7 replies to this topic

[PWAIN]

Michael, on 12 October 2010 - 10:21 PM, said:

We live in a country with significant coverage of vaccines, have clean water and access to fresh vegetables, and I hope no one here likes to fight with hir cagemates.

Honestly what is wrong with using the word 'their' no need to bastardise the english language.

[Michael]

resvhead, on 13 October 2010 - 01:52 AM, said:

Michael, on 12 October 2010 - 10:21 PM, said:

We live in a country with significant coverage of vaccines, have clean water and access to fresh vegetables, and I hope no one here likes to fight with hir cagemates.

Honestly what is wrong with using the word 'their' no need to bastardise the english language.

Using 'their' to refer to a single person ("one") is a prevalent violation of the basic internal logic of English grammar. 'Hir' is an useful neologism, not a bastardization.

[PWAIN]

Michael, on 13 October 2010 - 11:16 AM, said:

resvhead, on 13 October 2010 - 01:52 AM, said:

Michael, on 12 October 2010 - 10:21 PM, said:

We live in a country with significant coverage of vaccines, have clean water and access to fresh vegetables, and I hope no one here likes to fight with hir cagemates.

Honestly what is wrong with using the word 'their' no need to bastardise the english language.

Using 'their' to refer to a single person ("one") is a prevalent violation of the basic internal logic of English grammar. 'Hir' is an useful neologism, not a bastardization.

Why do you assume that this word is only relevant in the plural?

I googled "dictionary their" and the first item to come up was merriam-webster which seems as good as any. I quote from their page ( http://www.merriam-w...ictionary/their ):

2 : his or her : his, her, its —used with an indefinite third person singular antecedent <anyone in their senses — W. H. Auden>

[JLL]

Michael, on 13 October 2010 - 11:16 AM, said:

resvhead, on 13 October 2010 - 01:52 AM, said:

Michael, on 12 October 2010 - 10:21 PM, said:

We live in a country with significant coverage of vaccines, have clean water and access to fresh vegetables, and I hope no one here likes to fight with hir cagemates.

Honestly what is wrong with using the word 'their' no need to bastardise the english language.

Using 'their' to refer to a single person ("one") is a prevalent violation of the basic internal logic of English grammar. 'Hir' is an useful neologism, not a bastardization.

"All grammars leak."

Exceptions to internal rules are violations only as long as they're uncommon. When they become common, they become part of the logic. Using "you" to refer to a single person was a violation of the internal logic back in the day (it was used for plurals), now it's part of the logic.

Meanwhile, I'll be using "their". I think it's gonna win. "Hir" just seems so phony.

[mikeinnaples]

JLL, on 14 October 2010 - 12:05 PM, said:

Meanwhile, I'll be using "their". I think it's gonna win. "Hir" just seems so phony.

Phony and pompous, to be honest.

[chrono]

I fail to see why using a PC pronoun should occasion such characterizations as pompous or bastardizing. I think we all understood the intended meaning. And how about the irony of critiquing grammar via a grotesque run-on sentence?

Personally, I'm uncomfortable using the neologism "hir" (except in conversations about transgender issues, perhaps), partly because it introduces the off-topic issue of gender politics via non-standard usage (case in point), and AFAIK is unable to be pronounced verbally without being homophonous to "her" or "here/hear." I would have used "their" in this case, because the sentence implied a selection of any non-specific one from a group. I'd consider it much less preferable to employ in a situation referring to a specific single person of unknown gender, probably going for "this/that/a/some person's," or even "his or her" instead. But I can't think of a situation short of formal editing in which I would feel it warranted comment either way...

[maxwatt]

The spoken elision of "him or her" might lead to a pronounceable equivalent, along the lines of "himmer", becoming eventually "mur", I suppose.  But I don't see it happening.  

Hungarian does not have genders for pronouns, which led to some hysterical constructions when a Hungarian friend tried to relate a sexist story....

[PWAIN]

Using 'hir' may indeed be a neologism¹ (not necessarily a generally accepted one) but that does not mean that that is the end of it's definition. It can also be described as a:

gender-neutral pronoun²
gender-inclusive pronoun²
epicene pronoun²
androgynous pronoun²

Personally, I think it could also be called a portmanteaus³.

My point being that despite all of these potential names, I am still not excluded from considering it a 'deliberate' bastardisation of the english language. It can be both. An unnecessary addition in my view is illegitimate and therefore a bastardisation⁴.

My suggestion of using the 'singular they'⁵ (in this particular instance the word 'their') as a commonly used alternative has far more validity. The use of "singular they" has been in use since at least the 15th century² and is is FAR more widely used and accepted.  



1. Neologism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neologism
2. Gender-neutral pronoun http://encyclopedia....tionary.com/Hir
3. Portmanteau http://en.wikipedia....ortmanteau_word
4. Corruption (linguistics) http://en.wikipedia....on_(linguistics)
5. Singular they http://en.wikipedia....i/Singular_they