Cato's Grammar Grumble

[Karl Henning]

This is from today's Guardian - my emphasis

I just wonder what you think of inclusive pronouns in English. When should they be used?

In the US by now, as a gender-neutral choice, that horse seems to be well out of the barn already. That said, I went from caring a great deal that they only be used for plural cases, to respect for and acceptance of the modified usage.

[Karl Henning]

"OMG!! THIS GAME IS SUPER RELAXING!"

This person needs a sedative. 

[Karl Henning]

Prompted by a protesting post by a friend IRL:
Also, issues are things or substances that issue forth. I'm half tempted, when someone says "[so and so] had issues," to say, "I hope you offered them a paper towel."

[DaveF]

This is from today's Guardian - my emphasis

I just wonder what you think of inclusive pronouns in English. When should they be used?

Speaking as the father of a son who became a daughter (And woodthrush calling through the fog / My daughter) and is now, according to the Supreme Court ruling, my son again, I find a non-gender-specific pronoun comes in very handy.  After all, "you" in standard English can be either singular or plural, so why not "they"?  Or we could all learn Finnish, which has no gendered pronouns (but does have 20 grammatical cases and 15-syllable words ).

[Karl Henning]

Speaking as the father of a son who became a daughter (And woodthrush calling through the fog / My daughter) and is now, according to the Supreme Court ruling, my son again, I find a non-gender-specific pronoun comes in very handy.  After all, "you" in standard English can be either singular or plural, so why not "they"?  Or we could all learn Finnish, which has no gendered pronouns (but does have 20 grammatical cases and 15-syllable words ).

Finnish declensions are legendary.

[Cato]

Finnish declensions are legendary.

Oy!  I found sources claiming that there are 15 cases, or maybe 16: there is a debate on whether a Direct Object Case/Accusative Case actually exists! 

The cases often correspond to the gardens of prepositions in other languages, making Finnish therefore much more compact. 

One example shows a difference in cases for different, perhaps even subtle, meanings: e.g "At lunch I ate my birthday cake " could be viewed as ambiguous, i.e. did you eat the entire cake or just part of it?  In Finnish there are two cases to communicate and clarify whether you ate the entire cake (you naughty boy!) or just some of it.

If I understand the source correctly, more specific English examples would correspond to the two cases.

"At lunch I ate some of my birthday cake" would use one form of "cake."

"At lunch I ate all of my birthday cake" would use another form of "cake."

[Cato]

We were watching a show about lawyers, where a lady lawyer says:

"I'm dating two men, both of which are lawyers."

In fact, the mistake is heard throughout the episodes, which we were watching.

Lawyers - who are supposed to know the correct forms of their language - usually know that "who/whom" refers to people, and "which" is for things.

One would also think that script-writers should know the correct forms as well!      

[JBS]

We were watching a show about lawyers, where a lady lawyer says:

"I'm dating two men, both of which are lawyers."

In fact, the mistake is heard throughout the episodes, which we were watching.

Lawyers - who are supposed to know the correct forms of their language - usually know that "who/whom" refers to people, and "which" is for things.

One would also think that script-writers should know the correct forms as well!      

Perhaps the scriptwriters were trying to subtly convey their view of lawyers?

[Karl Henning]

Perhaps the scriptwriters were trying to subtly convey their view of lawyers?

Indeed: implying that they are inhuman. 

[Cato]

Perhaps the scriptwriters were trying to subtly convey their view of lawyers?

Indeed: implying that they are inhuman.

I did wonder about that.  Given that the satirical view of the series is that lawyers are oversexed, amoral, money-grubbing, and generally mentally ill, that idea is not impossible!   

[Florestan]

Perhaps the scriptwriters were trying to subtly convey their view of lawyers?

My thoughts exactly. 

Seriously now, wouldn't it be simpler and more unambiguous to say: "I'm dating two men, both (of them) lawyers"? At least this is how it is said in Romanian, a language in which "both of which/whom are X" cannot be translated, or said, any other way than "ambii/ambele X", meaning exactly "both (of them)* X" (ambii for males, ambele for females), irrespective whether the referents are humans, animals or things.

* (of them) is implicit.

[JBS]

My thoughts exactly. 

Seriously now, wouldn't it be simpler and more unambiguous to say: "I'm dating two men, both (of them) lawyers"? At least this is how it is said in Romanian, a language in which "both of which/whom are X" cannot be translated, or said, any other way than "ambii/ambele X", meaning exactly "both (of them)* X" (ambii for males, ambele for females), irrespective whether the referents are humans, animals or things.

* (of them) is implicit.

Pure curiousity motivates me to ask what form is used when one of the pair is male and one is female.

As in
John and Mary are associates at Big Name Law Firm; both of them graduated from Big Name Law School two years ago.

[Florestan]

Pure curiousity motivates me to ask what form is used when one of the pair is male and one is female.

As in
John and Mary are associates at Big Name Law Firm; both of them graduated from Big Name Law School two years ago.

The male form: ambii or amândoi (cf. Italian archaic amendue) or cei doi (the two).