Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 cherubaddon Oct 06, 2009 15:15:19	Might sound like a stupid topic to start a thread for, but I thought I'd ask here. I'm not a native speaker, and am unsure with the following: Trying to make a sentence involving a direct object of unknown gender, which would be the corresponding pronoun? In German, you use the masculine case in such instances, but I recall seeing some instances of gaming literature where "the character" (as in, some generic PC) was referred to as "she". And even more confusingly, I remember once reading that the third person plural is the correct form to use. Example: Someone broke into my house last night. I hope they catch him? her? them (assuming this is a single person)? Could someone help me on that, please?
#2 EscherEnigma Oct 06, 2009 15:25:29	Welcome to the English language, where we mug other languages for their words and rifle through their pockets for spare syntax and grammar. In the case of an unknown gender, using the male pronoun as default is technically correct.  However, despite some people complaining about it, using a singular "them" or "they" has also been in use for a really friggin' long time. In the case of publications, it's mostly whatever style guide they chose.  WotC chose to alternate between male and female pronouns when they were writing for third edition, though I'm not sure what the current one is. To summarize: the "most correct" is to use the male-default pronouns, though depending on the situation people might think you know the gender rather then think you're using the male-default.  A singular "they" or "them" will also be understood well enough (though an English teacher might complain).  Using a "she" will make most people think you actualy know the gender of the person.
#3 KillerGM Oct 06, 2009 15:27:20	You can use "him".  The male pronoun is traditionally accepted as the gender neutral. "They/them" is becoming increasingly accepted, due to a more inclusive (albeit sometimes confusing) nature, especially in common parlance - but academia is becoming more accepting of it.  An English speaker wouldn't bat an eye at your use of "they" in that sentence in common conversation. You could also say "him or her" ("he or she").
#4 zombie_babies Oct 06, 2009 15:27:38	Technically, the male is the English default.  In an effort to be a little less excluding with language, some (like WotC in 3rd Ed) alternate passages between the two.  Others have come up with their own terms they like to use as well.  As far as proper use is concerned, when the gender is unknown the male (he, him, etc) is used.  It's also acceptable to use, as you listed, they, them, etc and many people that make an effort to stay away from the male default use these.  I strongly doubt using she, her, etc when the gender is unknown would cause any major issues.  I know it wouldn't for me.  EDIT: Double ninja'd.  For whatever reason, I had always imagined the day I was doubled it would be more ... fulfilling. :P
#5 cherubaddon Oct 06, 2009 15:28:28	Thank you, that should be easy to remember, it's like in German. I appreciate it.
#6 Mechalibur Oct 06, 2009 16:25:39	In the case of publications, it's mostly whatever style guide they chose.  WotC chose to alternate between male and female pronouns when they were writing for third edition, though I'm not sure what the current one is. 4e does him/her or he/she rather than using one pronoun.
#7 owls_and_more_owls Oct 06, 2009 18:15:06	I think its about time that the English Language got some gender neutral pronouns. I mean, I love this language (even though it's needlessly complex and breaks it's own rules constantly -- but hey, no one's perfect) and I just want to help it improve itself. I propose Blee instead of He or She and Blers instead of his or hers. Who's with me?
#8 pigknight Oct 06, 2009 19:57:07	Him. It's the default.
#9 _jayne_cobb_ Oct 07, 2009 10:03:23	Welcome to the English language, where we mug other languages for their words and rifle through their pockets for spare syntax and grammar. Dude, at least give credit: "The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse (lady of negotiable affection). We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary." - James D. Nicoll
#10 Klirshon Oct 07, 2009 12:05:39	I guess I'm just an arse; I pefer to use "it" as a gender neutral for unknown gender pronouns. I'm assuming that whomever I may be refering to won't care. We should know what happens when you assume though, so that leads back to my first statement.
#11 zombie_babies Oct 07, 2009 12:23:50	I'm anti-noun.  You pro-noun freaks are everything that's wrong with this world and I'll not rest until you're all converted or painfully abused and murdered.  You and your puppies, too.
#12 s-marrow Oct 07, 2009 14:53:07	Charlatan! You used no less than ten nouns in your argument! I should call up the anti-noun society and having them kick you out.  Although, as I understand, that is a difficult process. They can't possibly have any comprehensive idea who is in their organization, being unable to list names on a roster. I am a generous soul, however, and will gladly assist you with this grammatical puzzle. In order to be true anti-noun, I'm afraid you will be unable to refer specifically to any one object or entity. You must live out the rest of your life using vague orders to interact, such as "Feed!" and "Go!" However, you may find this difficult to do without thinking of the noun which you are directing. In this case, you must shut off all cognitive processes in your mind and live purely through instinctual activity. For example, feeding when you are hungry, but not recognizing what you are eating or how you manage to do this task. In essence, to become pure anti-noun, you must become a gelatinous cube. Or perhaps this old gym coach I had when I was in elementary school. Go forth, Zombie_Babies! Your task will be difficult and the training intense, but I have full confidence that you have every capability to become a mindless, unfeeling blob. *salute*
#13 cherubaddon Oct 07, 2009 14:54:10	I'm anti-noun.  You pro-noun freaks are everything that's wrong with this world and I'll not rest until you're all converted or painfully abused and murdered.  You and your puppies, too. So you... what? Talk in verbs only? Wow, just by thinking about your statement, I lost my daily 2d6 SAN. Thanks! EDIT: Just saw S-Marrow's post. I tip my hat at you.
#14 baneofelves Oct 07, 2009 14:57:08	Genius, S-Marrow. You had me laughing pretty hard.
#15 EscherEnigma Oct 07, 2009 15:20:11	"The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse (lady of negotiable affection). We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary." - James D. Nicoll So that's the real quote.  I've heard paraphrased versions, but never anything attributed.  Need to write that one down on an index card.  ... what?  Don't you keep a cookie-tin full of index cards with quotes on them?
#16 zombie_babies Oct 07, 2009 15:20:15	One can use nouns and still be against them.  The Anti Noun Front is currently working on a noun free method of communication.  For obvious reasons, I am unable to use what we've got so far here.  Can't trust you pro noun heathens with our slick mojo, can we?  It's also difficult to convert noun users to the anti noun side without using nouns.  Since your noun system has been forced upon them for their entire speaking lives, their brains have become slow and useless - much like your own - and they are not yet ready to communicate the way gawd intended us to - sans nouns.  Until we can properly identify, clear and initiate any new member, we must use the foul language construct known as the noun in order to get a proper understanding of just who it is we're working with.  Once they've been evaluated, re-education - or, as we like to call it as it more accurately reflects the experience, rebirth - can begin.  Our ranks are swelling.  It will not be long now.
#17 death_isthe_begining Oct 07, 2009 15:48:22	Sooo Anarchy, right?
#18 zombie_babies Oct 07, 2009 15:51:00	No. That's a noun.
#19 death_isthe_begining Oct 07, 2009 15:57:46	Anarchy as in "state of widespread chaos", that seems like a verb as per "state of being".
#20 zombie_babies Oct 07, 2009 16:00:29	Dood, I looked that junk up.  It so said it was a noun.  You're out of the club, man.
#21 death_isthe_begining Oct 07, 2009 16:05:18	Wait I, was in a club, when, where? What club was I in, the ogre's, or one of those time-travelling clubs?
#22 zombie_babies Oct 07, 2009 16:06:00	I'm not at liberty to reveal that information at this time.
#23 death_isthe_begining Oct 07, 2009 16:11:19	What about a previous time, if I am in a time-travelling club you could reveal it before you bound by current restrictions.
#24 zombie_babies Oct 08, 2009 9:04:40	Unfortunately, I'm never at liberty to reveal any information.
#25 death_isthe_begining Oct 08, 2009 9:33:11	Is it because your mind exisit outside the conventional linear concept of time so that one wrong word could collapse the continuity of space-time causing everything to degenerate into an entropic spiral culminatinging a median of absolute darkness and chaos which wiil eventually spawn a new cosmos causing the entire cycle to begin again. Or just because you can't think with nouns.
#26 zombie_babies Oct 08, 2009 9:36:26	I must apologize.  While I'd love to answer your question, I am not at liberty to relay that information at this time.  Please direct further inquiries to my publicist.
#27 death_isthe_begining Oct 08, 2009 9:42:37	Little do you know, you already have. Revel in the chaos of creation, ravage time, violate space(don't look at me she asked) and above all else.........................................................................................
#28 zombie_babies Oct 08, 2009 9:46:44	Umm, no I didn't.  And my publicist has not told me of any correspondence from yourself or anyone representing you on this matter.  In fact, no one has contacted my publicist regarding this topic at all.  You, sir, are a liar. Or delusional.  I like your style.
#29 cherubaddon Oct 08, 2009 9:58:06	How interesting. Irregular Webcomic! seems to have an annotation at this subject (strip 1769): Some people reading this comic would have flinched at the sentence: The next person who dies, anywhere, I want them processed instantly. Others would have passed silently by it with nary a thought about the grammar. The issue here is about the word "them", which is usually defined as the plural accusative third person pronoun in English. Most English speakers have an intrinsic sense that words such as "they" and "them" refer to multiple people, not a single person. The problem here is that if you want to refer to a single person, the only other widely accepted third person pronouns we have in English are "he", "she", and "it" (or "him", "her", and "it" in the accusative form). So you can either refer to this unknown person as a he, a she, or an it. Referring to people as "it" is pretty much universally frowned upon. As is referring to a female as "he" or a male as "she". So if it is not known if the person in question is male or female, or the speaker does not wish to identify if the person in question is male or female, what is one to do? In this age of struggles for equality and against discrimination, this is not a simple question, and many people have strongly held opinions about such issues. The possible solutions fall into four categories: Use "he" as a neutral pronoun. This practice enjoyed widespread usage some years ago, but is precisely the style of usage that supporters of sexual equality have fought against, because it carries an implication that being male is somehow the default or norm for a person. Some people see this argument as ridiculous, but the ones who think it's fine to refer to anyone as "he" are not the ones being offended. Use inclusive two-way constructs such as "he/she" or "he or she". This is clumsy, and while it appears with some frequency in writing, nobody actually speaks this way. It also raises the potentially divisive issue of what order to place the two more specific pronouns. Use newly invented neutral singular pronouns. There are many examples of such neologisms, such as "sie", "ey", "zie", and a bunch of others. The problem with these is that there are many such invented words, championed by several distinct and relatively small groups of people. The new terms remain unfamiliar and confusing to the vast majority of English speakers, and will almost certainly never catch on to become general usage. Such terms have been being invented since (at least) the 19th century, and not one has caught on yet. Use "they" in a singular context as a neutral pronoun. This one is frowned upon by prescriptive grammarians, who insist that "they" can only refer to a plural number of people, never to a single person. The thing is, among all these options, the one that most people actually use is "they". And nobody ever misunderstands it when the context implies a single person. Nobody complains about it being sexist. It's short and concise and doesn't have any issues with word ordering. And people know what it means. The only thing wrong with using "they" as a singular third person pronoun is that some people consider it to be poor grammar. Compared to all the other issues with the alternatives, why is there even still a question about this? The good thing is that common English usage seems to be heading in the direction towards full acceptance of "they" as a singular neutral pronoun. Lots of people use it this way already. More will do so over the next few decades. Everyone understands it. The trend is already here. Eventually the current generation of grammar prescriptivists will die out and we'll finally have the solution we can all live with. ... Well, I wasn't planning on dying out anytime soon, thank you very much.
#30 zombie_babies Oct 08, 2009 10:15:59	Outside of the suicidal, those diagnosed with terminal illness and the elderly (though a great many of those do not fit the bill, either), not many expect to die soon.  And yet they do.  Watch your back, pal.  You done jinxed yourself. :P
#31 cherubaddon Oct 08, 2009 10:24:12	Well, I have a wooden desk, which I knocked on immediately upon typing that. So I'm on the safe side :P... I hope.
#32 zombie_babies Oct 08, 2009 10:25:50	Oh, certainly!  That always works. :D
#33 Klirshon Oct 08, 2009 10:36:14	Meh, I'll remain the arse and call the unknown being an "it" until I am informed of the individual's gender.
#34 death_isthe_begining Oct 08, 2009 10:43:44	Sometimes here in the states people refer to hermaphadites as an "it"(not something most people talk about though), so I use that as a double-gender pronoun. Meaning that I only use "it" to refer to people with both genders and to refer to objects.
#35 _jayne_cobb_ Oct 08, 2009 11:31:46	So that's the real quote.  I've heard paraphrased versions, but never anything attributed.  No worries, it's one of my faves. Need to write that one down on an index card.  ... what? Don't you keep a cookie-tin full of index cards with quotes on them? Nah, I keep mine in a bone box full of grey jelly. ;)