From: brokow@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Mike Brokowski)
Subject: Re: The "his", "he" Issue
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 01:29:30 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.171418.16237@midway.uchicago.edu> 
hasn@midway.uchicago.edu (Sheheryar Hasnain) goes
>In article <LEE.92Aug17100933@coredump.npac.syr.edu>,  
>lee@coredump.npac.syr.edu says
>>
>> In article <1992Aug16.023717.1174@leland.Stanford.EDU> 
>> farthing@leland.Stanford.edu notes
>
>>Farthing:But if you want to communicate with people and most people don't
>>    think masculine pronouns are generic, are you communicating?  What I
>>    have been seeing more and more of lately is that people are deliberately
>>    using plurals or they're using plural pronouns where singular pronouns
>>    technically should be used (e.g., Did anyone forget their book?).
>>    Someone recently made a post to soc.wo/men that showed the use of
>>    plural pronouns where singular ones are correct in English goes back
>>    hundreds of years.  So, perhaps generic masculine isn't such a great
>>    concept?
>>
>>
>> Lee:  I guess the real question is "Do we want to evolve the language so
>> that 'she' is used instead of just 'he' for the generic pronoun?"  IMO,
>> no.  The point of a pronoun is to be more concise.
>
>  Sheheryar: I think it would be refreshing change to have "she" asthe
> generic pronoun.  And the definition of concise is "..the stating of
> much in few words by removing all superfluous elaborations..."  Is
> including the female gender merely a superfluous elaboration?  I think 
> not.

As has been stated before, the generic pronoun (e.g. 'he') *does*
include the female gender. Therefore saying "he" instead of "he or
she" eliminates a superflous elaboration and is, by the quoted
defintion, more concise.

>Lee:  Technically pronouns never have to
>> be used at all, as they're a replacement for previously used nouns.  Why
>> would I want to increase the amount of words I have to type just to placate
>> nitpickers who take offense to slights such as this?
>
>Sheheryar:  So change it to "she."  By opposing this (which I am sure you do,
>with respect that is)
>who is the nitpicker now?  Strange things happen when tables are turned!
>Hey, maybe the widespread dissatisfation with writing the extra words will
>help this wonderful language "evolve" a little further, and find that
>precious word that stands for "he"/"she"/"his"/"her".

Do Sheheryar and Lee know one another? If not, Sheheryar seems to 
be setting up a straw man ( or straw person :-) ). Regardless, 
whether or not Lee would oppose this is not really the issue here. 
The fact is that if we started saying "she" to mean "she or he" no 
one would know that we meant to include the male gender.

Linguistic traditions evolve largely due to conveinience. If we 
could implement a totally new word that meant "he or she" 
unambiguously (the definition of "he" relies upon context) and do 
so without causing an undo amount of confusion, then I would agree 
to it in a second. Unfortunately, I do not see a mechanism which 
allows for this kind of instantaneous consensus on language.

>Lee:  If minor things such
>> as the use of a pronoun is enough for someone to scream "sexist," then
>> IMO nothing will satisfy that person.
>>
>Sheheryar:  The contrary.  If it is so minor a thing, then why argue about
>it?  Change the word to "she."  I don't think that any changes will have
>to be made in any dictionary, just usage.  I am assuming that you agree since
>you're against nitpicking and other minor things!  :-)
>Language is an integral part of social communication
>and, therefore, relationships.  Dissatisfaction about communication
>warrants serious consideration.

I agree, but language *necessarily* involves some reference to 
context to be meaningfully interpreted.  Whether the speaker or the 
listener provides the interpretation is a matter of convienience.  
If I think my listener is too dim to get my meaning or I have 
somehow confused the context, I will say 'he or she', otherwise I 
assume that an unspecified 'he' denotes both genders.  Why do
anything else?  IMO, People who automatically assume the worst 
intention of any speech (especially in the face of established
conventions) serve principally to frustrate themselves, 
inconveinience others, and detract from communication in general.

  - Mike Brokowski
  Overheard: People who think they know it all really annoy
             those of us who actually do.