I think 'ne', pronounced the same as 'knee', would be kinda nice actually. 'E' seems too confusing because it's only one letter. 'Ne' works nicely as the third in the set with 'he' and 'she', and n sounds pretty good compared to other consonants to put before the 'e'. Not to mention, it could be said to stand for 'neutral.'

I suggest "pe/pis", pronounced pee/piss.

Male: he/his
Female: she/her
Neutral: pe/pis

Or we can just stick with the established practice of using they/their instead of making up new words.

it wasn't really a serious suggestion . Though I don't see what your objection to making up new words is...

Even if you weren't serious I think we should do it! I like Tzadeck's suggestion of using "ne", but we still need to deciede on a belonging form (whatever you call that). I don't think it should be "nis" or "ner" because that sounds too like "his" or "her", especially if the word before ends in an N. I wouldn't normally pronounce the H in that situation, so "on his" would be pronounced the same as "on nis". Maybe I'm just common though.

How about "neir" pronounced like "their"?

Actually, English is not so bad. In many languages, not only most pronouns, but also most nouns, and most inflections, are gender-specific. Nest0r would go insane trying to speak a genderless Portuguese or Spanish.

"We'll have a new teacher next year, but I don't know who he is" → "Teremos um/uma novo/nova professor/professora próximo ano, mas não sei quem ele/ela é".

Someone should make a firefox plugin (if it doesn't already exist) that makes all Latin language text gender neutral by randomly switching the genderspecifying word endings/articles. Shouldn't be too hard to do : p

My vote is:
Apologize to Nest0r.
Move on.
Oops we don't get to vote.
It's Fabrice's forum.
Never mind.

Jarvik7 Wrote:I suggest "pe/pis", pronounced pee/piss.

Male: he/his
Female: she/her
Neutral: pe/pis

Or we can just stick with the established practice of using they/their instead of making up new words.

in school i had to write he/she or his/her.

"the author established his/her viewpoint regarding 18th century women through a journal written in the during the revolutionary war.

i'd get marked down if i used they or their, although the teacher did confess that it looks ugly.

Sean2 Wrote:My vote is:
Apologize to Nest0r.
Move on.
Oops we don't get to vote.
It's Fabrice's forum.
Never mind.

apologies are for people that have erred. nestor was on his/her rag that day and acted like a spoiled bitch/mutt who thought it was his/her forum. if anyone should apologize it's him/her/it.

nest0r! (╯°□°）╯︵ ııɥooʞ

(Sorry. Just wanted to express my totally-non-obsessive crush on nest0r. They're the only reason I lurk here. Yeah, link me to papers! Give me all the science!)

Sean2 Wrote:My vote is:
Apologize to Nest0r.
Move on.
Oops we don't get to vote.
It's Fabrice's forum.
Never mind.

What does nest0r deserve an apology for?

By the way, if you use 'their' or 'they' in any sort of advanced english paper or in a professional speech and you're only referring to one person, people will think you are dumb.

It is like saying "that foxes is so cute"...

Trying to change the rules of English without any forethought leads to things like 'bootylicious' making it into the english dictionary (yes this happened).

You have to be responsible when you want to change things

zachandhobbes Wrote:By the way, if you use 'their' or 'they' in any sort of advanced english paper or in a professional speech and you're only referring to one person, people will think you are dumb.

It is like saying "that foxes is so cute"...

Trying to change the rules of English without any forethought leads to things like 'bootylicious' making it into the english dictionary (yes this happened).

Genuine question - why would people think you're dumb? 'They' has been used in both singular and plural form since Shakespeare's time; in fact he uses the singular version in a number of his plays.

Would you say Shakespeare was using incorrect English?!

Most likely zachandhobbes is just parroting the advice of some grammar nazi English teacher.

In my experience, people who read a lot are generally fine with various styles, popular or not, as long as you're consistent because they've come across all sorts of styles from intelligent people from every corner of the world and already know it's inconsequential.

It's like how you'd look ignorant if you say you speak THE standard, proper, correct dialect with THE normal, neutral, clear accent.

zachandhobbes Wrote:It is like saying "that foxes is so cute"...

Maybe that's how people would react to it, but it's more like saying "A precipitate didn't form in the solution." instead of "A precipitate did not form in the solution." Writing "advanced English papers" requires you to write like you have a stick up your butt.

Quote:You have to be responsible when you want to change things

Why would it be irresponsible to accept a pronoun convention that has been in use for hundreds of years?

I'm not saying that you should never be creative and have your own writing styles and stuff, and I'm not trying to have a 'stick up my butt.'

I'm just saying that it's not correct grammar. It's not the same as 'didn't form' because while that is technically correct grammar, it's informal so you wouldn't use it in a paper.

Using "they" as a singular gender neutral word is not really accepted as correct English grammar. I don't know why we have to have an argument about it - I'm not saying it shouldn't or should be, I'm saying that according to the books, it's not.

You could go around writing "I should not of" instead of "I should not have" and eventually a bunch of people might even start believing that it's right, but that doesn't make it right...

zachandhobbes Wrote:I'm not trying to have a 'stick up my butt.'

I'm just saying that it's not correct grammar.

http://owl.english.purdue.edu/engagement...icle_id=92

These guys say it's no big deal.

http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/595/01/

These guys say you shouldn't use it but you can.

Both pages come off as not having sticks up their butts. You sound like you got a branch up there. It's fine grammar.

zachandhobbes Wrote:By the way, if you use 'their' or 'they' in any sort of advanced english paper or in a professional speech and you're only referring to one person, people will think you are dumb.

No they won't. Please quit being so melodramatic.

zachandhobbes Wrote:Using "they" as a singular gender neutral word is not really accepted as correct English grammar.

Singular 'they' was never corrected at school or university; googling it tells me this is because it IS accepted grammar in British English!

Which rule books say it's wrong?!

zachandhobbes Wrote:I don't know why we have to have an argument about it - I'm not saying it shouldn't or should be, I'm saying that according to the books, it's not.

Pointing out that is in un-grammatical according to book XYZ would be fine (although it'll come across as petty and pedantic). Calling people "dumb" i.e. being insulting, will provoke an argument. Why be rude about it?

aphasiac Wrote:

zachandhobbes Wrote:Using "they" as a singular gender neutral word is not really accepted as correct English grammar.

Singular 'they' was never corrected at school or university; googling it tells me this is because it IS accepted grammar in British English!

I'm British and it sounds completely fine to me. Also 'should not of' sounds completely fine too.

I don't know what's up with these strict grammar rules. Maybe traveling a lot has made me more accepting, you have to consider that when so many countries speak English as a first language it is going to be really difficult to create standards that everyone is supposed to follow.

zachandhobbes Wrote:I'm just saying that it's not correct grammar. It's not the same as 'didn't form' because while that is technically correct grammar, it's informal so you wouldn't use it in a paper.

Using "they" as a singular gender neutral word is not really accepted as correct English grammar. I don't know why we have to have an argument about it - I'm not saying it shouldn't or should be, I'm saying that according to the books, it's not.

The problem is that "the books" don't know what they're talking about. I don't know about "advanced English papers" but I've done a great deal of graduate school-level writing and reading, and I have both seen and used the disputed uses of "they" (particularly in conjuction with "everyone" or "each person" or the like).

As I said before, nobody uses "they" in reference to a specific person whose gender is not known. That's not normal English in any register. But saying something like "Everyone needs to find their own book" is perfectly normal and should be fine even in formal writing.

There's no such thing as "technically correct grammar". Different books say different things, and there's no organization that has chosen the single "correct" version of English grammar that is used worldwide. If someone wants to say that a construction used continuously for 700 years is not "technically correct", then I personally don't care about their technical correctness.

(EDIT: That was actually an unintentional use of disputed "their" in the last sentence)

zachandhobbes Wrote:Using "they" as a singular gender neutral word is not really accepted as correct English grammar. I don't know why we have to have an argument about it - I'm not saying it shouldn't or should be, I'm saying that according to the books, it's not.

It sure sounds like you're saying it shouldn't be when you say things like this:

Quote:Trying to change the rules of English without any forethought leads to things like 'bootylicious' making it into the english dictionary (yes this happened).

You have to be responsible when you want to change things

.

Quote:You could go around writing "I should not of" instead of "I should not have" and eventually a bunch of people might even start believing that it's right, but that doesn't make it right...

There's a fundamental difference here. "I should not of" is a misunderstanding and degradation of grammar. There's no reason to use it. Singular "they" serves a purpose that cannot be fulfilled without making the syntax ugly and verbose.

caivano Wrote:Also 'should not of' sounds completely fine too.

Sorry, caivano. "Should not of" is wrong. No two ways about it.

JimmySeal, you so bootylicious. Can we return to praising nest0r now, please?

just remember guys, the word "literally" can now also mean "figuratively."

http://mw1.meriam-webster.com/dictionary...1316672394

Quote:2: in effect : virtually <will literally turn the world upside down to combat cruelty or injustice — Norman Cousins>

JimmySeal Wrote:

caivano Wrote:Also 'should not of' sounds completely fine too.

Sorry, caivano. "Should not of" is wrong. No two ways about it.

Then I don't speak 'correct' English, but I don't really care to either. Maybe I shouldn't of become an English teacher

(btw I wouldn't normally use it in writing but definitely in speech.)

yudantaiteki Wrote:

zachandhobbes Wrote:I'm just saying that it's not correct grammar. It's not the same as 'didn't form' because while that is technically correct grammar, it's informal so you wouldn't use it in a paper.

Using "they" as a singular gender neutral word is not really accepted as correct English grammar. I don't know why we have to have an argument about it - I'm not saying it shouldn't or should be, I'm saying that according to the books, it's not.

The problem is that "the books" don't know what they're talking about. I don't know about "advanced English papers" but I've done a great deal of graduate school-level writing and reading, and I have both seen and used the disputed uses of "they" (particularly in conjuction with "everyone" or "each person" or the like).

As I said before, nobody uses "they" in reference to a specific person whose gender is not known. That's not normal English in any register. But saying something like "Everyone needs to find their own book" is perfectly normal and should be fine even in formal writing.

There's no such thing as "technically correct grammar". Different books say different things, and there's no organization that has chosen the single "correct" version of English grammar that is used worldwide. If someone wants to say that a construction used continuously for 700 years is not "technically correct", then I personally don't care about their technical correctness.

(EDIT: That was actually an unintentional use of disputed "their" in the last sentence)

Everyone is ganging up on me so I'm sorry if I don't reply to everyone but in my own anecdotal experience, whenever I turned in an english essay throughout high school and in my college experience, if I ever used 'they' to refer to a singular person, I always got marked off for it because it was considered incorrect grammar.

I guess a lot of what I said could come off as rude, but I am quoting my English professors almost verbatim on some of my last posts.

I totally agree that there's no such thing as totally perfect grammar since grammar and language are always changing.

It's just that you can't use that argument go say "welp, now I'm going to just change everything and it'll still be okay."

So until my English professors stop correcting me, I'll spread the word that it's not the proper way of doing it. Call me conservative but I do what I've been taught.

By the way, "should not of" is the way you pronounce it, but not the way you type it, and speaking and writing English are two totally different things.

PS: I use "literally" in the figurative sense all the time when I talk