Pedants' Paradise

[gurnemanz]

'Themself' jars for me: I'd be inclined to write 'Each child feeds her- or himself', or possibly simply 'Each child feeds herself'.

The Swedes are increasingly using 'hen' as a gender neutral pronoun.

I wonder whether the German usage 'Man' (more or less the same as 'one') has come under any attack from feminist theory: anyone know?

I have read about feminists objecting to the "sexless" pronoun "man" which clearly originates in male word. Also, the corresponding possessive is "sein" which means "his". Some have even suggested introducing "frau" as a neutral feminine equivalent, which surely won't catch on. It is even more complicated because there are several other gender neutral pronouns based on a male form. The "one" in English "someone" is neutral, but German has to give it gender, as in "jeder" with the masculine "er" ending. Even the "jemand" behaves in a masculine way, becoming "jemanden" in the accusative case.

[Sir Velo]

'Themself' jars for me: I'd be inclined to write 'Each child feeds her- or himself', or possibly simply 'Each child feeds herself'.

Presumably only when the children in question are girls?

"Each child feeds itself" is surely the most elegant way of expressing this idea. Or, alternatively, "every child feeds themselves".

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

I have read about feminists objecting to the "sexless" pronoun "man" which clearly originates in male word.

That's why they spell "women" as WIMMIN !!!

[kernelbogey]

Presumably only when the children in question are girls?

"Each child feeds itself" is surely the most elegant way of expressing this idea. Or, alternatively, "every child feeds themselves".

I don't like the idea of treating children as objects - they have gender as much as adults.

'All children feed themselves' sounds right to me.

[kernelbogey]

...I wonder whether the German usage 'Man' (more or less the same as 'one') has come under any attack from feminist theory: anyone know?

I found this interesting article about the dilemma for German speakers. It includes this nice quote:

"In German, a young lady has no sex, while a turnip has," the American writer Mark Twain once complained. "Think what overwrought reverence that shows for the turnip, and what callous disrespect for the girl."

[vinteuil]

I've long been vaguely surprised by another instance of a plural doing singular service - I've put it down as a 'media' affectation, but perhaps there's more to it. It seems to be a resurgence of the Royal 'we'...

It occurs when someone in the public eye describes their own actions using 'we'.

... I haven't noticed the particular usage singled (ho ho) out for attention by Call-we-ban.

There is of course the singular 'we' (meaning 'you') traditionally used by school-masters -

"Well, ffotherington-Thomas, we seem to be having a little problem with that ink-well, don't we? Why don't we try removing the frog before dipping our pen in the ink-well?

[Padraig]

"Well, ffotherington-Thomas, we seem to be having a little problem with that ink-well, don't we? Why don't we try removing the frog before dipping our pen in the ink-well?

I AM amused.

[Padraig]

"Well, ffotherington-Thomas, we seem to be having a little problem with that ink-well, don't we? Why don't we try removing the frog before dipping our pen in the ink-well?

I AM amused.

[Padraig]

OK We are amused.

(Bloody computers)

[kernelbogey]

...There is of course the singular 'we' (meaning 'you') traditionally used by school-masters -

"Well, ffotherington-Thomas, we seem to be having a little problem with that ink-well, don't we? Why don't we try removing the frog before dipping our pen in the ink-well?

This is a curious one, isn't it? It's not quite singular, although the 'we' really means 'you' - but somehow with the implication that '"you" are annoying "me" and I'm therefore including myself'. Or, perhaps, 'We are having a little problem with the way you are (ab)using your inkwell...'. (It's so subtle that it's quite hard to convey in other words.)

Perhaps Vinteuil's schoolboy might reply drily 'Yes sir, the frog is the problem; how kind of you to offer to remove him.'

[vinteuil]

...

There is of course the singular 'we' (meaning 'you') traditionally used by school-masters -

... also by old-school medical practitioners :

"Well, Mrs Gubbins, how are we this morning? And how are our water-works?"

[Serial_Apologist]

... also by old-school medical practitioners :

"Well, Mrs Gubbins, how are we this morning? And how are our water-works?"

Reminds me of RD Laing's story:

Top hospital consultant (a James Robertson-Justice-type character one imagines) doing the rounds. "And how are we this morning, Mr Smith?" Mr Smith points at the tracheotomy tube in his throat. The consultant borrows nurse's notepad. On it he writes, "How are we this morning, Mr Smith?", then reaches over to hand it and the biro to the patient. The patient writes, "I'm not deaf".

[french frank]

Forgot to check the latest Fowler:

"Over the centuries, writers of standing have used they, their and them with anaphoric reference to a singular pronoun or noun, and the practice has continued into the 21c. to the point that, traditional grammarians aside, such constructions are hardly noticed any more or are not widely felt to lie in a prohibited zone."

[oddoneout]

Forgot to check the latest Fowler:

"Over the centuries, writers of standing have used they, their and them with anaphoric reference to a singular pronoun or noun, and the practice has continued into the 21c. to the point that, traditional grammarians aside, such constructions are hardly noticed any more or are not widely felt to lie in a prohibited zone."

The practice may have continued with 'writers of standing' but I would venture that it was not widely used among the general populace throughout that time and certainly not in the last 50 or so years? It has become universal in the last few years though, and it is very much noticed by those of us what was brung up to talk proper and write grammatic. I feel that in many cases it's the result of a lack of interest in making sure that what is written or spoken is expressed as well as it can be, because very often a simple re-arrangement will remove the need to use that construction in the first place. The classic is the BT recorded message'The caller with-held their number' - which could/should have said 'the' instead of 'their'. Our cut and paste, plagiaristic(apologies if that's not a legitimate word) culture doesn't help either, as it makes it all too easy for mistakes and bad practice to be quickly disseminated far and wide and become accepted as the norm, or the correct form.

[kernelbogey]

Forgot to check the latest Fowler:

"Over the centuries, writers of standing have used they, their and them with anaphoric reference to a singular pronoun or noun, and the practice has continued into the 21c. to the point that, traditional grammarians aside, such constructions are hardly noticed any more or are not widely felt to lie in a prohibited zone."

OED agrees:

2. In anaphoric reference to a singular noun or pronoun of undetermined gender: he or she.Especially in relation to a noun phrase involving one of the indefinite determiners or pronouns any, each, every, no, some, anybody, anyone, etc.

This use has sometimes been considered erroneous.

The two most recent examples quoted are:

1968 Listener 3 Oct. 440/3 When somebody becomes prime minister they're immediately put on a pedestal.
1998 A. Pease & B. Pease Why Men don't listen & Women can't read Maps (1999) viii. 212 The psychiatric label for a transgender person is that they are suffering Gender Identity Disorder.