I think so, Brain … but maybe the octopus is entitled to plural pronouns.
I think so, Brain … but when I’m speaking about myself, I should use the first person singular, so shouldn’t my pronouns be I/me/mine?
I think so, Brain … but aren’t Bill Gates’s pronouns CTRL/ALT/DEL?
By 2050—earlier, probably—all real knowledge of Oldspeak will have disappeared. The whole literature of the past will have been destroyed. Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton, Byron—they’ll exist only in Newspeak versions, not merely changed into something different, but actually changed into something contradictory of what they used to be. Even the literature of the Party will change. Even the slogans will change. How could you have a slogan like “freedom is slavery” when the concept of freedom has been abolished? The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking–not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.
I think so, Brain … but could the preference for a plural pronoun point to multiple personality disorder?
Time has published a piece about a woke artist and posted this tweet to promote the article.The tweet appears to have been written in English. If so, the wrong words have been used for third person pronouns.
Of course, Time‘s current ungoodthinkfull confusion about pronouns will be resolved as the company completes the transition to Newspeak.
The only classes of words that were still allowed to inflect irregularly were the pronouns, the relatives, the demonstrative adjectives, and the auxiliary verbs. All of these followed their ancient usage, except that WHOM had been scrapped as unnecessary, and the SHALL, SHOULD tenses had been dropped …
Tell me, O Octopus, I begs
Is those things arms, or is they legs?
I marvel at thee, Octopus;
If I were thou, I’d call me Us.
There’s a line of Supreme Court cases going back to Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923), recognizing the right to speak one’s own language rather than a language compelled by the state. The right is grounded in the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
I speak English, and the dialect I use does not include any of the new-fangled pronouns being imagined these days. Now, its seems to me that someone who wants to use newly invented forms of speech has the right to use that language—and that I have a right to mine—and that neither of us has the right to impose our language on the other.
Hogewash! is an English language blog, and I strive to use proper grammar. To that end, the following pronouns are used to refer to individual persons on this blog:
Masculine form: he/him/his
Feminine form: she/her/hers
Single individuals should not use the plural form (they/them/their) or imaginary forms (e.g., xe/xer/xir) unless they suffer from borderline personality disorder, dissociative identity disorder, or a related mental illness.
N.B.: The English language pronouns for a person who sex is unknown are identical to the masculine. Someone speaking about himself or herself may use one/one/one’s in formal communications. The only other gender in English is neuter, and I believe it is disrespectful to refer to a human being as it.
… that I remember when gender was a property of nouns and pronouns (rather than a made up property of biological organisms) and that there were only four of them used in English: male, female, indefinite, and neuter. When using the English language, a person whose sex was known to be male was referred to as he, and a person whose sex was female was referred to as she. When referring to a person whose sex was unknown, the indefinite form one was used in formal speech and writing, and the masculine he was used informally.
Of course, English is a living language, and we now seem to have some noisy people who no longer are comfortable being addressed by pronouns which reflect their biological reality. However, this does not require coining new words. When speaking or writing formally about such a person, one can be used, and since we already have a perfectly good word for something that is neither male nor female, it should be grammatically correct for informal speech and writing about such a person. However, as of matter of respect for reality, I strongly prefer the use of the old masculine and feminine forms.
Note: The use of the plural form they is always wrong with referring to a single individual.
UPDATE—Stacy McCain deals with this issue from a different perspective here.
Scott Johnson has a post up at PowerLine on the gender neutral pronoun fiasco at the University of Tennessee.
I don’t see the need for these new pronouns. English already has a pronoun that is neither male nor female—it.