them, and no info is better than badly expressed/researched info.
Well, singular they is widespread. Universal male is widespread (though becoming less so). Recasting to avoid the issue (eg into plural, 2nd person) is widespread. 'he or she' is widespread. All of these are mentioned/linked in the article.
The options in the entry which aren't widespread are 'it', 'one', and 'neologisms and slang'. The first two are occasionally suggested by opponents to (eg) singular they, and are worth mentioning here, I think. The neologism section points out that most of these are "the failed ideas of dead people".
Seems to be a bit of duplication now: how many links to singular they do we need? ;-) - Martin
Ahh: I would consider singular they to be an example of a gender-neutral pronoun. 'he or she' is discussed briefly under the table marked 'dual'. Only one paragraph, though, and it's not NPOV (dang!). - Martin
I just restored a rewritten version of the " singular they" paragraph to this article and put it back as the second paragraph. This gives some proportion to this article.
A passing link to the singular they is not enough:
I am too polite to say that in the article, but I feel strongly that the solution chosen by average speakers of the language, chosen out of a combination of good manners and wanting to speak and write smoothly, should have a prominent place in this article lest naive readers think the only solution is one of the clumsy, ideology-ridden solutions touted in the rest of the article. Ortolan88
I don't promote it. It grates on my ear too. However, my belief is that it is not necessary to promote it because it is happening anyway. And, if I may say so, usage panels and the like are always very conservative and up-tight, and generally are prescriptive rather than descriptive. If I encountered the singular they in an article I was editing, I would take it out and replace it by rewording. Personally, I use her most of the time. That does not change my belief that the singular they is the solution, but I don't say so in the article, except to note that people have done it since the 1500s and are doing it even more today than ever. Ortolan88 19:11 Dec 4, 2002 (UTC)
I just put the singular they back again! I don't know who is taking out, but it is a mistake. Look, the article cannot be NPOV if it ignores the most common solution to this problem. I know it is ungrammatical. I know that many worthy people are addressing this problem with more formal solutions, but to suppress the common solution is the worst form of political correctness and I will keep putting the singular they back in this article forever. Ortolan88 19:28 Dec 4, 2002 (UTC)
Four mentions of singular they is preferable treatment and four screensful of politically correct claptrap isn't? Ortolan88
"And, if I may say so, usage panels and the like are always very conservative and up-tight" - that's hysterical, politically-motivated claptrap. No, they are not 'always' those things. Sometimes, some of their members are. And the point is: are you disputing the 82% figure, or are you just slinging mud so as to deflect attention from it? If you think that figure is a lie, come out and say so. If not, address the point instead of resorting to agenda-driven insults. I too, regard that sentence about the student as wholly unacceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.94.86 ( talk) 09:57, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
In swedish the word "hen" is invented as a gender-neutral pronoun, instead of "hon" (female) and "han" (male), but it's not an officially established word in the swedish language. Should it be mentioned?
"Yt" may deserve a mention as an invented neutral pronoun: Ian McDonald uses it in River of Gods as the pronoun used for people of a third, artificial, "nute" gender. That's of course not the same as a pronoun that does not imply any gender, but I think it's still relevant, especially as a contrast to Xe, etc. -- Duesentrieb-formerly-Gearloose (?!) 10:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
—Whose cage is this?
—This cage is its. Njál 21:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
—Whose cage is this?
— *This cage is its.
This is not a matter of opinion, this is flat out wrong, under all circumstances.
English has no neuter possessive pronoun. You are confusing the neuter possessive determiner 'its'--which does exist--with the neuter possessive pronoun, which (in English) does not. Analogy: 'my' (my book) is to 'mine' (the book is mine) as 'his' is to 'his' as 'its' is to -- what? Nothing. There is no analogy there.
For further information, please refer to English personal pronouns. Mathglot ( talk) 22:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
The neuter poss pron (*This cage is its) has had a reference since version 123929080 of 2007-04-18 14:19 pointing to http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50122404, but there is no such page and I have removed the reference from the article.
A search for information about a neuter possessive pronoun has not turned up any reliable sources. If someone can substantiate that this pronoun exists in English, please add a reference, otherwise this cell in the table should be blanked out. Mathglot ( talk) 19:32, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
If you want to refer to something in a gender-unspecific way, repeat the original noun. "The person went to the window; the person looked outside." If it's just a hypothetical (unrealized) person, then use 'he'. As in the German 'man' or english 'one'.
This article is ridiculous.
MM962 04:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the thoughtful response. You seem to be writing about English. Let's consider what the article says. Here it is (stripped of links, etc.), with my comments:
Some people would argue that 'he' and its different forms are sex-neutral. Otherwise, though, this seems unexceptionable.
Seems obviously true to me.
"Is used" seems an overstatement. I'd say "is an option". Otherwise, though, this seems unexceptionable.
I see no suggestion that this challenge is to be praised or regretted. (I dislike this bit, in that it suggests that singular they is new. It isn't.)
This may be contentious if it's taken to imply that there is a problem to which solutions are needed. But to me it's clear that this instead goes back to statement that A speaker may not know or may want to avoid specifying a person's gender. Well, such speakers may see a problem, and if they do then here are they may see as solutions. Again, non-judgemental. -- Hoary 06:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I think repeating the noun becomes very tedious in any kind of serious writing. For a lot of signage it's okay to just neglect nouns where it is understood anyone reading is the subject, but for any lengthy piece with multiple characters, it becomes increasingly difficult to avoid pronouns or call everyone 'one.' Would you ever, for example, write the sentence 'Jackie picked up Jackie's books and left.' ? The name is gender neutral, maybe there's a desire from the author not to reveal the gender (or not be ignorant enough to think gender is a dichotomy), but the English language is so steeped in gender politics it makes it difficult to write naturally without gender. It's giving me a headache trying to think how to indicate possession without gender in the 3rd person when you've mentioned the character's name. Not sure it is possible. It's plenty easy to say 'one should pick up one's books' or 'no shirt no shoes no service,' but you have to name the gender when you've mentioned someone's name in a sentence already. Or play some ridiculous game where you give indications in other ways that the books people to Jackie, so when Jackie picks up 'the books' you know Jackie possesses them by virtue of some round-about implication. Maybe you don't think it's a big deal to choose a gender, but then do you have to choose if a character is blonde, has a certain kind of hair, a certain height, a certain job? Do you have to alienate hermaphrodites? It's definitely a tricky problem. ~anon March 8th 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.174.4 ( talk) 18:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Can we get the pronunciation added for the invented pronouns? They are words that many people would not have ever seen, let alone heard, so I think putting the pronunciation in parenthesis would be a good idea.
This section just states what any person—of any viewpoint—would automatically know. It seems to be pure political correctness. In general, transgender individuals prefer to be referred to by the gender pronoun appropriate to the gender with which they identify. Really? People prefer their preferences? How strange. Aboctok ( talk) 08:23, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
This doesn't appear to be an article about an aspect of grammar. It seems to just be an article about an aspect of English-language grammar, along with some sociological discussion on how some people find grammatical gender offensive. Perhaps this should instead be moved to Gender-specific pronouns in English? Dewrad 03:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, this is "just" an article about an aspect of English-language grammar, written in the English language, the language that just happens to be the world-wide language today of diplomacy, business and commerce, aviation, and computer-programming. tttecumseh —Preceding undated comment added 22:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC).
Diplomacy, business, commerce, aviation and computer progamming? In France the language of aviation is French. In Europe more people speak German or French than English as first and/or second language - also in the EU-Administration and in diplomatic circles. In China computer programmes are written in Chinese. In the United States Spanish is gaining ground as first and second language by the day. Let alone the rest of the continent. In northern and central Africa the language of diplomacy and business is Arabic or French. In most of the former Eastern Block countries one gets by perfectly with Russian. I hate these anglophones being so damn self-righteous when it comes to their language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.177.80.23 ( talk) 15:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Don't you mean anglophiles, since that term connects with the attitude you are talking about? To presume anglophones in general to be self-righteous seems prejudiced. The statement you criticized is actually very reasonable, when we are talking about international activity. The language of aviation in France might well be French, but when French pilots operate internationally, what language is used? When Europeans or Africans conduct international business, what language do they use most often? When people in former Eastern Bloc countries engage with the non-Russian speaking world, what language is most common? I don't doubt you, that the practice exists, in China, of programming in a local language. But do you seriously suggest that when IT people do international business, programs are often written in Chinese? I find inappropriate anglophilia as backward and as irritating as any other primitive excuse for reason. But let's be realistic—the importance of English as an international language lies in its prevalence across international boundaries, not its alleged importance in a particular place. Aboctok ( talk) 09:25, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Is there any reason to keep this article separate from gender-neutral pronoun? Would they not be better dealt with in a single article (with both types of pronoun described together, for each language)? Victor Yus ( talk) 13:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Is there any reason to keep this article separate from gender-specific pronoun? Would they not be better dealt with in a single article (with both types of pronoun described together, for each language)? Victor Yus ( talk) 13:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
This section either needs to be removed or expanded. It has no citations, seems opinion-based, and doesn't really get any point across. What, exactly, does "singular they, has a long history." mean? Tardusted ( talk) 00:56, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
In German, the word "man" is used. In other context, a reader might guess that both genders are reflectet in the text. Saemikneu ( talk) 19:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
The German "man" is not the equivalent of the English "man." That would be "der Mann." German "man" is translated as English's gender-neutral "one," and they're pronounced somewhat differently as well. Obviously they are etymologically related but this doesn't mean that "men" is accepted as a stand-in word for people of all genders. -- Quamobrem ( talk) 07:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
The section on Mandarin says:
Having asked a native speaker of Mandarin, I believe there are two problems with this passage. (1) I believe it should say " 他 is now always [not 'sometimes'] restricted to meaning 'he'." (2) 它 (tā) is currently used for objects, animals, and gods, not just objects; and 牠 and 祂 are never seen except in writings from around the 1930s.
Could someone familiar with the current state of the written language look at this and correct the article if necessary? 75.183.96.242 ( talk) 18:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I would think that it's possible Thai or Lakota and possibly other cultures would have pronouns for transgendered, specifically ladyboys, in historical use. Also, are there transgendered activists pushing a new gender specific trio of words? All of the pronouns in the Invented section are gender neutral? Alatari ( talk) 07:29, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
With emphasis added to mark the word in question, the second to last sentence in the lead is:
Am I correct in assuming that the intended meaning of the word I emphasised in the quote should be "sexes"? If so, then we should correct that; I do understand that people confuse "gender" and "sex" all the time, but I don't think we should perpetuate the confusion at WP. — al-Shimoni ( talk) 23:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
---"Gender" is simply used in linguistic lexicon. "Sex" is not appropriate as words do not have genitalia.--- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.110.33.31 ( talk) 13:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Original text (now heavily modified) imported from h2g2. I'm the original author (Researcher number 129960), and I copied only the unedited version, to which I retain a copyright. Martin
The introduction is logically confused. In particular, the last paragraph is in the wrong place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.94.86 ( talk) 09:45, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
"Invented pronouns" seems like loaded/POV language, implying that the traditional pronouns are somehow natural. I think we should change the term to something else. Perhaps "modern" or "non-traditional." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:FFC0:20:C96A:2FB0:CFA0:F43C ( talk) 22:02, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
I miss discussion of / forms: "he/she" as distinct from "he or she". My own feeling is that can draw attention to the words rather than to what is being said, or is an inappropriate precision ("legalism"). But I would be interested in other opinions. (I was on the verge of editing out another editor's change of "he" to "he/she" but I decided to seek guidance first. TomS TDotO ( talk) 10:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
They can be abbreviated in writing as "he/she", "(s)he", "s/he", "him/her", "his/her", "himself/herself", but when spoken have no accepted abbreviation. With the exception of "(s)he" and "s/he", one still has the choice of which pronoun to place first.
A conversation about the Wikipedia Manual of Style's stance on the generic he and gender-neutral language that started on this talk page has progressed to two RfCs at the village pump. Further opinions are welcome. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 19:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
This is off the main subject of the article, but it's a custom in English to use 'she' for ships. Russian ships are masculine. That section could be made less culturally biased. Wyvern 19:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)