 |
 | 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 / January 2007her instead of "his or her"
Hello everybody, I'm new here and I'm very glad that such a newsgroup exists. I'm not native english, but I like english language. I've written a document in english (it's a silly one to be honest, don't expect anything serious) and I'd like to know wether I made any mistakes in it. The document is at http://www.sulweb.org/lucio/index.php/Howto_Reading_Howto Maybe I've made several mistakes in it, but I'd like to focus on a particular sentence. A friend of mine pointed me out that in the following sentence "If someone decides to waste her time to translate this stuff..." the word "her" is wrong or, at least, restricts the meaning to women. On the other hand I'm pretty sure that several articles on the net use "her" to refer indifferently to men and women in similar sentences. Unfortunately I have no examples at hand and searching for "her" with google gives a little too many results... The other chance is that I've never understood the real meaning of many articles around... Where's the truth? > "If someone decides to waste her time to translate this stuff..." > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > have no examples at hand and searching for "her" with google gives a little > too many results... To be truly non-gender-specific, one would use the plural 'their' instead of 'her' in the above sentence. However, there is nothing wrong with the sentence as it is. Today many publications will switch between 'his' and 'her' for different third-party cases so as to promote equality and stay slightly more personal, but the practice is questionable. In the sentence given, you need to use the present participle of the verb to translate instead of the infinitive form:- "If someone decides to waste her time translating this stuff..." I wish I had the ability to explain why. :-) > However, there is nothing wrong with the sentence as it is. Today many > publications will switch between 'his' and 'her' for different third-party > cases so as to promote equality and stay slightly more personal, but the > practice is questionable. I wonder why it's questionable... > In the sentence given, you need to use the present participle of the verb > to translate instead of the infinitive form:- > > "If someone decides to waste her time translating this stuff..." > > I wish I had the ability to explain why. :-) You don't need to, I agree with you, the present participle sounds better. >> However, there is nothing wrong with the sentence as it is. Today many >> publications will switch between 'his' and 'her' for different third-party >> cases so as to promote equality and stay slightly more personal, but the >> practice is questionable. > I wonder why it's questionable... Well it begins with the premise that using either 'his' or 'her' exclusively somehow denigrates the opposite sex. As English does not have a personal neutral form, only impersonal neuter ('its') we would have no option but to use one of the gendered pronouns. Like French we have always defaulted to the masculine to be non-gender-specific and this is perfectly acceptable within the language. This means traditionally, 'hers' relates specifically to the feminine, whereas "his", used in a non-gendered context, is correctly interpreted as "his or her". It is on the same anthropological model as man the species and mankind. To insist that the feminine is used in equal measure suggests we should also say 'womankind' when referring to our species. There is no benefit linguistically from doing this, and promulgates the belief that if one uses politically-corrected language, then all is well without addressing the real issues of inequality. It is a politically motivated practice that has nothing to do with correct usage and only adds confusion. I hope that it is a passing fad. > "If someone decides to waste her time to translate this stuff..." > In the sentence given, you need to use the present participle of the verb > to translate instead of the infinitive form:- > > "If someone decides to waste her time translating this stuff..." > > I wish I had the ability to explain why. :-) I am not a native speaker (of english), but tell me if you agree with me on this explanation of mine: "to waste her time to translate this stuff" seems to be a literal translation from the french "perdre son temps à traduire...". But here, the sentence means that BY DOING that (translating), you will waste time. The time-wasting is the consequence of the translating. If "TO" was used ("waste her time to translate this stuff"), "to" would suggest a goal (as "POUR traduire" in french). As if the goal of wasting one's time was to "translate this stuff", which makes no sense. It is like in the old example of "I stopped smoking". You'll hear a lot of french people say "I stopped to smoke", because in French we say "j'ai arrêté de fumer". But "I stopped to smoke" means "J'ai arrêté de faire ce que j'étais en train de faire pour prendre une pause cigarette" (en explicitant un peu!). "To+verb" often has that sense of goal, I find. If it can have that sense, then it probably does. Am I right? C. > It is like in the old example of "I stopped smoking". You'll hear a lot of > french people say "I stopped to smoke", because in French we say "j'ai [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Am I right? Sounding good. >> "If someone decides to waste her time to translate this stuff..." > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > suggest a goal (as "POUR traduire" in french). As if the goal of wasting > one's time was to "translate this stuff", which makes no sense. Both forms above are in fact missing words (as is commonly done in English when the meaning is clear): "If someone decides to waste her time in order to translate this stuff..." "If someone decides to waste her time by translating this stuff..." So they both mean the same (the time is being wasted to accomplish the goal of translation), and in the longer form are both good English (although the first is a little more formal), but the second in the shorter form only misses out the preposition 'by', which is often acceptable in English, whereas the first omits "in order" and thus loses understandability. > It is like in the old example of "I stopped smoking". You'll hear a lot of > french people say "I stopped to smoke", because in French we say "j'ai > arrêté de fumer". But "I stopped to smoke" means "J'ai arrêté de faire ce > que j'étais en train de faire pour prendre une pause cigarette" (en > explicitant un peu!). Surely there is a shorter form than that? "J'ai arrêté pour fumer une cigarette", possibly? (My French is very rusty!) > "To+verb" often has that sense of goal, I find. If it > can have that sense, then it probably does. In the sense of "in order to do", yes, but the goal normally follows the verb. Chris C >> It is like in the old example of "I stopped smoking". You'll hear a lot >> of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Surely there is a shorter form than that? "J'ai arrêté pour fumer une > cigarette", possibly? (My French is very rusty!) That would be OK, provided that you know from context what you "stopped" doing. ("J'ai travaillé sur ce dossier tout l'après-midi. Mais vers 4 h, j'ai arrêté pour fumer".) I would say something like "j'ai fait une petite pause cigarette". Only, I don't smoke. :) > Maybe I've made several mistakes in it, but I'd like to focus on a > particular sentence. A friend of mine pointed me out that in the following [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > other hand I'm pretty sure that several articles on the net use "her" to > refer indifferently to men and women in similar sentences. The gender-neutral term is "their", as in "if someone decides to waste their time..." Historically, English used the masculine pronoun to refer to either gender, as in "if someone decides to waste his time..." but, in the 70s and 80s, as "women's rights" was gaining a large portion of the popular mindset, some folks switched to "his or her", as in "if someone wants to waste his or her time..." Then, some VERY progressive people got it into their heads that it would somehow make things "even" if they used "her" the way the language had classically used "his" to mean anyone of indeterminent gender. On the one hand, it's sort of sweet; on the other, some people use it as a slap in the face, a sort of "neener-neener, how do *YOU* like it?" kind of thing which, IMO, is highly inappropriate. "Their is safest", with "his" not too terribly far behind, and "his or her" more accurate, yet clumsy, and will probably be cut by any professional editors.  SignaturePlease take off your pants or I won't read your e-mail. I will not, no matter how "good" the deal, patronise any business which sends unsolicited commercial e-mail or that advertises in discussion newsgroups. > Historically, English used the masculine pronoun to refer to either > gender, as in "if someone decides to waste his time..." but, in the 70s [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > "neener-neener, how do *YOU* like it?" kind of thing which, IMO, is > highly inappropriate. It can also backfire, as when a manual on using a word processor, written by a woman, used 'her' all the way through. The unintended effect was to reinforce the stereotype of women as secretaries! Whenever I see something using 'her' as a generic I read it as "this person has a chip on their shoulder". Switching between them randomly is plain silly. I even prefer the neologisms 'zie' and their ilk. > "Their is safest", with "his" not too terribly far behind, and "his or > her" more accurate, yet clumsy, and will probably be cut by any > professional editors. I dislike the use of singular 'their' because it grammatically implies the plural, and whichever way it is used seems wrong: "They were playing with their ball." "They was playing with their ball." The first reads as though there were a plurality of people playing with a ball (which by implication was communally owned), whereas the second is just wrong grammatically (although frequent in some dialects, notably East London). I have a tendency, when people insist on being "politically correct" (and grammatically incorrect) in use of pronouns, to refer to them using the neuter. If they don't want to be identified as male or female that leaves the obvious gender... Chris C > I dislike the use of singular 'their' because it grammatically implies > the plural, and whichever way it is used seems wrong: > > "They were playing with their ball." > "They was playing with their ball." True in those examples, however: The child ran home to get their ball. or The author signed copies of their book until well after closing time. Oddly, these scan all right. But perhaps that's just because I grew up when this was the preferred substitution for "his" -- sort of the first evolution in an attempt to find a comfortable word. I tend to agree with you about the chip on the shoulder, though. "His" was good enough for a thousand years or so of written English, it can be good for another 50 years or so until after I'm gone... :) SignaturePlease take off your pants or I won't read your e-mail. I will not, no matter how "good" the deal, patronise any business which sends unsolicited commercial e-mail or that advertises in discussion newsgroups. >> I dislike the use of singular 'their' because it grammatically implies >> the plural, and whichever way it is used seems wrong: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > when this was the preferred substitution for "his" -- sort of the first > evolution in an attempt to find a comfortable word. Oddly, I find the second less objectionable than the first. This is possibly, as you suggest, a matter of familiarity (an 'author' seems less personal than a 'child', if that makes sense). > I tend to agree with you about the chip on the shoulder, though. "His" > was good enough for a thousand years or so of written English, it can be > good for another 50 years or so until after I'm gone... :) Probably not that long for me (males in my family rarely get above their mid eighties, and I'm past my demicentury)... Chris C > > I tend to agree with you about the chip on the shoulder, though. "His" > > was good enough for a thousand years or so of written English, it can be > > good for another 50 years or so until after I'm gone... :) > Probably not that long for me (males in my family rarely get above their > mid eighties, and I'm past my demicentury)... Ah. I'm ignoring the other males in my family and planning to start a new tradition of living deep into the triple-digits :) Misc "...for the children!" SignaturePlease take off your pants or I won't read your e-mail. I will not, no matter how "good" the deal, patronise any business which sends unsolicited commercial e-mail or that advertises in discussion newsgroups. |
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.