Pronouns

[lukelightning]

The words we use for things shape our understanding of them far more deeply than we're consciously aware of. No one in linguistics seriously argues otherwise.

Many linguists and psychologists argue otherwise. The "language restricts perception" concept was in vogue for a while, but is falling out of favor and may be entirely false.

 

[Faraer]

'No one' is mild hyperbole, but in my reading, not even the strongest opponents of strong forms of linguistic determinism argue that language doesn't influence thought far more strongly than some posters here suppose.

 

[Pielorinho]

Many linguists and psychologists argue otherwise. The "language restricts perception" concept was in vogue for a while, but is falling out of favor and may be entirely false.

I just want to second this. For folks interested in the subject, Steven Pinker's books are a great place to start. I'm not sure I agree with all his conclusions, but he is a fascinating writer, and makes his case very strongly. And he says that the degree to which language shapes perceptions is grossly exaggerated.

Daniel

 

[Mistwell]

On that score, I'd like to see people learn to use "woman" and "female" correctly.

Hillary Clinton is a "woman", not a "female", but she is a "female senator", not a "woman senator".

It amazes me to see the incorrect usage, especially since people would never dream of talking about "men senators".

I see what you mean about the second part ("female senator" not "woman senator"). But I disagree on the first part.

"Hillary Clinton is a female" sounds right. As does "George Bush is a male". You could ALSO say "Hillary Clinton is a woman" and "George Bush is a man", but I don't see why it would be more correct to do so.

 

[hexgrid]

Many linguists and psychologists argue otherwise. The "language restricts perception" concept was in vogue for a while, but is falling out of favor and may be entirely false.

This probably isn't relevant to the topic at hand, though. We're talking about written text here. How could the words used possibly not limit our perception of what is being described?

In my case, the use of "he" or "she" has a pretty big effect on how I perceive the text. If it says "he," there's no chance I'll imagine a female unless I make a conscious effort to do so.

 

[Mercule]

There's no option for my vote, which is to use the second person, not the third. PHB p.55 in 2nd person:

Or, more formally:

As a wizard one depends on intensive study to create one's magic. One examines musty old tomes, debates magical theory with one's peers, and practices minor magics whenever one can. For a wizard, magic is not a talent but a difficult, rewarding art.

Personally, I have no problem whatsoever with the solution Wizards came up with. I actually like the iconics, in this regard -- even if Mialee is about the homliest elf ever.

I also tend to think people make a bit to much todo about the masculine as neuter. It seems a petty, petty gripe for no good reason. But I'm a guy, so it's not like I'm likely to notice it, particularly.​

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Although all the eighties musicians I can remember were awful, each of them had his own fan club.

Does that sentence twist your ear?

It doesn't twist mine. And the only difference between it and the previous sentence is that in this one, we don't know the genders of the musicians in question. This leads me to believe that I'm assuming the musicians in this sentence are male.

It doesn't lead me to believe all the musicians in that sentence are male. It's obvious that the word "his" is being used in its gender-unspecified sense, because of the context. "All the eighties musicians" obviously includes both men and women, and there're no specific musicians mentioned in the sentence to muddy the issue for the listener or reader (i.e. pull 'his' towards a specific gender). The suggestion that the word "his" in this sentence is being misunderstood as being only men illustrates the ridiculousness of the objection to the traditional usage, in my opinion.

When I say "I like to swing a bat, sometimes, to relieve stress," people don't misunderstand and think I'm talking about swinging a flying rodent; the context shows which meaning of 'bat' applies. The same principle applies to the use of 'his': the context shows which meaning applies. Insisting that the word 'his' must always carry only a masculine meaning when it clearly is being used otherwise is silly, IMO.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

In general, I find myself annoyed by the clumsy attempts at dealing with the issue of gender that WotC uses, but I'm also not opposed to the use of "they." I saw a shirt which read "They: if it was good enough for Jane Austen, it's good enough for me." That makes some real sense to me.

Hah! Hard to argue with that one. Funny t-shirt.

 

[Pielorinho]

It doesn't lead me to believe all the musicians in that sentence are male. It's obvious that the word "his" is being used in its gender-unspecified sense, because of the context.

But the first example, in which I named various musicians, did twist your ear? Why the difference?

Daniel

 

[Lorehead]

I'm trying to see how this is not a political discussion.

It can be, I hope, if we focus on linguistics and refrain from speculation about each other's motives. I would recommend Henry Churchyard's linguistics page as an excellent secondary source. The author is a linguist, but he cites his evidence rather than shouting that he has a Ph.D.

In summary: Churchyard writes that singular their did historically exist, but not to express gender-neutrality. Its traditional use was for singular constructions whose meaning was plural, universal or indefinite in number. It can refer to a non-specific individual whose gender is known, but not to a specific individual whose gender is not known. Gender-neutral he predates singular their, and both existed contemporaneously. Jane Austen also used he as a generic pronoun, but only rarely.