Mixing
Why use singular they? Why not make a new word to distinguish its meaning?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Why English uses singular they instead of making a new word for it?
In my native language there's a word dia which has the same meaning as he/she, but it doesn't give information about the gender of the person.
I've seen questions close to this, but they don't provide the reason of not making a new word.
grammar meaning word-usage word-choice
asked 5 hours ago
Albert
61
migrated from ell.stackexchange.com 4 hours ago
This question came from our site for speakers of other languages learning English.
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Why English uses singular they instead of making a new word for it?
In my native language there's a word dia which has the same meaning as he/she, but it doesn't give information about the gender of the person.
I've seen questions close to this, but they don't provide the reason of not making a new word.
grammar meaning word-usage word-choice
asked 5 hours ago
Albert
61
migrated from ell.stackexchange.com 4 hours ago
This question came from our site for speakers of other languages learning English.
People have proposed new words. See Arjan's answer to a very frequently viewed question on this site, Is there a correct gender-neutral singular pronoun “his†vs. “her†vs. “theirâ€�
– sumelic
4 hours ago
Why questions about language are almost always poor candidates for good answers as they are often subject to personal opinion. Language is what people make of it, and, at least currently, the use of the singular they is seeing a resurgence.
– Jason Bassford
2 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Why English uses singular they instead of making a new word for it?
In my native language there's a word dia which has the same meaning as he/she, but it doesn't give information about the gender of the person.
I've seen questions close to this, but they don't provide the reason of not making a new word.
grammar meaning word-usage word-choice
asked 5 hours ago
Albert
61
Why English uses singular they instead of making a new word for it?
In my native language there's a word dia which has the same meaning as he/she, but it doesn't give information about the gender of the person.
I've seen questions close to this, but they don't provide the reason of not making a new word.
grammar meaning word-usage word-choice
grammar meaning word-usage word-choice
asked 5 hours ago
Albert
61
asked 5 hours ago
Albert
61
asked 5 hours ago
Albert
61
asked 5 hours ago
Albert
61
asked 5 hours ago
Albert
61
61
migrated from ell.stackexchange.com 4 hours ago
This question came from our site for speakers of other languages learning English.
migrated from ell.stackexchange.com 4 hours ago
This question came from our site for speakers of other languages learning English.
People have proposed new words. See Arjan's answer to a very frequently viewed question on this site, Is there a correct gender-neutral singular pronoun “his†vs. “her†vs. “theirâ€�
– sumelic
4 hours ago
Why questions about language are almost always poor candidates for good answers as they are often subject to personal opinion. Language is what people make of it, and, at least currently, the use of the singular they is seeing a resurgence.
– Jason Bassford
2 hours ago
add a comment |Â
People have proposed new words. See Arjan's answer to a very frequently viewed question on this site, Is there a correct gender-neutral singular pronoun “his†vs. “her†vs. “theirâ€�
– sumelic
4 hours ago
Why questions about language are almost always poor candidates for good answers as they are often subject to personal opinion. Language is what people make of it, and, at least currently, the use of the singular they is seeing a resurgence.
– Jason Bassford
2 hours ago
People have proposed new words. See Arjan's answer to a very frequently viewed question on this site, Is there a correct gender-neutral singular pronoun “his†vs. “her†vs. “theirâ€�
– sumelic
4 hours ago
People have proposed new words. See Arjan's answer to a very frequently viewed question on this site, Is there a correct gender-neutral singular pronoun “his†vs. “her†vs. “theirâ€�
– sumelic
4 hours ago
Why questions about language are almost always poor candidates for good answers as they are often subject to personal opinion. Language is what people make of it, and, at least currently, the use of the singular they is seeing a resurgence.
– Jason Bassford
2 hours ago
Why questions about language are almost always poor candidates for good answers as they are often subject to personal opinion. Language is what people make of it, and, at least currently, the use of the singular they is seeing a resurgence.
– Jason Bassford
2 hours ago
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
People have created new gender-neutral pronouns. (A good list of currently used ones can be found here) Furthermore, the move to create gender neural pronouns in English is quite old. However, none of these pronouns were ever very successful. Few people are even aware they exist. Currently, these new pronouns are usually confined to the transgender community, but even there singular they is preferred by the majority.
People often say they don't like the way these new pronouns sound (example). Pronouns are used very frequently, and it's definitely jarring to not hear what you're expecting. It's even worse when speaking, having to think and make a conscious decision to switch every single time you use a pronoun.
The Guardian has a very good summary of the history:
Baron’s blog walks you through all the failed attempts – starting with the mid 19th century’s ne, nis, nim, and citing sci-ÂÂfi’s contributions of neologism: co; xie; per; en. As early as 1878, Napoleon Bonaparte Brown argued that the need for a new pronoun was “so desperate, urgent, imperative that ... it should long since have grown on our speechâ€Â.
In 1884, thon, hi, le, hiser and ip were variously suggested. Thon – a blend of that and one – was coined by Philadelphia lawyer Charles C Converse and Baron demonstrates how it was the closest thing to a successful attempt at entering the vernacular; it was accepted by two major dictionaries and even adopted by some writers. But it was grammatical pedantry, not feminism, that motivated Converse. He wanted a “beautiful symmetry†in English and to avoid “hideous solecismsâ€Â.
The second closest thing to enter the vernacular was named after American mathematician Michael Spivak; initially e, es, em (e wrote; es eyes are blue) later ey, eir, em (ey wrote; I like em). Other sources attribute these pronouns (formed by dropping the th from they, their and them) to a competition run by the Chicago Association of Business Communicators, won by a Christine M Elverson in 1975. The Spivak pronouns are used today by some in the genderqueer and gaming communities.
Further proposals – hes, hem, ir, ons, e, ith, lim, ler, lers – sprang up, often suggested by newspapers. Readers suggested portmanteaus: hiser; himer; hasher; shis; shim; heer; hie. Humanist lexicon suggested hu, which can occasionally sound like the Kiwi accent (hu wrote; I like hum). Jayce’s system, meanwhile, suggested jee, jem (jee wrote; I like jem). You can find these, and many more, listed at A Chronology of a Word that Failed.
Why has a need for such a short and simple word been so unsuccessful? One opponent of the “bastard word form†portmanteaus, wrote in the New York Commercial Advertiser in 1884 in response to the idea of thon: “All attempts in this direction have failed, partly because it is always exceedingly difficult to introduce new forms into a language, unless they spring up naturally and, as it were, spontaneously.â€Â
edited 2 hours ago
Mari-Lou A
60.1k53209434
answered 3 hours ago
Laurel
23.4k54688
1
People have tried to create gender-neutral pronouns, but all attempts have failed so far, as the Guardian journalist noted.
– Mari-Lou A
2 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
A Language is not made by "thinking of a translation" for a word. It's not like, say, you have the word Konnichiwa which is Japanese, then ask "How do we say this in English?" "Oh let's use the word hi". That's not how it works - because there isn't an English word for Konnichiwa. It belongs to the Japanese language and Japanese language only. Now if you want to translate it into English, you're not supposed to translate it by the word.
Instead, the goal of translation is not to translate word per word but it's to convey the meaning. For instance, English has A LOT of adjectives. Not all of these have their own translation in other languages. The goal is to convey the meaning. It so happens when I say Konnichiwa and Hi, they both convey a greeting.
Another example, when someone asks if you want to go out for coffee, you could answer I'd love to.
But if you translate that to a different language, you could say (in Filipino) oo. Three sentences translated into one word? If you translate it word per word in English, you'd get "oo iniibig ko" - which is honestly, not very normal in our language. So you could just use oo ( which is as simple as "yes"). The purpose was to convey the message that you wanted tea, no more no less.
Unless it's pointed out that you have to emphasize that you'd
love some tea, then you could sayay oo gustong gusto ko- which actually also translates differently (word per word: "oh yes i
want want tea").
So it's not that they don't want to create a new word for it, it's just that it's conveyed differently in English. They could create a new word for it, but it can already be properly conveyed. So I (in my opinion) don't think there is no need to.
answered 4 hours ago
Rigo Sarmiento
132
The necessity for a pure gender-neutral pronoun is most sought after by the LGBTQ community, there is a "need" and some have proposed several solutions but they haven't really caught on with the general public. Using "he or she" or "they" for an individual who is non-binary can be interpreted as being offensive, or more generously, lacking in sensitivity.
– Mari-Lou A
2 hours ago
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
People have created new gender-neutral pronouns. (A good list of currently used ones can be found here) Furthermore, the move to create gender neural pronouns in English is quite old. However, none of these pronouns were ever very successful. Few people are even aware they exist. Currently, these new pronouns are usually confined to the transgender community, but even there singular they is preferred by the majority.
People often say they don't like the way these new pronouns sound (example). Pronouns are used very frequently, and it's definitely jarring to not hear what you're expecting. It's even worse when speaking, having to think and make a conscious decision to switch every single time you use a pronoun.
The Guardian has a very good summary of the history:
Baron’s blog walks you through all the failed attempts – starting with the mid 19th century’s ne, nis, nim, and citing sci-ÂÂfi’s contributions of neologism: co; xie; per; en. As early as 1878, Napoleon Bonaparte Brown argued that the need for a new pronoun was “so desperate, urgent, imperative that ... it should long since have grown on our speechâ€Â.
In 1884, thon, hi, le, hiser and ip were variously suggested. Thon – a blend of that and one – was coined by Philadelphia lawyer Charles C Converse and Baron demonstrates how it was the closest thing to a successful attempt at entering the vernacular; it was accepted by two major dictionaries and even adopted by some writers. But it was grammatical pedantry, not feminism, that motivated Converse. He wanted a “beautiful symmetry†in English and to avoid “hideous solecismsâ€Â.
The second closest thing to enter the vernacular was named after American mathematician Michael Spivak; initially e, es, em (e wrote; es eyes are blue) later ey, eir, em (ey wrote; I like em). Other sources attribute these pronouns (formed by dropping the th from they, their and them) to a competition run by the Chicago Association of Business Communicators, won by a Christine M Elverson in 1975. The Spivak pronouns are used today by some in the genderqueer and gaming communities.
Further proposals – hes, hem, ir, ons, e, ith, lim, ler, lers – sprang up, often suggested by newspapers. Readers suggested portmanteaus: hiser; himer; hasher; shis; shim; heer; hie. Humanist lexicon suggested hu, which can occasionally sound like the Kiwi accent (hu wrote; I like hum). Jayce’s system, meanwhile, suggested jee, jem (jee wrote; I like jem). You can find these, and many more, listed at A Chronology of a Word that Failed.
Why has a need for such a short and simple word been so unsuccessful? One opponent of the “bastard word form†portmanteaus, wrote in the New York Commercial Advertiser in 1884 in response to the idea of thon: “All attempts in this direction have failed, partly because it is always exceedingly difficult to introduce new forms into a language, unless they spring up naturally and, as it were, spontaneously.â€Â
edited 2 hours ago
Mari-Lou A
60.1k53209434
answered 3 hours ago
Laurel
23.4k54688
1
People have tried to create gender-neutral pronouns, but all attempts have failed so far, as the Guardian journalist noted.
– Mari-Lou A
2 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
People have created new gender-neutral pronouns. (A good list of currently used ones can be found here) Furthermore, the move to create gender neural pronouns in English is quite old. However, none of these pronouns were ever very successful. Few people are even aware they exist. Currently, these new pronouns are usually confined to the transgender community, but even there singular they is preferred by the majority.
People often say they don't like the way these new pronouns sound (example). Pronouns are used very frequently, and it's definitely jarring to not hear what you're expecting. It's even worse when speaking, having to think and make a conscious decision to switch every single time you use a pronoun.
The Guardian has a very good summary of the history:
Baron’s blog walks you through all the failed attempts – starting with the mid 19th century’s ne, nis, nim, and citing sci-ÂÂfi’s contributions of neologism: co; xie; per; en. As early as 1878, Napoleon Bonaparte Brown argued that the need for a new pronoun was “so desperate, urgent, imperative that ... it should long since have grown on our speechâ€Â.
In 1884, thon, hi, le, hiser and ip were variously suggested. Thon – a blend of that and one – was coined by Philadelphia lawyer Charles C Converse and Baron demonstrates how it was the closest thing to a successful attempt at entering the vernacular; it was accepted by two major dictionaries and even adopted by some writers. But it was grammatical pedantry, not feminism, that motivated Converse. He wanted a “beautiful symmetry†in English and to avoid “hideous solecismsâ€Â.
The second closest thing to enter the vernacular was named after American mathematician Michael Spivak; initially e, es, em (e wrote; es eyes are blue) later ey, eir, em (ey wrote; I like em). Other sources attribute these pronouns (formed by dropping the th from they, their and them) to a competition run by the Chicago Association of Business Communicators, won by a Christine M Elverson in 1975. The Spivak pronouns are used today by some in the genderqueer and gaming communities.
Further proposals – hes, hem, ir, ons, e, ith, lim, ler, lers – sprang up, often suggested by newspapers. Readers suggested portmanteaus: hiser; himer; hasher; shis; shim; heer; hie. Humanist lexicon suggested hu, which can occasionally sound like the Kiwi accent (hu wrote; I like hum). Jayce’s system, meanwhile, suggested jee, jem (jee wrote; I like jem). You can find these, and many more, listed at A Chronology of a Word that Failed.
Why has a need for such a short and simple word been so unsuccessful? One opponent of the “bastard word form†portmanteaus, wrote in the New York Commercial Advertiser in 1884 in response to the idea of thon: “All attempts in this direction have failed, partly because it is always exceedingly difficult to introduce new forms into a language, unless they spring up naturally and, as it were, spontaneously.â€Â
edited 2 hours ago
Mari-Lou A
60.1k53209434
answered 3 hours ago
Laurel
23.4k54688
1
People have tried to create gender-neutral pronouns, but all attempts have failed so far, as the Guardian journalist noted.
– Mari-Lou A
2 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
People have created new gender-neutral pronouns. (A good list of currently used ones can be found here) Furthermore, the move to create gender neural pronouns in English is quite old. However, none of these pronouns were ever very successful. Few people are even aware they exist. Currently, these new pronouns are usually confined to the transgender community, but even there singular they is preferred by the majority.
People often say they don't like the way these new pronouns sound (example). Pronouns are used very frequently, and it's definitely jarring to not hear what you're expecting. It's even worse when speaking, having to think and make a conscious decision to switch every single time you use a pronoun.
The Guardian has a very good summary of the history:
Baron’s blog walks you through all the failed attempts – starting with the mid 19th century’s ne, nis, nim, and citing sci-ÂÂfi’s contributions of neologism: co; xie; per; en. As early as 1878, Napoleon Bonaparte Brown argued that the need for a new pronoun was “so desperate, urgent, imperative that ... it should long since have grown on our speechâ€Â.
In 1884, thon, hi, le, hiser and ip were variously suggested. Thon – a blend of that and one – was coined by Philadelphia lawyer Charles C Converse and Baron demonstrates how it was the closest thing to a successful attempt at entering the vernacular; it was accepted by two major dictionaries and even adopted by some writers. But it was grammatical pedantry, not feminism, that motivated Converse. He wanted a “beautiful symmetry†in English and to avoid “hideous solecismsâ€Â.
The second closest thing to enter the vernacular was named after American mathematician Michael Spivak; initially e, es, em (e wrote; es eyes are blue) later ey, eir, em (ey wrote; I like em). Other sources attribute these pronouns (formed by dropping the th from they, their and them) to a competition run by the Chicago Association of Business Communicators, won by a Christine M Elverson in 1975. The Spivak pronouns are used today by some in the genderqueer and gaming communities.
Further proposals – hes, hem, ir, ons, e, ith, lim, ler, lers – sprang up, often suggested by newspapers. Readers suggested portmanteaus: hiser; himer; hasher; shis; shim; heer; hie. Humanist lexicon suggested hu, which can occasionally sound like the Kiwi accent (hu wrote; I like hum). Jayce’s system, meanwhile, suggested jee, jem (jee wrote; I like jem). You can find these, and many more, listed at A Chronology of a Word that Failed.
Why has a need for such a short and simple word been so unsuccessful? One opponent of the “bastard word form†portmanteaus, wrote in the New York Commercial Advertiser in 1884 in response to the idea of thon: “All attempts in this direction have failed, partly because it is always exceedingly difficult to introduce new forms into a language, unless they spring up naturally and, as it were, spontaneously.â€Â
edited 2 hours ago
Mari-Lou A
60.1k53209434
answered 3 hours ago
Laurel
23.4k54688
People have created new gender-neutral pronouns. (A good list of currently used ones can be found here) Furthermore, the move to create gender neural pronouns in English is quite old. However, none of these pronouns were ever very successful. Few people are even aware they exist. Currently, these new pronouns are usually confined to the transgender community, but even there singular they is preferred by the majority.
People often say they don't like the way these new pronouns sound (example). Pronouns are used very frequently, and it's definitely jarring to not hear what you're expecting. It's even worse when speaking, having to think and make a conscious decision to switch every single time you use a pronoun.
The Guardian has a very good summary of the history:
Baron’s blog walks you through all the failed attempts – starting with the mid 19th century’s ne, nis, nim, and citing sci-ÂÂfi’s contributions of neologism: co; xie; per; en. As early as 1878, Napoleon Bonaparte Brown argued that the need for a new pronoun was “so desperate, urgent, imperative that ... it should long since have grown on our speechâ€Â.
In 1884, thon, hi, le, hiser and ip were variously suggested. Thon – a blend of that and one – was coined by Philadelphia lawyer Charles C Converse and Baron demonstrates how it was the closest thing to a successful attempt at entering the vernacular; it was accepted by two major dictionaries and even adopted by some writers. But it was grammatical pedantry, not feminism, that motivated Converse. He wanted a “beautiful symmetry†in English and to avoid “hideous solecismsâ€Â.
The second closest thing to enter the vernacular was named after American mathematician Michael Spivak; initially e, es, em (e wrote; es eyes are blue) later ey, eir, em (ey wrote; I like em). Other sources attribute these pronouns (formed by dropping the th from they, their and them) to a competition run by the Chicago Association of Business Communicators, won by a Christine M Elverson in 1975. The Spivak pronouns are used today by some in the genderqueer and gaming communities.
Further proposals – hes, hem, ir, ons, e, ith, lim, ler, lers – sprang up, often suggested by newspapers. Readers suggested portmanteaus: hiser; himer; hasher; shis; shim; heer; hie. Humanist lexicon suggested hu, which can occasionally sound like the Kiwi accent (hu wrote; I like hum). Jayce’s system, meanwhile, suggested jee, jem (jee wrote; I like jem). You can find these, and many more, listed at A Chronology of a Word that Failed.
Why has a need for such a short and simple word been so unsuccessful? One opponent of the “bastard word form†portmanteaus, wrote in the New York Commercial Advertiser in 1884 in response to the idea of thon: “All attempts in this direction have failed, partly because it is always exceedingly difficult to introduce new forms into a language, unless they spring up naturally and, as it were, spontaneously.â€Â
edited 2 hours ago
Mari-Lou A
60.1k53209434
answered 3 hours ago
Laurel
23.4k54688
edited 2 hours ago
Mari-Lou A
60.1k53209434
edited 2 hours ago
Mari-Lou A
60.1k53209434
edited 2 hours ago
Mari-Lou A
60.1k53209434
60.1k53209434
answered 3 hours ago
Laurel
23.4k54688
answered 3 hours ago
Laurel
23.4k54688
answered 3 hours ago
Laurel
23.4k54688
23.4k54688
1
People have tried to create gender-neutral pronouns, but all attempts have failed so far, as the Guardian journalist noted.
– Mari-Lou A
2 hours ago
add a comment |Â
1
People have tried to create gender-neutral pronouns, but all attempts have failed so far, as the Guardian journalist noted.
– Mari-Lou A
2 hours ago
1
1
People have tried to create gender-neutral pronouns, but all attempts have failed so far, as the Guardian journalist noted.
– Mari-Lou A
2 hours ago
People have tried to create gender-neutral pronouns, but all attempts have failed so far, as the Guardian journalist noted.
– Mari-Lou A
2 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
A Language is not made by "thinking of a translation" for a word. It's not like, say, you have the word Konnichiwa which is Japanese, then ask "How do we say this in English?" "Oh let's use the word hi". That's not how it works - because there isn't an English word for Konnichiwa. It belongs to the Japanese language and Japanese language only. Now if you want to translate it into English, you're not supposed to translate it by the word.
Instead, the goal of translation is not to translate word per word but it's to convey the meaning. For instance, English has A LOT of adjectives. Not all of these have their own translation in other languages. The goal is to convey the meaning. It so happens when I say Konnichiwa and Hi, they both convey a greeting.
Another example, when someone asks if you want to go out for coffee, you could answer I'd love to.
But if you translate that to a different language, you could say (in Filipino) oo. Three sentences translated into one word? If you translate it word per word in English, you'd get "oo iniibig ko" - which is honestly, not very normal in our language. So you could just use oo ( which is as simple as "yes"). The purpose was to convey the message that you wanted tea, no more no less.
Unless it's pointed out that you have to emphasize that you'd
love some tea, then you could sayay oo gustong gusto ko- which actually also translates differently (word per word: "oh yes i
want want tea").
So it's not that they don't want to create a new word for it, it's just that it's conveyed differently in English. They could create a new word for it, but it can already be properly conveyed. So I (in my opinion) don't think there is no need to.
answered 4 hours ago
Rigo Sarmiento
132
The necessity for a pure gender-neutral pronoun is most sought after by the LGBTQ community, there is a "need" and some have proposed several solutions but they haven't really caught on with the general public. Using "he or she" or "they" for an individual who is non-binary can be interpreted as being offensive, or more generously, lacking in sensitivity.
– Mari-Lou A
2 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
A Language is not made by "thinking of a translation" for a word. It's not like, say, you have the word Konnichiwa which is Japanese, then ask "How do we say this in English?" "Oh let's use the word hi". That's not how it works - because there isn't an English word for Konnichiwa. It belongs to the Japanese language and Japanese language only. Now if you want to translate it into English, you're not supposed to translate it by the word.
Instead, the goal of translation is not to translate word per word but it's to convey the meaning. For instance, English has A LOT of adjectives. Not all of these have their own translation in other languages. The goal is to convey the meaning. It so happens when I say Konnichiwa and Hi, they both convey a greeting.
Another example, when someone asks if you want to go out for coffee, you could answer I'd love to.
But if you translate that to a different language, you could say (in Filipino) oo. Three sentences translated into one word? If you translate it word per word in English, you'd get "oo iniibig ko" - which is honestly, not very normal in our language. So you could just use oo ( which is as simple as "yes"). The purpose was to convey the message that you wanted tea, no more no less.
Unless it's pointed out that you have to emphasize that you'd
love some tea, then you could sayay oo gustong gusto ko- which actually also translates differently (word per word: "oh yes i
want want tea").
So it's not that they don't want to create a new word for it, it's just that it's conveyed differently in English. They could create a new word for it, but it can already be properly conveyed. So I (in my opinion) don't think there is no need to.
answered 4 hours ago
Rigo Sarmiento
132
The necessity for a pure gender-neutral pronoun is most sought after by the LGBTQ community, there is a "need" and some have proposed several solutions but they haven't really caught on with the general public. Using "he or she" or "they" for an individual who is non-binary can be interpreted as being offensive, or more generously, lacking in sensitivity.
– Mari-Lou A
2 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
A Language is not made by "thinking of a translation" for a word. It's not like, say, you have the word Konnichiwa which is Japanese, then ask "How do we say this in English?" "Oh let's use the word hi". That's not how it works - because there isn't an English word for Konnichiwa. It belongs to the Japanese language and Japanese language only. Now if you want to translate it into English, you're not supposed to translate it by the word.
Instead, the goal of translation is not to translate word per word but it's to convey the meaning. For instance, English has A LOT of adjectives. Not all of these have their own translation in other languages. The goal is to convey the meaning. It so happens when I say Konnichiwa and Hi, they both convey a greeting.
Another example, when someone asks if you want to go out for coffee, you could answer I'd love to.
But if you translate that to a different language, you could say (in Filipino) oo. Three sentences translated into one word? If you translate it word per word in English, you'd get "oo iniibig ko" - which is honestly, not very normal in our language. So you could just use oo ( which is as simple as "yes"). The purpose was to convey the message that you wanted tea, no more no less.
Unless it's pointed out that you have to emphasize that you'd
love some tea, then you could sayay oo gustong gusto ko- which actually also translates differently (word per word: "oh yes i
want want tea").
So it's not that they don't want to create a new word for it, it's just that it's conveyed differently in English. They could create a new word for it, but it can already be properly conveyed. So I (in my opinion) don't think there is no need to.
answered 4 hours ago
Rigo Sarmiento
132
A Language is not made by "thinking of a translation" for a word. It's not like, say, you have the word Konnichiwa which is Japanese, then ask "How do we say this in English?" "Oh let's use the word hi". That's not how it works - because there isn't an English word for Konnichiwa. It belongs to the Japanese language and Japanese language only. Now if you want to translate it into English, you're not supposed to translate it by the word.
Instead, the goal of translation is not to translate word per word but it's to convey the meaning. For instance, English has A LOT of adjectives. Not all of these have their own translation in other languages. The goal is to convey the meaning. It so happens when I say Konnichiwa and Hi, they both convey a greeting.
Another example, when someone asks if you want to go out for coffee, you could answer I'd love to.
But if you translate that to a different language, you could say (in Filipino) oo. Three sentences translated into one word? If you translate it word per word in English, you'd get "oo iniibig ko" - which is honestly, not very normal in our language. So you could just use oo ( which is as simple as "yes"). The purpose was to convey the message that you wanted tea, no more no less.
Unless it's pointed out that you have to emphasize that you'd
love some tea, then you could sayay oo gustong gusto ko- which actually also translates differently (word per word: "oh yes i
want want tea").
So it's not that they don't want to create a new word for it, it's just that it's conveyed differently in English. They could create a new word for it, but it can already be properly conveyed. So I (in my opinion) don't think there is no need to.
answered 4 hours ago
Rigo Sarmiento
132
answered 4 hours ago
Rigo Sarmiento
132
answered 4 hours ago
Rigo Sarmiento
132
answered 4 hours ago
Rigo Sarmiento
132
132
The necessity for a pure gender-neutral pronoun is most sought after by the LGBTQ community, there is a "need" and some have proposed several solutions but they haven't really caught on with the general public. Using "he or she" or "they" for an individual who is non-binary can be interpreted as being offensive, or more generously, lacking in sensitivity.
– Mari-Lou A
2 hours ago
add a comment |Â
The necessity for a pure gender-neutral pronoun is most sought after by the LGBTQ community, there is a "need" and some have proposed several solutions but they haven't really caught on with the general public. Using "he or she" or "they" for an individual who is non-binary can be interpreted as being offensive, or more generously, lacking in sensitivity.
– Mari-Lou A
2 hours ago
The necessity for a pure gender-neutral pronoun is most sought after by the LGBTQ community, there is a "need" and some have proposed several solutions but they haven't really caught on with the general public. Using "he or she" or "they" for an individual who is non-binary can be interpreted as being offensive, or more generously, lacking in sensitivity.
– Mari-Lou A
2 hours ago
The necessity for a pure gender-neutral pronoun is most sought after by the LGBTQ community, there is a "need" and some have proposed several solutions but they haven't really caught on with the general public. Using "he or she" or "they" for an individual who is non-binary can be interpreted as being offensive, or more generously, lacking in sensitivity.
– Mari-Lou A
2 hours ago
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f464595%2fwhy-use-singular-they-why-not-make-a-new-word-to-distinguish-its-meaning%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
People have proposed new words. See Arjan's answer to a very frequently viewed question on this site, Is there a correct gender-neutral singular pronoun “his†vs. “her†vs. “theirâ€�
– sumelic
4 hours ago
Why questions about language are almost always poor candidates for good answers as they are often subject to personal opinion. Language is what people make of it, and, at least currently, the use of the singular they is seeing a resurgence.
– Jason Bassford
2 hours ago