English really needs a third person singular pronoun

Adam   Tuesday, March 15, 2005, 20:18 GMT
5. Gender: Sexist Language and Assumptions


§ 4. epicene pronouns
People have long noted the need in English for a third person singular pronoun that can refer to a person of either sex, thus liberating us from dependence on masculine his in sentences like "Someone left _____ hat and A smart student keeps _____ papers in _____ notebook." What many people do not realize is that English once had such a pronoun, but it fell out of use, probably because the linguistic need to specify gender was so overwhelming.
That pronoun is a—not the article a, but a reduced form of the Middle English third person pronouns he, which referred to a male, and heo, which was used for a female. These pronouns, which derive from Old English, came to be nearly indistinguishable when pronounced, and in some dialects they were reduced to a short syllable, spelled ha or a. Thus there existed a native English pronoun that could refer to a third person of either sex, at least in the nominative case. Unfortunately, this development created a problem that is the opposite of our modern one: people sometimes couldn’t tell which gender was being referred to! Would that be a (he) or a (she)? In part to differentiate the genders, Middle English speakers began using she for the female pronoun. Just where she comes from is a matter of some debate, but it probably was an alternate pronunciation of heo that received wider use because it could be distinguished from he.
The common-gender pronoun a still survives today in some British dialects, along with the forms un and hoo or u, as a relic of Middle English he and heo. But for most speakers of English, an epicene pronoun is devoutly to be wished for. And people have been wishing for a long time. Artificial epicene pronouns for English have been proposed at least since the mid-19th century. Dennis Baron in his book Grammar and Gender has compiled a list of some eighty of these modest proposals that have been put forth over the years. We present a selection on page 174. Some of these proposals have been invented independently more than once. Some have been taken or adapted from other languages. Note that many are inflected for grammatical case just as he and she are.
In addition, concerned readers have sent their own pronoun proposals to the editors of The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. Among these are che, chim, chis (1985); per, pers, pem (1992); ne, nes, nem (1995); and wun (1995). Wun, whose plural would be wuns or wen, would also function as a substitute for generic man, and be used in compounds as well, as in gentlewuns and wunkind. No doubt other dictionary publishers have their own files of epicene pronouns proposed by readers.
Like most efforts at language reform, these well-intended suggestions have been largely ignored by the general English-speaking public, and the project to supplement the English pronoun system has proved to be an ongoing exercise in futility. Pronouns are one of the most basic components of a language, and most speakers appear to have little interest in adopting invented ones. This may be because in most situations people can get by using the plural pronoun they or using other constructions that combine existing pronouns, such as he/she or he or she.
Epicene pronouns have enjoyed some success in certain forms of writing, especially science fiction. Some Internet discussion groups also make a habit of using these pronouns.

Here are some suggestions for an English third person singular pronoun -


Date Pronoun

about ne, nis, nim
1850 hiser
1868 en
1884 thon, thons
hi, hes, hem
le, lis, lim
hiser, himer
ip, ips
1888 ir, iro, im
1890 e, es, em
1912 he’er, him’er, his’er, his’er’s
1927 ha, hez, hem
on
hesh, hizzer, himmer
about thir
1930
1935 himorher
1938 se, sim, sis
1945 hse
1970 she (since it contains he), heris, herim
co, cos
ve, vis, ver
1972 tey, term, tem
shis, shim, shims, shimself
ze, zim, zees, zeeself
per, pers
1973 na, nan, naself
s/he
him/er
his-or-her
1974 en, es, ar
hisorher
herorhis
1975 ey, eir, em
1977 e, ris, rim
em, ems
1978 ae
hir
1979 et, ets, etself
shey, sheir, sheirs
1980 it
1981 heshe, hes, hem
1984 hann
1985 herm










The American Heritage® Book of English Usage. Copyright © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Travis   Tuesday, March 15, 2005, 20:56 GMT
There is already one: "they". However, many prescriptivist grammarian sorts won't recognize that such is already so.
Adam   Tuesday, March 15, 2005, 20:58 GMT
"They" isn't really suitable, because it is plural.
Adam   Tuesday, March 15, 2005, 21:01 GMT
What if you don't know the gender of a person?

Would you say "Someone has left HIS hat" or "Someone has left HER hat" or "Someone has left THEIR hat".

HIS is masculine, but the person could be a woman

HER is feminine, but the person could be a man.

THEIR is plural, but only ONE person left the hat.

What English needs is an extra pronoun to get rid of this problem.
Travis   Tuesday, March 15, 2005, 21:04 GMT
"They" is fine for the role; it's no worse for it than "you" is for the role of the second person pronoun in English. Of course, then, many North American English dialects have created their own informal second person plural pronoun-like forms, like "you guys" (yes, that can be used with women, really), "you'uns", and "y'all", which may indicate that that situation with "you" may not be for the best...
Travis   Tuesday, March 15, 2005, 21:15 GMT
The big difference, though, between "they" and all these other proposals is that "they" is already in very, very widespread usage within the general public (at least in the US), whereas these other ones are in rather limited usage at most, overall.
Cro Magnon   Tuesday, March 15, 2005, 21:38 GMT
AFAIK, nobody except hillbillies use "you'uns", and "y'all". IMO, English could use a third person singular AND a second person plural.

Not that I expect that to happen.
Kirk   Tuesday, March 15, 2005, 22:46 GMT
As has been mentioned, English already does have a generic third person singular that has been used for centuries..."they" (go check my post on the 11th page of "for grammarians" if you want to see the examples). Prescriptivists may not like it but they aren't recognizing that English makes perfectly good use of "they" in this case.

Most people also have some way to indicate second-person plural--as Travis mentioned, "you guys" is pretty common, at least in North America. In everyday speech I always say "you guys" (even if it's to girls...the "guys" has almost been grammaticalized into a pronoun). In a formal situation I say "you all" or "all of you", but there are plenty of other variants some people say use, as have been listed on this post.

Don't let the prescriptivists tell you such usages are invalid (except for formal situations, essays, etc. when a more formal register of English may be appropriate) because they do a great job of filling a semantic void. Languages do this all the time--look at the historical development of Iberian Spanish, in which "vos" (originally 2nd person plural) became singular, thus requiring the addition of "-otros" ("others"...roughly the same thing "you guys" does) to make "vosotros". Look at English....whose "you" also was once strictly 2nd person plural. Considering the fact that it switched over to cover a singular role as well, it shouldn't be surprising that variants popped up to clarify a 2nd person plural form of "you" when necessary. Language is constantly changing and will organically come up with capable words/phrases to fill semantic voids when they present themselves.
Tony   Tuesday, March 15, 2005, 22:49 GMT
Tony am I who am I
I am your mom's mothe r fucing knight
whos dick been sucked over a thousand times
What a lovely night

For a mther fucing night

gess who am I
Jim   Wednesday, March 16, 2005, 00:33 GMT
As Kirk points out "... 'you' also was once strictly 2nd person plural." So let me rephrase what Travis wrote: "They" is no worse than "you" for the role of a singular pronoun.

The next time any prescriptivist insists that "they"/"them"/"their"/etc. are strictly plural I suggest that "if thou thou'st him some thrice, it shall not be amisse."
Dulcinea del Toboso   Wednesday, March 16, 2005, 05:38 GMT
Not only was "you" second person plural, it was the objective form (the nominative being "ye").

Anyway, English already has a third person singular pronoun that can refer to a person of either sex.

Do you know what it is?

It's "he". Really.

English has "it", which refers to things and oftentimes animals. It has "she" which refers to females. It has "he" which refers to males and it also has "he" which is indeterminate: it refers to either males or females. You might say that there is only one "he" and which refers to males only and that using it for both sexes is some sort of manifestation of male dominance in society. Yet, everyone seems to accept that there are two instances of "sie" in German; one meaning "she" and one meaning "they" (yes, I know the corresponding verb conjugations are different, but that's irrelevant).

Use of "he" in a gender neutral context is so established in spoken and written English that when someone violates that usage the result is completely artificial, calls too much attention to itself, and severely detracts from the message.

The English language is what it is. Artificial attempts to change it will not work. Those who are offended by its constructs could learn Hungarian instead, as it has but a single third person singular pronoun.
Someone   Wednesday, March 16, 2005, 05:57 GMT
"Anyway, English already has a third person singular pronoun that can refer to a person of either sex.

Do you know what it is? "

Yes, it's "they".
Travis   Wednesday, March 16, 2005, 05:58 GMT
One way or another, at least in current usage, "he" is specifically masculine, *not* indeterminate, in nature, as much as some sorts may try to prescribe that it is indeterminate, as /the/ indetermine singular third person pronoun is "they", not "he", in actual usage. And no, it is *not* "so established in spoken and written English", as much as one may want to think it is. Overall, this is a wholly different matter from the usage of "sie" in German.
Dulcinea del Toboso   Wednesday, March 16, 2005, 06:08 GMT
Considering the last decade or so, use of "they" is gaining favor. If you look at written English for the last several hundred years, in books, magazines, trade or professional publications, and government or scientific documents, use of "he" dominates simply because writers were more conservative in the past and were less likely to choose a plural form.

For the most part, I dislike prescriptivism. If people want to use "they", so be it. If by some magical spell everyone all at once decided to adopt "zie" or "hir" (as I've seen in newsgroups), that would be fine, too.
Travis   Wednesday, March 16, 2005, 06:13 GMT
I find the use of "zie" (or "sie", but I pronounce it the German way for whatever reason) for such funny, simply because it sounds exactly the same (or almost exactly the same, if one pronounces "sie" with /s/ rather than /z/) as German "sie". Of course, "sie" can be either third person singular feminine or third person plural in German, but does not fit the role of a third person singular indeterminate pronoun.