# Pronouns, Gender, and Conflation of Singular and Plural



## Damaged Goods (Oct 25, 2020)

Back in the day, use of the masculine form did not necessarily exclude women.  If you wrote, "If you see someone who needs help, you should try to help him.  He may be inspired to help someone else."  It was understood that "him" and "He" did not pertain exclusively to males.

Perhaps because of sociologic pressures, writers amended their sentences: "If you see someone who needs help, you should try to help him/her.  (S)he may be inspired to help someone else.

Many writers felt this construction to be awkward, and now we see "If you see someone _(singular)_ who needs help, you should try to help them _(plural).  _They _(plural)_ may be inspired to help someone else."


----------



## asp3 (Oct 25, 2020)

I see languages as human creations which change over time, so I'm not bothered by the new more gender neutral terms even if the singular and plural words are being used in ways that don't fit them.


----------



## Pinky (Oct 25, 2020)

Damaged Goods said:


> Back in the day, use of the masculine form did not necessarily exclude women.  If you wrote, "If you see someone who needs help, you should try to help him.  He may be inspired to help someone else."  It was understood that "him" and "He" did not pertain exclusively to males.
> 
> Perhaps because of sociologic pressures, writers amended their sentences: "If you see someone who needs help, you should try to help him/her.  (S)he may be inspired to help someone else.
> 
> Many writers felt this construction to be awkward, and now we see "If you see someone _(singular)_ who needs help, you should try to help them _(plural).  _They _(plural)_ may be inspired to help someone else."


I would tend to use "them" or "they", rather than "him" or "her".


----------



## Damaged Goods (Oct 25, 2020)

Agree with you Pinky and asp3 but if the nuns in the 1950s saw any deviation from the 1st example, they'd've cracked our knuckles good 'n' proper.


----------



## fancicoffee13 (Oct 25, 2020)

Damaged Goods said:


> Back in the day, use of the masculine form did not necessarily exclude women.  If you wrote, "If you see someone who needs help, you should try to help him.  He may be inspired to help someone else."  It was understood that "him" and "He" did not pertain exclusively to males.
> 
> Perhaps because of sociologic pressures, writers amended their sentences: "If you see someone who needs help, you should try to help him/her.  (S)he may be inspired to help someone else.
> 
> Many writers felt this construction to be awkward, and now we see "If you see someone _(singular)_ who needs help, you should try to help them _(plural).  _They _(plural)_ may be inspired to help someone else."


I am pretty good at english, but I don't remember conflation.


----------



## jerry old (Oct 25, 2020)

Several states in the   80's issued their regulations and public documents with the he/her, she/him nonsense... 
You couldn't  read over three or four sentence without brain fog blinding:  you/him/her it/s __t.


----------



## tbeltrans (Oct 25, 2020)

Damaged Goods said:


> Back in the day, use of the masculine form did not necessarily exclude women.  If you wrote, "If you see someone who needs help, you should try to help him.  He may be inspired to help someone else."  It was understood that "him" and "He" did not pertain exclusively to males.
> 
> Perhaps because of sociologic pressures, writers amended their sentences: "If you see someone who needs help, you should try to help him/her.  (S)he may be inspired to help someone else.
> 
> Many writers felt this construction to be awkward, and now we see "If you see someone _(singular)_ who needs help, you should try to help them _(plural).  _They _(plural)_ may be inspired to help someone else."



Though I think understand the reasoning behind using a plural reference for a single person, it just sounds wrong to me in the same way that hearing the song "Misty" played in the key of C sounds wrong to me.  My understanding of using "they" instead of "he" or "she" is the gender neutrality as it has been explained to me, since there are so many shades of gender recognized today that fall on some sort of spectrum between the extremes of "male" and "female".  The same explanation has come from a number of younger folk who are "in the loop" on all these trends today, so if this is completely (or even partially) false, I would certainly appreciate hearing the "real deal" on this. 

Misty was the first tune I learned to arrange and play in a cocktail style on the piano, and I did it in the same key I have usually heard it - either Eb or Bb because those are the keys horn players are most comfortable in and  therefore the way the Real Book (any jazz type musicians here will know what I am referring to) has it.  Because I learned to play that tune, and have done it so often, my ears got used to it in these particular keys.  I once heard a fingerstyle guitar player do it in C, and it just didn't sound right to me.  I still play it in either Eb or Bb on the guitar because I was fortunate to not have gotten stuck with the idea of "easy" and "hard" keys, which is a very unfortunate musically limiting way to be taught on either piano or guitar.  To me, they are all equal.  To me, music is a HEARING art, first and foremost, so that is what I related to most - what I hear.  Misty has been done in a number of keys because various singers have different ranges that need to be accommodated, so I am referring to hearing the tune instrumentally.

Anyway, I am so used to there being singular and plural the way I learned to use these, that when a plural pronoun is used to refer to a single entity, it just sounds wrong to me.  This doesn't really bother me, but instead I just notice it as being somehow out of place.  There are phrases that do grate on me such as people saying "so I'm like...and then she goes...and then I'm like wow...".  That started with the stupid movie "Valley Girls" though people in the Valley apparently started talking in that manner, fortunately after I was long gone.  Anyone who grew up in the Valley (San Fernando Valley) knows of that silly stereotype of the dumb blond rich girl, which that movie apparently portrayed.  As with many stereotypes, it is unfair to those it is applied to.  Somehow, those phrases caught on and even my younger brother, the attorney says those things, as well educated as he is.  But, then, he does still live in the Valley not far from where we grew up. 

Tony


----------



## StarSong (Oct 25, 2020)

Damaged Goods said:


> Back in the day, use of the masculine form did not necessarily exclude women.  If you wrote, "If you see someone who needs help, you should try to help him.  He may be inspired to help someone else."  It was understood that "him" and "He" did not pertain exclusively to males.
> 
> Perhaps because of sociologic pressures, writers amended their sentences: "If you see someone who needs help, you should try to help him/her.  (S)he may be inspired to help someone else.
> 
> Many writers felt this construction to be awkward, and now we see "If you see someone _(singular)_ who needs help, you should try to help them _(plural).  _They _(plural)_ may be inspired to help someone else."


I would state that sentence as follows, "If you see people who need help, you should try to help them.  They may be inspired to help others."  

Men decided that he/him should stand in for males and females, however women never signed on for that generalization.  During the 60s women began bristling at the generality and we've all been struggling to find inclusive phrasing ever since.  

Question - as a man, wouldn't you find it irritating if the default inclusive pronoun were female rather than male?

As happens often, I find myself agreeing with the sentiments expressed by asp3:


asp3 said:


> I see languages as human creations which change over time, so I'm not bothered by the new more gender neutral terms even if the singular and plural words are being used in ways that don't fit them.


----------



## tbeltrans (Oct 25, 2020)

Maybe it is time to make up some completely new words to use for gender neutrality.  Once the word(s) is (are) repeated often enough, they may become part of the mainstream vernacular.   Some words don't take off, so this would not be guaranteed.  I remember back in the days of Beatlemania, Ringo used the term "gear" to mean something was good, and that never took off, but the earlier term "cool" from the 40s, did.  

I don't know what accounts for some words taking off and others not, but I do know that new words are introduced into common usage from time to time, while other existing words are given new meaning and context.  "Sick" somehow came to describe something that is really good, cool came to describe something that was good, etc.  With context, we know what these words are intended to imply.  Anyway, there is certainly precedent for new usages or new words to refer to gender neutrality.

Tony


----------



## Damaged Goods (Oct 25, 2020)

StarSong said:


> I would state that sentence as follows, "If you see people who need help, you should try to help them.  They may be inspired to help others."



We cannot eliminate the singular form universally.  Sometimes it is necessary to use a singular indefinite pronoun.

I believe that the least of evils is to "mix" singular with plural as others here have suggested.  Just hold our noses while doing so.

As a man, yes I would find it irritating if the default were female.


----------



## tbeltrans (Oct 25, 2020)

What some authors have done is to switch between "he" and "she" either between or during chapters.  They will state this in the beginning of the book to make sure people realize what s/he is doing so readers don't take offense at one or the other word.

Tony


----------



## Gaer (Oct 25, 2020)

tbeltrans said:


> What some authors have done is to switch between "he" and "she" either between or during chapters.  They will state this in the beginning of the book to make sure people realize what s/he is doing so readers don't take offense at one or the other word.
> 
> Tony


And what of the authors of old?  To take offense is IMO an ignorant action.  For hundreds of years authors have used "he" to indicate all mankind.


----------



## jujube (Oct 25, 2020)

They instead of him or her?

Hear that whirring?

 It's the sound of my 9th grade English teacher spinning in her grave.  Hooked up to a generator, she could probably power half the schools in the eastern United States....


----------



## Damaged Goods (Oct 25, 2020)

tbeltrans said:


> What some authors have done is to switch between "he" and "she" either between or during chapters.  They will state this in the beginning of the book to make sure people realize what s/he is doing so readers don't take offense at one or the other word.
> 
> Tony



That's what the priests do, some say "Brothers and sisters" and others say "Sisters and brothers."


----------



## StarSong (Oct 26, 2020)

Gaer said:


> And what of the authors of old?  To take offense is IMO an ignorant action.  For hundreds of years authors have used "he" to indicate all mankind.


It's hard to imagine that many would take offense at default male pronouns when reading old books.    

However, now that we know better it's time to do better.


----------



## Damaged Goods (Oct 26, 2020)

Damaged Goods said:


> That's what the priests do, some say "Brothers and sisters" and others say "Sisters and brothers."



Yes, indeed they do!  Amen.     Awomen?


----------



## tbeltrans (Oct 26, 2020)

Damaged Goods said:


> Yes, indeed they do!  Amen.     Awomen?



History - Herstory  

Tony


----------



## Granny B. (Oct 26, 2020)

tbeltrans said:


> Maybe it is time to make up some completely new words to use for gender neutrality.


Good idea and already been done.  I've read a book with the alternative ze/hir.  You get used to it.


----------



## StarSong (Oct 27, 2020)

Gender neutral pronouns will catch fire when people in their twenties devise and start using them because they're the source of most new language patterns.  

Remember how older generations balked and ridiculed the concept of Ms.? Twenty-somethings forced the issue and within a decade it became commonplace.


----------



## tbeltrans (Oct 27, 2020)

StarSong said:


> Gender neutral pronouns will catch fire when people in their twenties devise and start using them because they're the source of most new language patterns.
> 
> Remember how older generations balked and ridiculed the concept of Ms.? Twenty-somethings forced the issue and within a decade it became commonplace.



I think you are right on this as I think about where new words and phrases originate. 

Tony


----------



## tbeltrans (Oct 27, 2020)

Granny B. said:


> Good idea and already been done.  I've read a book with the alternative ze/hir.  You get used to it.
> 
> View attachment 130441
> View attachment 130442



Interesting!  I have not heard anyone use the first two or last three horizontal lines of words, and agree with StarSong on when these things come into general usages.  I suspect that many of us almost unconsciously start using new words and phrase as we start others using them.  However, maybe these new words may come into usage.  There have been new words and phrases that we might hear once and then not again, and they never really take hold, and others that just seem to flow and express something well, and they just seem to work, especially the more we hear others use them.  As much as I don't care for the "so I'm like...and then s/he goes..." (instead of simply saying "so I said...and the s/he said"), clearly many people became comfortable with it and we hear it frequently even among well educated people who have a decent vocabulary.  These phrases apparently seem to flow well for them.  

I have resisted using these, but then here I am posting in a forum, and I'm like wow, man.   

Tony


----------

