Re: Hideous grammar

["Janet K. Christian" <janetc -at- AUSTIN -dot- APPLE -dot- COM>]

>From: chuck mccaffrey <cmccaffrey -at- SPYGLASS -dot- COM>
>Subject:      Re: Hideous grammar

>I think that "they" as a gender-neutral alternative to "she" or "he" makes
>perfect sense.  And I am not alone.  Enough people use "they" in this way
>to make it reasonable for it to be "correct usage."  The rules for English
>usage are not immutable.  As such, I several years ago changed the "rules"
>that I learned long ago about the use of she, he, they, and the pompous
>and almost useless "one," which I avoid as much as possible.  Holding onto
>antique or useless ideas is, well, antique and useless.

Here! Here! In the 1800s and early 1900s, "he," "him," and "his" were
perfectly acceptable gender-neutral pronouns. But then most people in
business were male. That is no longer true, and these pronouns are now
recognized for what they really are -- male pronouns -- they've never been
gender-neutral.

We as writers have the power to influence common usage. Writers have always
had this power. Dost thou agreeist with me?  :-)

The English language desperately needs a usable singular gender-neutral
pronoun. Since there isn't one, and inventing a new one unlikely to occur,
we can use "they" as a solution. Most people speak this way now, and most
people no longer hear it as wrong. Therefore, if we write the same way,
most people will not read it as wrong, either.

The English language is always evolving. That's precisely why we no longer
use words like thee, thou, and dost in written or spoken English. It is
time to recognize that the gender-neutral "he" must also go.

I can't describe how it felt to be the only female in a large data
processing center and always hearing everyone refer to "the programmer,
he." It was my first job as a programmer and I felt ignored and left out.
These days, writing that uses "he" jumps at me from the page. I find it
difficult to read the actual meaning of the words, because I keep focusing
on how much better the writing could have been.


>What's the plural of "Charles" as in the sentence, "I went to a party last
>night and there were seven Charless (or Charleses or Charles's) there"?
>The first isn't "correct" and it doesn't look right.  The second is
>"correct" but it doesn't look right, either.  The third isn't "correct"
>but it's close to correct and it looks subjectively better to some people
>than the second. What's the problem?

Because, unlike the false gender-neutral "he," the apostrophe *always*
means a possessive or a contraction. Cleaning up pronouns is one thing, it
does not change the meaning of the writing. However, using an apostrophe to
indicate a plural obscures the meaning. Were I to read your sentence, my
brain would immediately think "seven of what that belong to Charles?" I
would simply rewrite the sentence to be "there were seven men named Charles
there."

I deleted your argument/example that technical writers should be paid the
same as technical programmers. I happen to believe we *should* be paid the
same. Not only do we have to understand the technical concepts, even read
the programming languages, about which we write, we also have to be able to
explain these same concepts in clear, concise, understandable language so
that others can also understand. To me, that's makes us doubly-skilled.
Ever read a programmer's attempt at technical writing?

Never was, and never will be, a "he,"

Janet