From: roger@astro.princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: New words for gender neutral pronouns in English
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 03:10:20 GMT

In article <10523@scott.ed.ac.uk> iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:
>In article <1992Aug27.024249.8843@fulcrum.oz.au> steve@fulcrum.oz.au (Steve Taylor) writes:
>>In <1992Aug24.025341.12877@Princeton.EDU> roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:
>>>However, the "age" argument itself is necessary, to counteract all the
>>>"PC" bullshit.

>>It isn't for me.

>But it is for some.  And it is for you, too.  See below.

>>People on both sides of this question are arguing from 
>>historical usage and searching for older and more convincing precedents
>>to show each other.

>Not necessarily for older ones.  It matters little whether singular
>"they" has been around since the sixteenth century or the eighteenth,
>but it is very important to know that it is not the recent invention
>of some weightlifting female.

>>In my case I use "they" as a gender neutral singular because....

>(arguments somewhat rearranged)

>>	ii) Other attempts at non sexist language ("hir", "he/she", use
>>	of "she" to include both sexes) sound horrible to me.

>And why do they?  Because they are artificial.  So you see, the
>age/continuity argument works for you, even though you don't admit it.

>>	i) I perceive a need for some form of non sexist language,

>Are you listening, Mr Lustig?  Taken alone, this sounds very much like
>an argument from political correctness.

Um, look again.  "I perceive a need" has nothing to do with "PC" in any
of its defnitions.  This person simply feels uncomfortable with the system
as it exists, that's all.  Nowhere do we read: "EVERYBODY should speak
this way, because the consequences of not doing so are discriminatory,
hurtful, and otherwise dire."

>>	as I think "he" does imply maleness, even when used in a gender
>>	neutral context.

>>	iii) Using "they" sounds fine to me. It fits into my own personal
>>	model of how the language works. It was only a few months ago
>>	that I found out there was even any fuss about using it.

>Fine.  "He" is masculine (implies maleness).  

Right.

>"They" is plural (implies two or more of 'em).  

Wrong.  

In a sentence that already has a singular referent for the "they"
pronoun, and probably also a singular verb, it does *not* imply 
the plural number.  We're not talking about "they" in a vacuum, but
rather "they" in a specific context.  

>Now let's suppose you know that you are
>talking of only one person of unknown sex.  If you use "he", the odds
>of your being right or wrong are about equal.  On the other hand, if
>you use "they", you are a` priori wrong.  Where is the logic?

Logic?  What does logic have to do with anything?  

However, "a priori wrong" is incorrect wrt English syntax.

>Ah, but your personal model of the language is able to ignore the
>plurality of "they", while insisting on the masculinity of "he".
>Here's the catch.  You can't really rationalise your intuitions in
>this matter; they are, as you said it yourself, your own "model of how
>the language works", and the way language works is largely determined
>by usage, not by logic alone.

Bingo.  No logic.

><...>
>>the point I'm trying to make is that the historical arguments don't have
>>any meaning to me, and I suspect that they're not very useful for convincing
>>people on either side of the argument.

>On the contrary, you ended up illustrating that the historical
>arguments are the only valid ones.

Of course! How else do we *define* the language other than through its 
history?

Roger

Newsgroups: sci.lang,sci.cognitive