McCook weekly tribune. (McCook, Neb.) 188?-1886, 1885-02-26
Why "rhOn 2"

|
pronoun into the language for the
purpose of doing away with the awk-
ward phrases che or she,' 'him OF
her," and s'hers or his,' is not meet.
ing with any marked success. The
word "thon'' has been suggested as an
escape from the difficulty; but, after
all, is such pronoun necessary? OBJ
lection is made that there is much
clumsiness in such sentence as, ''Mr.
A. and Mrs. B., having agreed to sep
arate. divided their goods, and each
took his or her share and went his or
her way" We cencede the clumsi-
ness of this construction, but we do
not concede the ACCESSIBILITY of over
coming the perplexity by saying, "Mr.
A. and Mrs. B. having agreed to sep
arate, divided their goods, and each
took thon share and went thon way"
when we may write, ''Mr. A. and Mrs.
B. having agreed to separate, divided
their goods, and went their respective
ways" We are told with much force
that there is great awkwardness in
writing, eff any boy or girl will dill
gently pursue the course have marked
out for him or her, he or she will
surely reach the goal of his or her am
bition." Of course there is awkward
ness in it, but why should we write it,
''If any boy or girl will diligently pur-
sue the course have marked out tor
thon, thon will surely reach the goal
of thon ambition" when the trouble
may he met by writing. eff boys and
girls will diligently pursue the course
1 have marked out for them, they will
surely reach the goal of their ambi-
tom" or, eff any boy or girl will dill
gently pursue the course T have
marked out, the goal of ambition
looked forward to by either will surely
be reached
It does not seem to have occurred to
those who have so strenuously urged
the new word that the language is all
sufficient for the clear expression of
every idea. Awkward sentences are
multiplied for the purpose of showing
the difficulties under which we at pres
ent labor, and as though these SEN
fences were capable of no other forms
than those in which they are pre-
sented. The following example is a
case in point: eff the reader will take
the trouble to reflect, he OR she will
agree with the decision we have
reached" but if we write, elf the
reader will take the trouble to reflect,
there will be no disagreement with the
decision we have reached or, ERE
Election will convince the reader that
the decision we have reached is cor
rect" the difficulty vanishes. Why
manufacture a new pronoun when
there is no necessity for repetition of
the personal pronoun complained of?
If a thought cannot be expressed grace
fully in one form, it is not difficult to
find another which is not open to SINH
lar objection. No writer is compelled
to write such a sentence as this,
ssWhen person has become tired of
life, should he or she be forced to en-
dure it?' The trouble would seem to
lie in the use of the singular pronoun.
Adopt the plural in such cases and the
disappears. 1t is true there
are circumstances in which the singu-
lar number is imperatively demanded,
as: ''If discover who threw stone
through my library window, 1 will
have him or her punished" but the
sentence loses nothing in clearness
when it is written, eff discover who
threw stone through my library win
dow, I will have the offender pun
ished" We do not believe there is
any emergency that seems to call for
the new pronoun, so loudly demanded,
which cannot be met. The whole diff
ficulty lies in seeing only one method
of expressing DISQUALIFICATION Ga
zette.