[Smt-talk] Last about Gender Terminology in Writings

[Devin Chaloux]

Greetings list,

I am uncomfortable with some of the opinions about grammatical
constructions that have recently been posted. Dimitar Ninov's sentence D is
technically grammatically correct. "They" can be used as a singular
gender-neutral pronoun and it has been in use since the 17th-century. I
should note that it's not necessarily gender neutral because of politically
correctness, but it is gender neutral because the gender is not known.

Maybe because most of us are familiar with Strunk and White, we make the
judgment that they *cannot* be used as such and thus is an "abomination"
and "grammatically incorrect." However, at times I feel like Strunk and
White (and other authoritative sources on grammar) feel extremely dated in
this situation. English does not have dedicated singular personal pronoun
for indeterminate gender. They has been substituted in this situation. For
more information, the Wikipedia page is actually extremely thorough on the
singular they. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they

Frankly, anyone should be able to use the singular they if *they* want to.
:)

I find that the war against the usage of the singular they is actually very
similar to the war against ending sentences with prepositions. It wasn't a
rule that sentences should not end with prepositions until John Dryden
decided it was poor English to do so. And it stuck!

I would like to express that I think Rob Schultz's solution to this problem
is ultimately the best solution. Rephrasing can go a long way in fixing
many of these problems. But sometimes, they may be unavoidable. One should
not frown on these situations.

Best,

*Devin Chaloux*
Indiana University
Ph.D. in Music Theory (enrolled)
University of Cincinnati - College-Conservatory of Music
M.M. in Music Theory '12
University of Connecticut
B.M. in Music Theory '10


On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 10:56 PM, Victor grauer <victorag at verizon.net> wrote:

>
> "D. Poor student, they do not know what to expect."
>
> I agree with Dr. Ninov regarding the inappropriateness of the above
> sentence. I'll go farther -- such constructions are imo an abomination and
> should not be tolerated. At the same time I also agree with those arguing
> for the elimination, wherever possible, of language that others would
> reasonably consider offensive, such as the use of so-called "sexist"
> constructions. I agree with both Dr. Ninov and Dr. Bain that there is no
> point in rewriting historical texts, but there IS a point in being as
> sensitive as possible to the feelings of others when constructing
> contemporary texts.
>
> What we must be willing to accept, however, is that certain "sexist"
> constructions are built into most languages and can often be very difficult
> to eliminate completely without producing gibberish. The example raised
> concerning the role of gender in French speaks for itself. There is no way
> anyone could get around that without radically altering the language
> itself. In English, however, we do have some options.
>
> There is almost always a way to sidestep the problem by, for example,
> substituting a construction such as "It is important for every student to
> carefully prepare his essay" with "It is important for all students to
> carefully prepare their essays." But imo it is NOT acceptable to write "It
> is important for every student to carefully prepare their essay." I see
> that kind of thing far too often and cringe each and every time. And each
> time it shaves approximately 10 minutes from my life. If I read too much
> "gender neutral" language of this kind I could pass away long before my
> time!
>
>   On Thursday, May 1, 2014 9:02 PM, "Ninov, Dimitar N" <dn16 at txstate.edu>
> wrote:
>
> Dear Jennifer,
>
> Thanks for the nice letter and clarifications. I personally apologize to
> you for having caused such an emotional turmoil in your mind.
>
> The few last things I want to add in relation to gender language, are:
>
> 1) My main point has never been about discrimination versus non
> discrimination; it has been about aesthetics in the construction of the
> literary sentence, and the necessary freedom to accommodate fluent language.
>
> 2) I find the word "sexist" ugly per se. When it is thrown at someone like
> condemnation, it already smells like the dark ages of the Spanish
> Inquisition and predetermines the destiny of the poor fellow - to burn at
> the stake. I would never use officially terms such as "sexist" or "non
> sexist", even if I were an editor who provides directions as of how to
> write correctly. For such purposes I would use "specific gender language"
> versus "general gender language".
>
> 3) I maintain that an author has to have freedom in dealing with literary
> language. For example, I would accept any of the four versions of the
> following sentence: A. Poor student, he does not know what to expect. B.
> Poor student, she does not know what to expect C. Poor student, he or she
> does not know what to expect. and D. Poor student, they do not know what to
> expect. For me, D is most objectionable, because it contains conspicuous
> disagreement between the noun and the pronoun. After that, C has a little
> glitch because the direction of motion is twisted for an instant by the
> superfluous repetition of the pronoun. Having said that, I think these
> considerations shall be left to the discretion of the writer.
>
> 4) I believe that, no matter what the official policy of a publisher is,
> quotations of original passages shall not be edited in terms of gender
> language, because this would be the end of professionalism and the
> beginning of self-embarrassment for those who cripple original works in
> this manner.
>
> Thank you for your understanding.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Dimitar
>
>
> Dr. Dimitar Ninov, Lecturer
> School of Music
> Texas State University
> 601 University Drive
> San Marcos, Texas 78666
> _______________________________________________
> Smt-talk mailing list
> Smt-talk at lists.societymusictheory.org
>
> http://lists.societymusictheory.org/listinfo.cgi/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Smt-talk mailing list
> Smt-talk at lists.societymusictheory.org
>
> http://lists.societymusictheory.org/listinfo.cgi/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.societymusictheory.org/pipermail/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org/attachments/20140502/14432b4a/attachment-0003.htm>