On the lack of certain English pronouns

[oldandslow]

I listened to a linguistics prof (a New Yorker?) on YouTube on this subject. Much to my surprise, he was pretty strident and forthright. He said (and I paraphrase) 'I will use your preferred pronouns when speaking to you, out of respect, but you don't get to tell me what to use outside of that context'

That was rather what I meant. Preferred pronouns are third-person. Why would I use any third-person pronoun, preferred or not, when addressing you? And, if I use the second person, as any language that I have so far come across would demand, then it's gender-neutral anyway.

All this fuss about third-person pronouns, and not a whisper about the ambiguity of the second-person pronoun (as to whether it's singular or plural).

I think youse are missing the point ...

Well, yes, every time I encounter another language, I am struck by how we have impoverished ours by dropping our thees and thous, but that's a slightly-different issue.

 

[Electric_Andy]

It's really quite unfortunate that the pronoun "one" should have passed out of use only a decade or two before all this became a concern, as it also offers genuine neutrality.

I have to use "one" quite often. My partner takes things very literally, so if I say something like "you need to do x or y really", she thinks I'm talking about her, so I have to say "No, I mean one needs to do x or y really"

 

[No Ta Doctor]

I have no issue with respecting people, my concern is the enforced aspect. To use your examples, asking someone not to use a "pet" name or nickname out of respect is very different to asking someone to change their pronoun on the basis of what I believe.

I think the better parallel would be Blasphemy Laws: these were repealed on the quite reasonable basis that one group may believe in a certain deity, but that doesn't mean they get to dictate what someone outside their group can or can't say on the basis of their belief. Indeed, it's impossible to do this in a liberal society because people have widely differing opinions and world views, which often contradict each other.

The alternative would be a sort of "Battle Royal" where all the different groups vie to become the dominant one that gets to decide what is "Blasphemy", ie. how others should speak to fit their beliefs, and "enforce" their world view. This would seem the opposite of progressive and liberal values, and reminiscent of many "isms" we would wish to leave behind.

It seems a little churlish to be arguing about a particular phrasing that might be "enforced" on you, while in reality transexuals in the UK are being banned from going to the loo, or forced into only using gender neutral disabled toilets. Whatever discomfort there is in using pronouns as requested is far less than that of the people that are now fearful of going out because they don't know if they'll be able to pee

That was rather what I meant. Preferred pronouns are third-person. Why would I use any third-person pronoun, preferred or not, when addressing you? And, if I use the second person, as any language that I have so far come across would demand, then it's gender-neutral anyway.



Well, yes, every time I encounter another language, I am struck by how we have impoverished ours by dropping our thees and thous, but that's a slightly-different issue.

Well while I was talking to Mike the other day I mentioned that I liked Mike's bike and Mike said Mike had got it from Mike's dad.

Normally, after introducing a person you were talking about by name you'd then proceed to just use pronouns, otherwise it sounds like there are either many Mikes or Mike is talking about himself in the third person. I guess it could be made to work somehow, but it's clunkier than a singular they by a long way

 

[Moderators]

Mod note. The thread has now drifted into NCAP territory and is closed for futher replies.