The Baltimore County union. [volume] (Towsontown, Md.) 1865-1909, 1885-04-25
why ''ThOn ?"
Roston Hazefte.

The attempt to introduce a neutel
pronoun into the language for the pur
pose for doing away with the awkward
phrases che or she, him or her. and
'hers or his, is not meeting with any
marked success. The word 'thon'
has been suggested as an escape from
the difficulty; but, after all, is such a
pronoun necessary Objection is made
that there is much clumsiness in such a
sentence as, 'Mr. A. and Mrs. B. hav,
ing agreed to separate, divided their
goods, and each took his or her share
and went his or her way We concede
the clumsiness of this construction, but
we do not concede the advisability of
overcoming the perplexity by saying,
'Mr. A. and Mrs. B. having agreed to
seperate, 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 writ
ing, IF any boy or girl will diligently
pursue the course l have marked out
for him or her, he or she will surely
reach the goal of his or her ambition
Of course there is awkwardness in it,
but why should we write it, IF any boy
or girl will diligently pursue the course
l have marked out foA thon, thon will
surely reach the goal of thon ambition,
when the trouble may be met by writ
ing, IF boys and girls will diligently
pursue the course l have marked out for
them, they will surely reach the goal of
their ambition - or, IF any boy or
girl will diligently pursue the course l
have marked out, the goal of ambition
looked forward to by either will surely
be reached
1t 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 ev-
cry idea. Awkward sentences are null
tiplied for the purpose of showing the
difficulties under which we at present
labor, and as though these sentences
were capable of no other forms than
those in which they are presented. The
following example is 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, IF the reader will take the trou-
BILE to reflect, there will be no disagree
ment with the decision we have reach
ed;' or, Reflection will convince the
reader that the decision we have reach
ed is correct the difficulty vanishes.
Why manufacture a new pronoun when
there is no necessity for a repetition of
the personal pronoun complained of?
If 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 sentence as this: when
person has become tired of life, should
he or she be forced to endure it?' The
trouble would seem to lie in the use of
the singular pronoun. Adopt the plu-
raj in such cases and the perplexity
disappears. 1t is true that there are
circumstances in which the singular
number is imperatively demanded, as:
IF discover who threw stone through
my library window, will have him or
her punished;' but the sentence loses
nothing in clearness when it is written,
IF discover who threw a stone through
my library window, l will have the
offender punished We do not be-
lieve there is any emergency that seems
to call for the new pronoun, so loudly
demanded, which cannot be met. The
whole difficulty lies in seeing only one
method of expressing thought.