5 ms·

I've thought "X" would make a not-terrible gender neutral pronoun for English, or at least not as terrible as other ones. As an engineer, X is a good generic va

I've thought "X" would make a not-terrible gender neutral pronoun for English, or at least not as terrible as other ones. As an engineer, X is a good generic variable anyway, and "Bob went to the store and x bought some beer and pretzels" reads ok. Maybe this passport thing will make that a reality. Although it depends if X on the passport means trans/intersex or if it means "prefer not to say".

dariusj18 5y ago
I agree, though I think it should be xe and we can bring in the Chinese style X phoneme for it's pronunciation.
- HKH2 5y ago
  'x' is too close to the English 'sh' sound to work.
  - gilbetron 5y ago
    I think that's the joke - it ends up getting pronounced "she" :)
    - dariusj18 5y ago
      I wasn't actually joking. But I guess it is a little too similar to SH
jfengel 5y ago
Singular "they" has such an established place that it's rapidly becoming the de facto answer. Perhaps not optimal, but if you can find anything about English that's optimal, I want it caught and shot immediately. In this case "they" has priority. We've been using it as a singular pronoun for longer than people have used X as a variable. Chaucer used singular "they" in the 14th century; X as a variable is generally credited to Descartes in the 16th.
- kazoomonger 5y ago
  Singular they in the sense you're talking about is a very recent invention. The sense of "an unknown or unspecified person" has been around that long, yes. However using "they" to refer to a known single person is a recent invention that's been pushed with this bad argument about how it's been around forever. I don't really have a strong opinion on this new sense of the word, but I do really dislike falsely involving Chaucer when pushing it. Edit: This is the sort of disingenuous argumentation I'm talking about. Every single usage I saw skimming through did not refer to a single, known person: https://pemberley.com/janeinfo/austhlis.html https://pemberley.com/janeinfo/austhlis.html
  - jfengel 5y ago
    There are instances of "they" clearly referring to people whose gender is known as far back as Old English: https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/200700#eid18519864 https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/200700#eid18519864 The word evolves, as all words evolve. But there's no point in saying that this specific distinction means that Chaucer wouldn't have recognized the use and instantly figured it out. Chaucer used they as a singular noun, and it makes perfect sense to apply that to specific individuals. It doesn't make sense to say that because Chaucer didn't use the word in precisely this fashion, it invalidates the very similar senses in which it was used.
    - kazoomonger 5y ago
      I don't see an example of what you're talking about in your link, can you post a specific quote? I'm honestly not sure what your point is in your second paragraph. My point is that Chaucer did not use "they" in the sense you're talking about. You're saying that people are now trying to use it in a very similar sense to how Chaucer used it. So we agree? I don't disagree that it's a very similar sense, but that doesn't mean it's identical. So instead of invoking Chaucer, just say "it's close enough already, so let's just use it"
      - jfengel 5y ago
        It's close enough already. Let's just use it. That's been said many times. There are people who, nonetheless, say it's incompatible with previous usage. Such people are, demonstrably, completely fucking stupid. That's what the Chaucer is there for. Not that it helps, because nothing helps against complete fucking stupidity.

dariusj18 5y ago

I agree, though I think it should be xe and we can bring in the Chinese style X phoneme for it's pronunciation.

HKH2 5y ago
'x' is too close to the English 'sh' sound to work.
- gilbetron 5y ago
  I think that's the joke - it ends up getting pronounced "she" :)
  - dariusj18 5y ago
    I wasn't actually joking. But I guess it is a little too similar to SH

jfengel 5y ago

Singular "they" has such an established place that it's rapidly becoming the de facto answer. Perhaps not optimal, but if you can find anything about English that's optimal, I want it caught and shot immediately. In this case "they" has priority. We've been using it as a singular pronoun for longer than people have used X as a variable. Chaucer used singular "they" in the 14th century; X as a variable is generally credited to Descartes in the 16th.

kazoomonger 5y ago
Singular they in the sense you're talking about is a very recent invention. The sense of "an unknown or unspecified person" has been around that long, yes. However using "they" to refer to a known single person is a recent invention that's been pushed with this bad argument about how it's been around forever. I don't really have a strong opinion on this new sense of the word, but I do really dislike falsely involving Chaucer when pushing it. Edit: This is the sort of disingenuous argumentation I'm talking about. Every single usage I saw skimming through did not refer to a single, known person: https://pemberley.com/janeinfo/austhlis.html https://pemberley.com/janeinfo/austhlis.html
- jfengel 5y ago
  There are instances of "they" clearly referring to people whose gender is known as far back as Old English: https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/200700#eid18519864 https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/200700#eid18519864 The word evolves, as all words evolve. But there's no point in saying that this specific distinction means that Chaucer wouldn't have recognized the use and instantly figured it out. Chaucer used they as a singular noun, and it makes perfect sense to apply that to specific individuals. It doesn't make sense to say that because Chaucer didn't use the word in precisely this fashion, it invalidates the very similar senses in which it was used.
  - kazoomonger 5y ago
    I don't see an example of what you're talking about in your link, can you post a specific quote? I'm honestly not sure what your point is in your second paragraph. My point is that Chaucer did not use "they" in the sense you're talking about. You're saying that people are now trying to use it in a very similar sense to how Chaucer used it. So we agree? I don't disagree that it's a very similar sense, but that doesn't mean it's identical. So instead of invoking Chaucer, just say "it's close enough already, so let's just use it"
    - jfengel 5y ago
      It's close enough already. Let's just use it. That's been said many times. There are people who, nonetheless, say it's incompatible with previous usage. Such people are, demonstrably, completely fucking stupid. That's what the Chaucer is there for. Not that it helps, because nothing helps against complete fucking stupidity.