File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
sup /an/ heroes.
I was curious if you insist on using gender-specific pronouns when it comes to animals or if you're perfectly fine using gender-neutral pronouns like "it" when referring to pets and other beasts.
I prefer using him, her, et al. because they're living beings not objects.
>> Bitter Anon !!WJLRQ1cwCyZ
If you know the gender, use the proper pronoun. If you do not know the gender, use he/his/him, as it is the standard English gender neutral pronoun. "It" is reserved for inanimate objects. They/them/their usage for singular pronouns stems from other languages, IIRC, but its acceptable if you're talking to someone who might be offended by the usage of he/him/his (ie femnazi).
>> Anonymous
>>177365
I only broached the subject because Anon tends to use "it" instead of gender-specific pronouns.
>> Anonymous
Interesting.

That was previously my view, as even as a female I have no problem using he/him/his when the gender is not known. However, all english books/classes I have encountered argue almost vehemently against such use at times. So, in most of my writing, especially if it's for a class, I stick with "it" or find a way to avoid the pronoun.
>> Bitter Anon !!WJLRQ1cwCyZ
>>177369
Yeah, right after I posted that I realize that I was doing the same thing, using it/its rather than he/him/his, despite knowing better.

I don't know, man, its the internet, it doesn't fucking matter what you call it.
>> Anonymous
I was taught to use "it" to refer at animals at school, but I've always referred to them as he or she if I know the gender.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
a friend of mine, who loves animals, has the infuriating habit of referring to animals as "it" even when he knows the gender.

but on the internet, who cares, it's meant to be offensive
>> Anonymous
>>177365

No. He/his/him is not a standard English gender-neutral pronoun.

Some grammarians will tell you it is, but that idea was pretty much made up in the 19th century. And, sorry, you don't get to make up rules like that, that's not how language works. "He" is not gender-neutral, and everybody knows it. "If a teenager wants an abortion, he should be required to tell his parents" or "Either your mother or your father should bring his car" are not logical English sentences, and everybody knows it.

"They" as a singular gender-neutral pronoun has been around pretty much as long as English has. If it was good enough for Shakespeare and Jane Austen, it's good enough for you.
>> Bitter Anon !!WJLRQ1cwCyZ
>>177408
Obviously everyone does not know it. The examples you stated do not call for gender neutral pronouns.

"If a teenager wants an abortion, he should be required to tell his parents"
Why would a male or neuter want an abortion?

"Either your mother or your father should bring his car"
"their car" would be appropriate, as it would be referring to multiple possibilities. Why would you say that, anyway? Would "One of your parents should drive." not work?

A gender neutral pronoun would be something like this:
When a person reads this sentence, he is reading the sentence.
or
Anon furiously typed his reply despite his fingers slipping due to the coating of cheeto dust upon them.

I'm curious as to whether or not you put a 'u' in colour and favourite, and if you do not, what are your justifications for doing so?
>> Anonymous
>>177408

So this "rule" of using "he" as a gender-neutral pronoun has been around for AT LEAST two hundred years, but it still can't be considered a rule? That's not how language works? So, please how me hoe language does work then. The fucking magical English fairy perhaps? Faggot.
>> Anonymous
>>177413

No, "their car" would not be appropriate, since it refers to only one car; if "their" is always plural, then it can't modify the singular "car" unless it refers to a single car owned by both people It would have to be "one of their cars."

You could say "One of your parents should drive." But you shouldn't have to; if "his" is really a gender-neutral pronoun, "one of your parents should bring his car" would work as well as "one of your parents should bring their car."

"Any patient who is at risk for breast cancer should talk to his doctor." When you read that sentence, if you are a native English speaker, you picture a man, no matter how many ignorant-ass wannabe grammarians tell you otherwise.
>> Anonymous
>>177435

No, it hasn't been "around" for at least two hundred years. If all English-speakers had stopped using singular they for two hundred yers, then it would be a real rule.

But the fact that some prescriptive grammarians made up the new rule and started telling everybody it's a real rule two hundred years ago does not actually make it part of English.
>> Anonymous
>>177435

No, language is defined by what language people actually use, instead of by some pretentious jackasses declaring themselves the Magical English Fairies and making up totally new rules, like "they can't be singular," that have nothing to do the English people actually speak.
>> Anonymous
http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/austheir.html
http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/sgtheirl.html#others
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001362.html

Tell your high school English teachers to take it up with real linguists.
>> Anonymous
We should all just use "one", or just make up a more suitable equivalent as a gender neutral pronoun. That is what other languages like French have been doing forever.
>> Bitter Anon !!WJLRQ1cwCyZ
I think the issue might come down to American English versus 'Queens' English. Much like the vowel dropping and apostrophe usage, it may depend on where you are from. What I had learned and read in school and since, 'he' was the gender neutral, but for most purposes it doesn't matter what you use. Like the word 'u' and 'uber' and many other words, it seemed to have been adopted into the language. Languages change, you know. If it really ought to be 'they', then I suppose it should be they. We learn something new every day.

I still have to disagree about the parents' car thing, however.

To me, that sentence says that you want the person's parents to drive their car to wherever. "Bring the car" does not indicate driving it. I've never heard someone say anything like "bring the car around", except possibly in movies. I didn't see it as being a singular car, either. It seemed to be 'either parent drive their car', such as the father might have a car and the mother a different one. It's stupid to argue over, however. Are we going to try and place the punctuation in "Slow kids at play" next?
>> Anonymous
holy fucking crap, if someone got offended that I called their pet an "it", they can fuck right off
>> Anonymous
Can anybody explain why just recently "she/her/hers" has been appearing as a replacement of "he/him/his" as a gender neutral pronoun? And I'm not referring to just the internet but even semi-scientific literature. Back when I learned English at scool I learned that "he/him/his" is the appropriate pronoun when gender is unknown or unclear. (Of course, being a Finnfag, I find this all needlessly confusing, as there are no gender-specific pronouns in my mother tongue)
>> Anonymous
>>177617
WOMYN
>> Anonymous
I use 'it' if the gender isn't known.
>> Anonymous
>>177617
some things are traditionally male some are female, ships for example are female "She's a fine vessel" and Germany is considered to be male i.e "The fatherland"
>> Anonymous
if your gonna eat "it" use it. If he/she is a pet use he/she. Or in most cases just call the animal in ? "pickle-fucker" as in Bitter is a pickle fucker, or in some cases Bitter is an "it" cuz he likes his salad tossed
>> Anonymous
>>177659
Figures.

>>177679
That's not what I was referring to. I meant using "her" for people who's gender is unknown instead of "him".
>> Anonymous
I use they. What's so hard about it?
Instead of "Aww, he/she is so cute!", it's "Aww, they're so cute!"
>> Anonymous
>>177444No, "their car" would not be appropriate, since it refers to only one car; if "their" is always plural, then it can't modify the singular "car"

::facepalm::

Seriously, ::facepalm::
>> Anonymous
I use "it" all the time. Spayed and neutered animals have no sex anymore, so fuck 'em.
>> Anonymous
>>177770

Read the rest of the sentence, idiot:
"unless it refers to a single car owned by both people."
>> Anonymous
>>177796

"Their" is plural. You're correct about that.

However, it needs to agree with what its antecedents (mother or father), not its object (car). How many things are owned has absolutely nothing to do with the choice of pronouns.

And you're seriously retarded for thinking it does.

On a less much less retarded level, the question at hand is whether to use "their" to replace "mother's or father's". Technically, "mother or father" should be treated as singular (and male) since any time two possible subjects are joined by an or, you should default to the one closest to the word in question. But this is a legitimate grey area in informal speech for plenty of reasons already covered in this thread.

But it still has nothing to do with how many cars there are.
>> Anonymous
>>177811

>However, it needs to agree with what its antecedents (mother or father), not its object (car). How many things are owned has absolutely nothing to do with the choice of pronouns

That's what they said, retard. Learn to read.

It's nothing to do with how many things are owned, it's how many people are doing the owning. "Their" can describe a single car if and only if the car is owned by both people. If each of your parents have their own car, and neither car is jointly owned, then there's no "their car," only "his car" and "her car."

>Technically, "mother or father" should be treated as singular (and male) since any time two possible subjects are joined by an or, you should default to the one closest to the word in question.

More prescriptivist nonsense. Take an intro linguistics class and come back.
>> Anonymous
>>177824

Good job talking in third person about yourself.
>> Anonymous
>>177811

>On a less much less retarded level, the question at hand is whether to use "their" to replace "mother's or father's". Technically, "mother or father" should be treated as singular (and male) since any time two possible subjects are joined by an or, you should default to the one closest to the word in question.

That's for subject-verb agreement in the realm of plurality, dipshit. You can't generalize to gender agreement for posessive pronouns.
>> Anonymous
>>177824
I don't know if "mother or father" should automatically be considered male, but it is indeed singular.
>> Anonymous
>>177824

Ignoring the rest of the post for a second,

> if "their" is always plural, then it can't modify the singular "car"

I would like to know how anyone who understands that the pronoun doesn't need to agree with car would ever ever type up those words in that order. Even if he corrects himself in the rest of the post, the fact remains that he typed up those words in that order, indicating that he in some way thought the number of cars in some way relates to the choice of pronoun.

>More prescriptivist nonsense.

Take your, er, his advice and "Read the rest of the sentence, idiot:"
>> sage sage
     File :-(, x)
sage
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>177834
age
>> Anonymous
lol
>> Anonymous
>>177834
>>177836
Why don't you retards understand that it's "sage - SAH GEH" (down) and "age - AH GEH" (raise)? It has nothing to do with being old or cooking spices.
>> Anonymous
>>177862
Take a shit in a bowl of urine and eat it, you fuck.
In fact, I bet you're one of the grammar fags that ruined this thread.
>> Anonymous
>>177863

The thread was about grammar. Like, from the first post.
>> Anonymous
>>177865
Only if you think worthless pets are deserving of gender differentiation.
>> Anonymous
>>177867

What's the thread about if you don't think they are?
>> Anonymous
>>177869
Grammar fags, I guess.
>> Anonymous
>>177870

So the thread is either about grammar or grammarfags, from the first post. What was ruined then?
>> Anonymous
>>177872
Your feelings.
>> Anonymous
This thread is now about fags. Can we get some more Bitter in here?
>> Bitter Anon !!WJLRQ1cwCyZ
>>177875
No, I refuse.