 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / May 2009His or her (himself or herself)
Hi to all, I came up with the following phrase: ". in order for someone to free himself from smoking addiction..". Shouldn't it have been written as? ". in order for someone to free himself or herself from smoking addiction..". As another example I mention the following sentence: "When one person works hard then he will succeed to his job" Shouldn't it have been written as? "When one person works hard then he or she will succeed to his or her job". So my question is, when we use someone or one in the main clause is it always necessary to use his or her (himself or herself) in the secondary clause? Thanks in advance Thanasis > Hi to all, > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Thanasis Grammatically, no, it is not necessary. Politically, yes, it is necessary. If you use only the masculine pronoun, there are people who will say that you mean only men, that you are prejudiced against women. This particular victimhood mindset has gotten so bad that it is now common for "someone" and "everyone" to get the pronoun "them." "Everyone must carry their own gear." I advocate rephrasing! "In order for people to free themselves . . ." In article <948c198e-3ec4-42a5-9fab-546853f440f7@21g2000vbk.googlegroups.com>, > > Hi to all, > > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > "Everyone must carry their own gear." I advocate rephrasing! "In > order for people to free themselves . . ." It's the same political-correctness-gone-mad that foists on us such abominations as "chairwoman". I for one refuse to play that silly game. Then I thank god every day that we do not, unlike the French, Germans, Russians etc, have genders for nouns and I feel a tad better. Then I ponder this: I run you run we run they run but he, she, it RUNS. Why? and I feel worse again. Jane Austen used 'them,' so it's not unreasonable to go back to it. I'm trying, but it's hard. The trouble with 'he' or 'she' as a generic term is that the image it carries to the reader is masculine or feminine. The denotation is both, but the unconscious sees a man or a woman. It makes a difference to how we see the world, whether we want it to, or not. It increases the already strong tendency for us to think 'human' and picture a 30-year old white American man, as if that picture is somehow more archetypically human than, say, one of a five- year-old Thai girl or a ninety-year-old Sudanese woman. You'd think that everyone would picture someone like themselves, but they don't. Very annoying, when you're a feminist, to find in your own mind these old prejudices. Bonita >Jane Austen used 'them,' so it's not unreasonable to go back to it. >I'm trying, but it's hard. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >picture is somehow more archetypically human than, say, one of a five- >year-old Thai girl or a ninety-year-old Sudanese woman. As you say, I DO picture a 30-year old white American man when I see he. I use gru when I picture a 5-year-old Thai girl, (ru for a boy) and na for a ninety-year-old Sudanese woman (sna for a man). >You'd think that everyone would picture someone like themselves, but >they don't. Very annoying, when you're a feminist, to find in your own >mind these old prejudices. > >Bonita  SignaturePosters should say where they live, and for which area they are asking questions. I have lived in Western Pa. 10 years Indianapolis 10 years Chicago 6 years Brooklyn, NY 12 years Baltimore 26 years > >Jane Austen used 'them,' so it's not unreasonable to go back to it. > >I'm trying, but it's hard. [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > Brooklyn, NY 12 years > Baltimore 26 years I learned about common gender when I was a child, from a woman. I do not picture a "vir," but a "homo." (Everyone know that much Latin?) With the uberfeminist idiocy that's been foisted on us, we get constructions like "Every mother is responsible for the transportation of their own child." "In the 1950s, every father taught their son how to pitch a baseball." Oy! >> >Jane Austen used 'them,' so it's not unreasonable to go back to it. >> >I'm trying, but it's hard. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >> I use gru when I picture a 5-year-old Thai girl, (ru for a boy) and na >> for a ninety-year-old Sudanese woman (sna for a man). I was joking here, of course. >> >You'd think that everyone would picture someone like themselves, but >> >they don't. Very annoying, when you're a feminist, to find in your own [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >I learned about common gender when I was a child, from a woman. I do >not picture a "vir," but a "homo." (Everyone know that much Latin?) I do, but the English slang meaning of homo has sufficiently overpowered me, so that doesn't help. But I do think my knowledge of English, from when I was 5 or 10 or at most 15, that he means he or she, is still strong. >With the uberfeminist idiocy that's been foisted on us, we get >constructions like "Every mother is responsible for the transportation >of their own child." "In the 1950s, every father taught their son how >to pitch a baseball." Oy! You'r a woman, right? I'm glad you can distinguish feminism from idiocy. "Thinking" is a high form of feminism. For the record, when you see my name, MM, don't picture Marilyn Monroe or Marcia Mason or Marlee Matlin, or Minnie Mouse. I'm male. SignaturePosters should say where they live, and for which area they are asking questions. I have lived in Western Pa. 10 years Indianapolis 10 years Chicago 6 years Brooklyn, NY 12 years Baltimore 26 years >". in order for someone to free himself from smoking addiction..". In standard English, masculine pronouns can refer to males and females, or unknown groups of one or more people which may or may not include males. So the wording above is fine. If you want to cave in to the querulous, go ahead. SignaturePosters should say where they live, and for which area they are asking questions. I have lived in Western Pa. 10 years Indianapolis 10 years Chicago 6 years Brooklyn, NY 12 years Baltimore 26 years > Hi to all, > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Thanasis Yes, you should use "his or her" in the secondary clause. You can always find other substitutes. On May 13, 12:00?pm, "thanasis" <inva...@thanasis.gr> wrote: > Hi to all, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > ". in order for someone to free himself or herself from smoking addiction..". The "in order" isn't needed. "For someone to free oneself from smoking addiction ..." "To free yourself from smoking addiction ..." > As another example I mention the following sentence: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > "When one person works hard then he or she will succeed to his or her job". "When one works hard then one will succeed in one's job." "When you work hard then you will succeed in your job." > So my question is, when we use someone or one in the main clause is it > always necessary > to use his or her (himself or herself) in the secondary clause? See above. > Thanks in advance > > Thanasis ---------------------------------------------------------------- Reverse parts of the user name and ISP name for my e-address |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.