Don't you think that English should invent a third grammatical gender for people?

Question

If we want to talk about somebody but don't know if he or she is a male of female, we have to use "he or she said...", "...at her or his house", "...for her or him", ....
It's very annoying, why not invent a third gender?

Answer 1

No, I don't. There is absolutely no need to invent a new form (though some have tried). Nor do you need to she "he or she", etc.

Since the 1300s (Middle English) there have been TWO standard ways of handling this in English

1) "he" ("him" as object) used "generically" (that is, it is NOT masculine)

OR if you prefer not to use that form
2) "they" (or "them" as object) used as a generic singular.

I find the second one very useful. Unfortunately, some grammarians have this silly idea that it is an error -- a later creation. In fact, as I noted above, it has been around just as long as the generic "he". And you'll find it in the BEST of writers**

Now each of these MAY cause problems -- people may think the "he" is being used as a masculine or that "they" is being used as a plural. But, if you use them with care, there need not be any confusion. For example. "If anyone has more questions about this, they should email me about it."
The use of "anyone" (or other singular expressions like "someone") makes it clear that you are referring to individuals (singular).


** For the history of the "generic they", a list of authors and many examples (esp. from Jane Austen, about whom the page was written), as well as material from the Oxford English Dictionary, see the sections of the article "Jane Austen and other famous authors violate what everyone learned in their English class" beginning with:
http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/austheir.html#X1a

Answer 2

English went through a lot of morphing and reduction during the Middle English period. The "decay of inflectional endings and the disintegration of decelensional classes" is the main reason and by the end of the 14th century English did not have grammatical gender. The reason English went through so much change during the Middle English period is because of the Norman invasion. Upper classes in England spoke French and English took a backseat. However, it's NOT because of French that English lost grammatical gender. The Norman invasion just created the necessary circumstances. Since English was a subordinate language, changes in grammar were able to occur unchecked.

Answer 3

You can't just change a language - people will continue to speak and write in the same old way. If this were not the case, English would have rid itself of its many non-phonetic spellings and grammatical irregularities long ago. As an example, when Americans simplified spellings of words like 'hono(u)r, why did they not get rid or the silent 'h' as well as the 'u?' Language conventions don't change easily.

Answer 4

I have become so old that I can remember the days when English actually did have such a word. It used to be 'he'. But since the days of feminism people have started taking 'he' literally so that nowadays we have to say 'he or she' in order to be understood correctly. This is an example of political correctness.

Perhaps you should try just using 'she'. The surprise factor will make people stop and think about what you are trying to say.

Please don't misunderstand me - I approve of woman's lib (and all other forms of lib) - I am simply commenting on the way the use of language has changed.

Answer 5

they should do that, it would be alot easier to understand it and easier/faster
if they had a new gender that just sorta ment that the gender was unknown, than it would make alot of sence and there could be like the same relation to female and male, making it easily reconized,
but still there are prolly alot of downsides to it too, it would be hard to change something thats been in english grammar for so long. i think its gunna stay the way it is

Answer 6

I don't think so. It's confusing (annoying) enough as is now. Why bother for more trouble? :-)

What about using just one for everything instead? This way too the language will become less sexist.. hahahah..
:-)

Take care..

Answer 7

Yeah a nice idea!
Lets invent something which has no meaning!
It can be "tygfvvs".
It would look nice!
"tygfvvs said....""!!

Answer 8

It would be great!!...in Spanish when we don't know the gender or even if we know it, for "his/her house" we'd say: "su casa", doesn't matter if it's a boy or a girl...we use "SU" for either gender when something belongs to them...his/her house, pet, pen....su casa, mascota, lapicero....anyway, it's easier.

Answer 9

There is an option--one can do what one pleases in ones own house, for example.
I hope it helps.

Answer 10

What could be the additional gender, besides "she" and "he"?
"it" usually answers to the necessity.