Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
English grad here. I remember going through this with the Second Wave of Feminism. I thought it quite lofty of me when reading aloud to change all the "hes" and "shes" to "they." Oh, Lord, was that pretentious.
It wasn't at all about making other people more comfortable because half the people listening seemed to feel more uncomfortable about it. Instead it was about what we call today "virtue signaling." See how well educated and accepting I am?
But I forgive myself. Heh. Young people who do care go through that awkward stage. They want people to know who they are. Let's hope that when they become solid in their values they don't have to demonstrate them to the world anymore. Or dictate to everyone else.
Now I'm back to my old home catch-all - "you guys." I was glad when I retired from a government job that I no longer had to speak that abominable and dishonest language of political correctness.
In a broader sense, yes, our evolving language is distressing to me. Mostly that's because I really value accurate descriptives and with careless use by the great unwashed they are becoming diluted or even altered beyond recognition.
The bottom line is that language is used to communicate. Am I making myself accurately understood? Do I correctly understand what is being said to me? If so, all is well.
The old fashioned folks of 30 years ago fussed about "Ms." Those of 100 years ago were outraged that women got the vote. I wonder what will upset the dinosaurs of the future.
Language changes constantly; they can tell how long two populations have been separated by the differences in the words they use.
Lodestar, you must not watch Survivor if you're still using "you guys"!
I took a series of linguistics courses a few years back and came away from the experience with a very different feeling about this issue...because we are ALL guilty [using the term euphemistically] of doing just what this thread is complaining about.
Each generation that comes along adopts certain things as a means of self-identification. We see it in music -- transitions from Sinatra and Como to Sam Cooke and Little Richard, to the Beatles and the Rolling Stones, and on to Rap and Hip Hop. But it happens in language to. Teens in the 40s used terms such as "hubba huuba" and "dream boat", to the 1950s ("beatnik" and "bird dog")...all the way up to today.
If you just want to be stubborn and not be aware of modern trends in language...you're the one missing out. The other people missing out are the "hip" ones (another old term) who don't also know proper English communication.
At the risk of diverting the thread, I came across this 18-minute UTOOB recently. It's more about accent and pronunciation. It traces the evolvement of the S.E. English accent from about 1346 to 2006, in 60-year increments. It's just audio with subtitles.
A person can be ' hip'. It's an adjective.
It's the use of the new pronoun that is inaccurate by logic stance. Which when studying language definitions carry concrete terms.
Calling someone an IT or a 'they' actually
Demeans the individual. ' They ' assumes a collectiveness of a group . I didn't give birth to a collective group. My son is a male and HE was a joy to raise.
'It' is a generic term. The doctor doesn't birth an IT or a They.
I guess we all have our stuck-in-the-mud points. I'm not a big fan of the supplanting of nouns with verbs, as in X or Y "Medaled" rather than won a medal at the Olympics.
Though I have to concede that medaled is more succinct.
A person can be 'hip'. It's an adjective.
It's the use of the new pronoun that is inaccurate by logic stance. Which when studying language definitions carry concrete terms.
Assuming I correctly understand what you are saying, I agree.
Languages easily add new nouns, verbs, and adjectives. Look around you and you'll probably see at least one or two objects that didn't exist twenty years ago, but everyone uses their names now.
Function words like pronouns, no. There are pronouns that are lacking in English, that's for sure. The obvious one is the "plural form of you." We know there is a need for such a word because different dialects have created ways of expressing the concept, such as "you-all," "you guys," "youse," but after many decades none of them is considered a formal, standard part of the language because languages just don't easily add new pronouns.
A non-gendered singular version of "he/she" is the same. People are using "they" but it doesn't fit very well because it already has a distinct meaning. There is strong resistance to a made-up word like "ze." It's really not possible to make up a new pronoun and force people to use it, the way you could market a new product with a new name and expect people to adopt the new name.
This is all a fad. I haven't met anyone who asked me to use a gender neutral pronoun, and I'd never ask either. There must be a very small percentage of people making this distinction but it is emphasized on TV shows and opinion pieces. If I ever did encounter it I'd just use the person's name, no need for any pronouns when speaking to or about them.
So how accepting should we be of language changes?
Just one more thing: You "should be" as accepting as you want to be. If you and your friends call each other "hep cats" and you like "groovy" things, go for it.
There is a phenomenon called Code Switching, where people naturally "gussy up" their language when an authority (teacher, boss, judge) is around. So when the Language Police are listening, people are likely to stammer out the "correct" pronoun and then revert to natural speech in a less formal setting.
So "correct" pronouns are likely to always be associated with Authority, the way "Your Honor", "Sir" and "Madame" are, even if they eventually become part of normal speech.
This is all a fad. I haven't met anyone who asked me to use a gender neutral pronoun, and I'd never ask either. There must be a very small percentage of people making this distinction but it is emphasized on TV shows and opinion pieces. If I ever did encounter it I'd just use the person's name, no need for any pronouns when speaking to or about them.
So true. I've never been asked to use an alternative pronoun but if someone bustled up to me and said "My preferred pronoun is 'ze'," I'd be tempted to respond, "That's nice. How about I call you 'you'?"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
