Should there be a gender-neutral form of he or she pronouns?

Why fall back on an argument from authority when you could so easily check the facts? The Chicago Manual of Style talks at length about relative pronouns (5-58--5-63), that v. which (5-202), split infinitives (5.106, 5.160), and ending a sentence with a preposition (5-162, 5-169). I will quote all their advice back to you, and you tell me what's wrong with it.


5-58 Definition. A relative pronoun is one that introduces a subordinate (or relative) clause and relates it to the main clause. Relative pronouns in common use are who, which, what, and that.

'what' What? They've forgotten the zero pronoun which is quite prominent in all registers.


Who is the only relative pronoun that declines: who (nominative), whom (objective),

The problem here is that 'who' often doesn't decline. Omission of pertinent information is often a feature of style manuals. In modern English 'whom' respectfully declines to be declined most of the time.

Although who refers only to a person (but see 5.62), it can be used in the first, second, or third person.

Not true. It's used for animals in some situations, just as the pronouns 'he & she' are used for animals and sometimes for inanimates [ship]. Section 5.62 doesn't seem to clear this up, but I might have glossed over it a bit too quickly.

Which refers only to an animal or a thing.

Again, not true. There are a few special cases where 'which' is used with human antecedents.


What refers only to a non-living thing. Which and what are used only in the second and third person.

I'd like to see an example or some examples.


The antecedent may also be a noun ophrase or a clause, but the result can sometimes be ambiguous: in the bedroom of the villa, which was painted pink, does the which refer to the bedroom or to the villa?

Virtually every isolated sentence that's out of context "can sometimes [very often] be ambiguous". This is a ploy all too often used by style manuals as a way to avoid dealing with the language issue in greater depth. Your guess is as good as mine as to why they do this.


5-202, under that, which. These are both relative pronouns (see 5.58-62). In polished American prose, that is used restrictively to narrow a category or identiy a particular item being talked about (any building that is taller must be outside the state); which is used nonrestrictively -- not to narrow a clas or identify a particular item but to add something about an item already identified. (alongside the officer trotted a toy poodle, which is hardly a typical police dog.) which should be used restrictively only when it is preceded by a prepeosition (the situation in which we find ourselves,

Here we have a description of language which/that is patently false, Thomas. And yet, here we are at the 15th edition. Focus in on the portion that I've blued, above.

This is a manual, presumably written largely as a guide for academic writing and yet when we look at the data, we find that in academic prose, [one of the most polished of proses], 'which' used in restrictive clauses outnumbers its uses in non-restrictive clauses by roughly a three to one margin.

In both news and fiction, again the data shows 'which' is used in restrictive clauses much more often than it is used in non-restrictive clauses.

Now there are perfectly logical reasons that this is so, [those for another day] but how in the world could this style manual be so far off in their analysis of language.

It's so astonishing that I have to keep going back to see if I'm the one who has misread what they wrote. Have I?

But the Chicago Manual of Style isn't one of the language mavens Pinker polemicised against. You might have found it useful, JTT, to read this book before attacking it.

Arguably, Thomas, there likely is some very valuable information to be found in this manual. But just from what you've posted here, I'd suggest that ESLs and ENLs, who want to really know how language works, avoid it for all but the punctuation and citation sections.

As a guide to how language works in a wider sense, that is, in all registers, I'll suggest that its main value would be as recycled paper.

And what evidence, beyond your say-so and the fact that Pinker doesn't like `language mavens', can you present that any of this advice is false JTT?

On second thought, forget about it. I have made my point, you have made yours, we're not going to persuade each other, and there's really no point in continuing this.

I use "they" all the time for this purpose.

It has been a long time since I've taken any courses for grammar or writing. And let's just say that my current job doesn't demand much in that respect.

Thomas wrote:

And what evidence, beyond your say-so and the fact that Pinker doesn't like `language mavens', can you present that any of this advice is false JTT?

On second thought, forget about it. I have made my point, you have made yours, we're not going to persuade each other, and there's really no point in continuing this.

Thomas,

This is so unlike you. I can't say as I've ever seen you dismiss an opportunity to find the truth in such a cavalier fashion. And I mean this in a most genuine manner.

This is like a foxy, a mysteryman or a tico.

...

One intersting aspect is that until recently, determining gender was considered an either or proposition. Now, we know that gender is not always clearly discernible. We have not only the intersexed but also many individuals who identify themselves as "gender outlaws" These people consider themselves neither male nor female.

It would be useful if the pronouns would become gender neutral. Perhaps, one day, the language will change to reflect the fact that no one but her or himself can determine what gender she or he is.

Also let's get rid of calling women ma'am, ma'am of course is a contraction for madam, a married woman. So every time I check out at Safeway, I hear the clerk say, " Thank You Ma'am" or "Do you need help out with your things, ma'am?" So not only is the clerk making an assumption as to what my gender is but what my marital staus is! Funny, the term "Sir" is marital status neutral.

Once in awhile, I will correct the clerk and say (as Kate Hepburn did in The Aviator) "oh it's Miss, I am single." They never get it though but I love seeing the dumbfounded look on their face.

And what evidence, beyond your say-so and the fact that Pinker doesn't like `language mavens', can you present that any of this advice is false JTT?

On second thought, forget about it. I have made my point, you have made yours, we're not going to persuade each other, and there's really no point in continuing this.