How is "Hir" pronounced?

[deuxhero]

I see it alot in discussion of V (and I know what it means) but I can't figure out how to pronounce it, Wiktionary's is the only I can find, and I can't for the life of me understand those accent marks.

[Dogmantra]

I don't know whether it's correct, but I'd pronounce it like "here". It's either that, or rhyming with "sir". Scratch that... just realised that would sound like "her"

[Jack Squat]

It's pronounced like "here" (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hir).

[Moff Chumley]

I'd recommend not saying it. It sounds silly.

[/unhelpful]

[Vmag]

Links be darned, I've always pronounced it "Hur", which DOES sound a bit like "her", but clearly it's got the damma over the H, and not the kasra. Kasra/damma aside, it's a short vowel sound, and pronouncing it like "here" would have required a long vowel.

I stick by my quirks.

[Mando Knight]

I'd recommend not saying it. It sounds silly.

[/unhelpful]

Indeed. Whatever happened to using the male pronouns for gender-indefinite beings? *Is stuck in the "old ways"*

[Coidzor]

Heeyuurrrrrr. You really gotta make it clear you're slurring him and her together.

[Moff Chumley]

I'm personally fond of switching genders every prime number...

[Trog]

"Throat warbler mangrove."

[Linkavitch]

"Throat warbler mangrove."

Dude, that's awesome! Nice one.

Personally, I always don't use it, but when I see it, I think 'here'.

[RTGoodman]

Heeyuurrrrrr. You really gotta make it clear you're slurring him and her together.

That's pretty much how people in the South pronouce "here" anyway. Two syllables and all that.

[Mauve Shirt]

Yeah, "here". I think it's silly anyway.

[Blue Ghost]

I pronounce it "her." I write it as "her" as well. And think of it as "her."

[Coidzor]

That's pretty much how people in the South pronouce "here" anyway. Two syllables and all that.

But you've got to put the accent like you're using a french loan word on too in order to distinguish in that case. maybe conceiving it as hiur instead would help?

Unless Dior isn't french. :smallconfused:

I think it is though. Hmm... I'm-a assume so given the guy who made the word famous(ish) was french.

[Alleine]

Its pronounced "STOP USING THAT AAAARGH"

Sorry.

/petpeeve

[The Demented One]

The college I'm going to this fall uses "hir" and "ze" consistently throughout all its forms, rules, and so on. I find it neat.

[Ravens_cry]

I use 'they', 'them', and 'their'. It's not perfect, but it sounds better to me then most of new pronouns, and far more respectful then 'it'. The trouble, in my view, with 'hir' is it's one letter off from 'sir', but 'sir' rhymes with 'her'. Oh, English, I love you dearly, but sometimes you're a real bastard, literally, of a language.

[Prowl]

I'd recommend not saying it. It sounds silly.

[/unhelpful]

Actually that's the most helpful thing that is going to appear on the thread.

[Flame of Anor]

Actually that's the most helpful thing that is going to appear on the thread.

Seconded. Write it if you must but please don't use it in conversation. Just use "he" or "they".

[Coidzor]

Well, yeah, if we're going to be smurt aboot it, then yeah, it's too cumbersome and awkward for actual conversation.

Writing it's ok for informal things though. The realm of formal writings as far as dealing with this sort of thing I think is going to take another decade or twa.

[Starscream]

I seem to remember an old comedy sketch where someone's name was pronounced by dropping a block of wood on the table. I vote we go with that.

[Coidzor]

Except using this sound effect... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8IiJk4Imds)

hmm... I like it!
(No, No, this is actually a horrible, horrible idea.)

[skywalker]

I would pronounce it like it is spelled. Not quite like "here." It's hard to explain, since I don't know the linguistic terms.

A little shorter than "here" and with a bit more "i..." It's not that hard, is it?

[The Rose Dragon]

It is pronounced "he". It is also spelled "he". Or "him" if you want to use it as an object.

[Quincunx]

What case is it? The 'r' tells me it's a possessive, and the possessive pronoun sounds already exist--'her'. The sounds of 'here' are not referring to a person and I would be very confused if you continually refer to a person as a place. It's not quite the objectification that gender-neutral pronouns are trying to avoid. . .well, I'm an English speaker, places don't have a gender or an object to me.

Also, allow me to raise the alternate option my friend proposed for people who were being annoying about neutrality--"'hsi', pronounced 'hissy'". :smallamused:

[Coidzor]

Wait.

Is Hir supposed to be for gender neutrality or just for referring to something or someone that is emulating both sexes' gender, or even is both sexes?

[billtodamax]

How is "Hir" pronounced?

Preferably not at all.

[kamikasei]

I'm not sure I've ever spoken it out loud, but in my head I've always sounded it as "hilt"+r. Neither "here", nor "her". Hmmmm... take "mirror", drop the second syllable, and change the "m" to a "h". Clear enough?

[bosssmiley]

It is pronounced "he", which is the grammatically correct generic pronoun when sex is not definitely known.


The college I'm going to this fall uses "hir" and "ze" consistently throughout all its forms, rules, and so on. I find it neat.

And you're still going there? Brace for Thought Police. :smallannoyed:

@v: Well excuse me princess. I happen to hate these ugly, clumsy pieces of Newspeak the way most people hate glass in the eye.

[kamikasei]

It is pronounced "he", which is the grammatically correct generic pronoun when sex is not definitely known.

I've seen this kind of comment surprisingly often in the last short while on these forums. The people making it do realize that in general, if someone's using a gender-neutral construction, they consider the implication of treating masculinity as the default to be more of an issue than whether it's considered correct grammar, right?

Really, the above is dismissive and condescending to an extend hardly warranted by the original query.

[orchitect]

Its silly, but then again, so is a lot slang these days. I use "he" or "she" interchangeably when dealing with indeffinate pronouns. If I mess up someone's gender, oh well, they can call me on it and I'll be happy to fix my mistake.

I digress. I always pronounced it "her," but that's because I never saw it with any kind of accent mark attached.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Since the use of the third person plural as a term for someone of an indefinite gender is becoming more and more accepted, I just tend to use that; why invent new terms when you can overload old ones?

English already does this quite a bit, "you" being a prominent example--in Spanish, for instance, 2nd person singular informal is tu (with an accent over the u that I can't make on this computer), 2nd person plural informal is vosotros, 2nd person singular formal is usted, and 2nd person plural formal is ustedes...but in English all of those are just you. Following that precedent, it would make sense to use they, them, etc. for third person plural definite and third person singular indefinite. No additional terms are really necessary.

[Quincunx]

kamikasei: Interesting. I'm struggling to pronounce the 'hi'lt + 'r', the short i sound, which confirms it's a new set of sounds for the new word. This might make it unambiguous and usable in conversation.

(Disclaimer: American (middle of the Eastern Seaboard) accent here, able to distinguish many pairs of words that other regions of the country have as homophones, unable to roll an R.)

[kamikasei]

kamikasei: Interesting. I'm struggling to pronounce the 'hi'lt + 'r', the short i sound, which confirms it's a new set of sounds for the new word. This might make it unambiguous and usable in conversation.

It occurs to me that "his" is probably a better starting point.


(Disclaimer: American (middle of the Eastern Seaboard) accent here, able to distinguish many pairs of words that other regions of the country have as homophones, unable to roll an R.)

They really ought to teach the IPA at an early age.

[Eon]

... i just realized why they say hir...

[The Demented One]

And you're still going there? Brace for Thought Police.
I've got perfect mental defenses, it's okay.

[Renegade Paladin]

The college I'm going to this fall uses "hir" and "ze" consistently throughout all its forms, rules, and so on. I find it neat.
Wow. Your college actively teaches grossly incorrect English grammar? :smallconfused: Why are they accredited, again?

[The Demented One]

Wow. Your college actively teaches grossly incorrect English grammar? :smallconfused: Why are they accredited, again?
For starters, that's not grammar. For...whatever comes after starters...the terms are neologistic, not incorrect. While they're certainly awkward, and their artificiality is a bit off-putting, I find movement towards using them interesting (Granted, the gender-neutral pronoun is gonna end up being singular "they," but still).

[Recaiden]

I now would pronounce it like "his", but with an r, because anything else sounds like something else.
So how is ze pronounced? Like he or like zeh?

[Cristo Meyers]

For starters, that's not grammar. For...whatever comes after starters...the terms are neologistic, not incorrect. While they're certainly awkward, and their artificiality is a bit off-putting, I find movement towards using them interesting (Granted, the gender-neutral pronoun is gonna end up being singular "they," but still).

I was under the impression that to most people it already is "they" used as a singular. This is actually the first time I've encountered anyone using this "hir"

[The Demented One]

I was under the impression that to most people it already is "they" used as a singular. This is actually the first time I've encountered anyone using this "hir"
They do, but it's technically incorrect - it's just that no one cares. I'd imagine that the MLA or some similar group will eventually accept it as okay.

[Cristo Meyers]

They do, but it's technically incorrect - it's just that no one cares. I'd imagine that the MLA or some similar group will eventually accept it as okay.

Oh I knew that it was incorrect, English major an' all. Though I wouldn't expect to see MLA or APA or Chicago style ever accept it as correct. Grammar is Serious Business, ya know, they can't just go accepting changes willy-nilly just because the language lacks something like a gender-neutral singluar noun.

[The Demented One]

Oh I knew that it was incorrect, English major an' all. Though I wouldn't expect to see MLA or APA or Chicago style ever accept it as correct. Grammar is Serious Business, ya know, they can't just go accepting changes willy-nilly just because the language lacks something like a gender-neutral singluar noun.
Well, I imagine it'd take them a good few decades to get around to it. Makes me wonder if there's a general history of what changes the literati have made over the years. It'd be a neat timeline.

[Renegade Paladin]

For starters, that's not grammar. For...whatever comes after starters...the terms are neologistic, not incorrect. While they're certainly awkward, and their artificiality is a bit off-putting, I find movement towards using them interesting (Granted, the gender-neutral pronoun is gonna end up being singular "they," but still).
The gender-neutral singular personal pronoun is "he," and "hir" is not a word. I fail to see the problem with this.

[Faulty]

The gender-neutral singular personal pronoun is "he," and "hir" is not a word. I fail to see the problem with this.

Words are invented. There's not metaphysical reason why "he" is superior to "hir" if they both successfully communicate meaning. The more "hir" is used, the more normalized it will be come, and in 40 years you never know if it will be the gender-neutral pronoun most commonly used.

So if "hir" is "he" or "she", what his "her"/"him" and or "his/hers"?

[Renegade Paladin]

Words are invented. There's not metaphysical reason why "he" is superior to "hir" if they both successfully communicate meaning. The more "hir" is used, the more normalized it will be come, and in 40 years you never know if it will be the gender-neutral pronoun most commonly used.
Languages evolve naturally. There have been many, many attempts to mandate changes in language or create artificial languages, and none of them have come into widespread use. France has an entire ministry dedicated to attempting to control the French language, and their repeated failures are downright comical. :smalltongue: The language will do what it does, and if what it does is accept the imposition of "hir" from a gross minority of English speakers, I'll be quite surprised.

[Faulty]

The point I'm trying to make is that there is no proper English, and use of "hir" is as viable as "he" or "she" for neutrality.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Oh I knew that it was incorrect, English major an' all. Though I wouldn't expect to see MLA or APA or Chicago style ever accept it as correct. Grammar is Serious Business, ya know, they can't just go accepting changes willy-nilly just because the language lacks something like a gender-neutral singluar noun.

My guess is that they'd accept a broadening of the third-person plural to include third-person neutral uses before they accept a neologism, but I'm not exactly a language expert.

[Cristo Meyers]

My guess is that they'd accept a broadening of the third-person plural to include third-person neutral uses before they accept a neologism, but I'm not exactly a language expert.

Well, like I said before, it's been my experience that this is exactly what is happening. Using "they" as a gender-neutral singular sees pretty widespread usage. I've never even encountered "hir" until recently on this board.

The way I see it is that the authorities are pretty much constantly trying to keep the language from changing as much as possible, so when they are called on to implement a change they try to do the one that really amounts to the least amount of actual change. That's how we ended up with "the masculine includes the feminine." Just broadening the usage of the gender-neutral plural would be the next step.

[kamikasei]

The gender-neutral singular personal pronoun is "he," and "hir" is not a word. I fail to see the problem with this.

I think it should be quite clear why there's a problem with using the same word for "male" and "either gender", and making "female" the distinctive case.

I'm not sure how you can simultaneously argue that languages evolve naturally and attempts to dictate their structure from on high are ill-fated, and condemn people for using a neologism that fulfills a perceived need because it's not (yet) proper grammar.

[The Demented One]

Well, like I said before, it's been my experience that this is exactly what is happening. Using "they" as a gender-neutral singular sees pretty widespread usage.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure a large majority of English speakers would use it. There's just a wall of grognardism, a tremendously fun word to type, between widespread usage and technically correct usage.

[Coidzor]

I dunno, it just seems so hard to differentiate it, that seems to be the biggest obstacle to it being adopted, because I see a lot of people just saying it as something either indistinguishable from or easily confused for "her."

Which the people who actually are hypersensitive enough to be insulted about such things would never let fly.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

I'm not sure how you can simultaneously argue that languages evolve naturally and attempts to dictate their structure from on high are ill-fated, and condemn people for using a neologism that fulfills a perceived need because it's not (yet) proper grammar.

He does have a point with this one--using "they" is already a common idea, and the sole purpose of the grammatical Powers That Be is giving it the OK to be used in formal writing; using "hir" is creating a new word and trying to introduce it into the language artificially. Now, the condemnation specifically arising because it's improper grammar as opposed to another reason is problematic, but the general sentiment that "they" is language evolving and "hir" is language being dictated is one I think is accurate.

[kamikasei]

It's not as if "hir" is being imposed by some Authority of Gender Neutrality, though. It's every bit as much an evolution of language as is the use of "they", it's just a conscious coinage rather than a seizing upon an existing term to overload.

[Renegade Paladin]

I think it should be quite clear why there's a problem with using the same word for "male" and "either gender", and making "female" the distinctive case.
Well you think incorrectly, because it isn't. It might be were there even much call for a gender-neutral personal pronoun in the first place, but there really isn't comparatively; that's what "it" is for, being only inappropriate when applied to a person, who is usually of determined gender.

[The Demented One]

Well you think incorrectly, because it isn't. It might be were there even much call for a gender-neutral personal pronoun in the first place, but there really isn't comparatively; that's what "it" is for, being only inappropriate when applied to a person, who is usually of determined gender.
While certainly not necessary, anyone speaking about people in generalities is probably better off with a gender-neutral pronoun, instead of the abomination that is "he or she" (or worse yet, s/he). While the neutral "he" does solve that, the grievances against it are pretty clear, even if you aren't that big on feminist theory. It's pretty clear that such a term is necessary, hence the single-person "they" that the majority of English speakers would use in that situation.

[kamikasei]

Well you think incorrectly, because it isn't. It might be were there even much call for a gender-neutral personal pronoun in the first place, but there really isn't comparatively; that's what "it" is for, being only inappropriate when applied to a person, who is usually of determined gender.

scratched.

Let me try this again, because I'm not totally clear on what you're saying here. "It isn't" = there is no problem? So the fact that a bunch of people see a problem and want a gender-neutral pronoun to correct it, to your mind, means there is no problem and no call for such a pronoun.

I think the people using see a call.

I can't help but take your response as basically "shut up, your concerns are meaningless". Am I wrong in doing so? How?

[Renegade Paladin]

While certainly not necessary, anyone speaking about people in generalities is probably better off with a gender-neutral pronoun, instead of the abomination that is "he or she" (or worse yet, s/he). While the neutral "he" does solve that, the grievances against it are pretty clear, even if you aren't that big on feminist theory. It's pretty clear that such a term is necessary, hence the single-person "they" that the majority of English speakers would use in that situation.
The grievance is hogwash. "Oh no, I'm being oppressed by a pronoun!" Please, spare me; that's nonsense.
I can't help but take your response as basically "shut up, your concerns are meaningless". Am I wrong in doing so? How?
No, you're not wrong in doing so, because that's exactly what my position is. Kindly explain the problem you see, because I don't follow. Words simply communicate meaning; nobody's getting hurt and there is no harm being done by simple grammar and pronoun use.

[Totally Guy]

I've heard Hir used to mean two different things.

I've heard it used to refer to a single unknown person of unknown gender. But in the couple of times I've heard this I've picked uup an underlying boast by the speaker. The speaker wanted to show that he was more liberal and open minded than the rest of the room. Of course I can't be absolutely certain that this was the intent but showing open mindedness was definately something that would have advantaged the guy at the time.

The other context of Hir I've heard was to refer a known person of unknown gender. This was when an androgynous person requested that nobody use "him" or "her" to describe this individual. All I'll say about this is that ambiguously gendered people have a hard enough time as it is and if more people insisted on special grammar to associate with that it would create a social barrier that would make life harder still. So I'm against this.

[kamikasei]

The grievance is hogwash. "Oh no, I'm being oppressed by a pronoun!" Please, spare me; that's nonsense.

That's a blatant strawman. "The structure of the language assumes that male is the default and female a special case, that if you don't know someone's gender the proper thing to do is imply that they're male, etc.; this is a bad thing" is not "I'm being oppressed by a pronoun". It's "we have negative and oppressive assumptions built into the very grammar of our language, and maybe we should do something about that".


No, you're not wrong in doing so, because that's exactly what my position is. Kindly explain the problem you see, because I don't follow. Words simply communicate meaning; nobody's getting hurt and there is no harm being done by simple grammar and pronoun use.

:smallconfused:

Do you imagine I'm sitting here, stricken, clutching my chest as if having a heart attack and gasping "Alas! Someone has used 'he' to refer to a person of unknown gender! I'm hurt and harmed by this!"

No; rather, others are coining new ways to remove this bias from their speech and you're attacking them for it.

"Words communicate meaning", no, really? Do you think perhaps it's the implicit meaning behind the words that's the issue?

[The Demented One]

I've heard it used to refer to a single unknown person of unknown gender. But in the couple of times I've heard this I've picked uup an underlying boast by the speaker. The speaker wanted to show that he was more liberal and open minded than the rest of the room. Of course I can't be absolutely certain that this was the intent but showing open mindedness was definately something that would have advantaged the guy at the time.

The other context of Hir I've heard was to refer a known person of unknown gender. This was when an androgynous person requested that nobody use "him" or "her" to describe this individual. All I'll say about this is that ambiguously gendered people have a hard enough time as it is and if more people insisted on special grammar to associate with that it would create a social barrier that would make life harder still. So I'm against this.
There's also the third context, in which you're speaking in general terms - "If a student has lost hir card, a replacement may be bought for $20," and so on. The point about boasting does make a good deal of sense; I think that's just inherent to it being constructed, and another point for the gender-neutral "they." I don't think the second context is really what gender-neutral pronouns are meant for, albeit I'm sure people will use it that way.

[Coidzor]

That is the way I've mostly encountered it so far. Mostly as applies to fictional characters, but occasionally to genderqueer individuals.

[kamikasei]

The point about boasting does make a good deal of sense; I think that's just inherent to it being constructed, and another point for the gender-neutral "they."

The thing is that any term filling this purpose can be treated boastfully or be seized upon as some kind of Newspeak by critics. "Hir" just sticks out more. Given time, there's no reason it shouldn't be just as unobtrusive and normal-looking as "they" (which some people do see as a glaring, conspicuous error or bit of pretension when used as a singular).

edit: In any case, this discussion isn't worth taking time for. The point - that telling someone that "hir" isn't grammatically correct is both a) obnoxious and b) missing the point by a mile - has been made, and I doubt anything more constructive is likely to result.

[The Demented One]

The thing is that any term filling this purpose can be treated boastfully or be seized upon as some kind of Newspeak by critics. "Hir" just sticks out more. Given time, there's no reason it shouldn't be just as unobtrusive and normal-looking as "they" (which some people do see as a glaring, conspicuous error or bit of pretension when used as a singular).
I agree entirely, it's just getting the term into common-enough usage that it reaches that point that's the issue. Not totally sure what the best way to do that would be, although a quick look through Wikipedia's article on neologism makes fiction/pop culture look like the most viable method for spreading any new word.

[Ravens_cry]

That is the way I've mostly encountered it so far. Mostly as applies to fictional characters, but occasionally to genderqueer individuals.
If by genderqueer you mean transexuals, most prefer being referred by their gender, rather then their born sex. So any kind of third pronouns would be downright insulting to such individuals.

[The Demented One]

If by genderqueer you mean transexuals, most prefer being referred by their gender, rather then their born sex. So any kind of third pronouns would be downright insulting to such individuals.
Genderqueer and transexual are entirely different categories. I'm not terribly well-versed on the former, but ever-useful Wikipedia defines it as applying to people who identify as both male and female, neither male nor female, or complete outside the male-female dynamic. Going by that, a gender-neutral pronoun would seem an apt referent for a person who identifies genderqueer; I've no idea, however, if it would be perceived as insulting.

[Yuki Akuma]

I find it amusing when people use "hir" as a gender-neutral pronoun considering I usually see it being applied to hermaphrodites, which are as far away from being gender-neutral as it's possible to get without inventing a third gender.

(Yes I know I'm somewhat misusing 'gender' here.)

[Totally Guy]

Not totally sure what the best way to do that would be, although a quick look through Wikipedia's article on neologism makes fiction/pop culture look like the most viable method for spreading any new word.

I think that it needs to be accepted by some kind of authority first. Not a government, that would mean total failure because of all the thought police connotations:smallmad:. But somebody like your university who perhaps doesn't need to fight anything would be better:smallsmile:. Pop culture would put me off it more than I already am:smallsigh:.

And individuals without power... well lets just say I once hung out with someone who said "Kawaii!" and "Su-goi!" to try a popularise those. He just sounded dumb.:smallyuk:

Let me tell you about a time when I was at school. I was taught exclusively in metric measurements. I used to think that by the time my generation grew up we'd be the dominant bunch and professionally it's good. But my Wii fit still asked me how tall I was in feet and it asks occasionally what I perceive my ideal weight to be in stone. :smallconfused:And I seriously don't know. Feet and inches are dumb (because I can't figure them out). But they're widely used. In fact the more people that use them the better they are.:smallcool:

It's the same thing here. You're asking people to give up a compatible yet "inferior":smallwink: language quirk for one that is "superior" yet currently incompatible. It's incompatible because I'll not say it. It sounds dumb because other people aren't saying it.

So now you tell me that people should say it and it'll be better and I'll agree. But how to change it? See top of the post. The authorities can't due to high backlash probability and you the individual can't due to your limited influence and dumb-soundingness.:smallannoyed:

I hope neither of the sides in this conflict read all this as a tirade against your side (in fact I'll go back and sprinkle the post with smilies just to be safe...). I mean it's not my battle I'm a white middle class guy so I can't lose whatever the outcome.:smalltongue:

[Manachu Boy]

My thoughts on the matter: if referring to a named individual (e.g. Vaarsuvius in OOTS, the discussion of whom being the only times I've ever heard any of these ugly-looking gender-neutral pronouns used, ever), use the name. If just referring to a group or generality that could be of either gender, use a collective they/them/their. If referring to someone whose gender you're uncertain of... swallow your pride and ask! ^_^

That's just my way of dealing with it tho as I really couldn't use 'hir' and the like with a straight face, so YMMV.

[Coidzor]

If by genderqueer you mean transexuals, most prefer being referred by their gender, rather then their born sex. So any kind of third pronouns would be downright insulting to such individuals.

Or rather the mask of the sex they're putting forth to the world, yeah.

But yeah, case-in-point, it's just a headache for everyone involved.

[The Demented One]

I think that it needs to be accepted by some kind of authority first. Not a government, that would mean total failure because of all the thought police connotations:smallmad:. But somebody like your university who perhaps doesn't need to fight anything would be better:smallsmile:. Pop culture would put me off it more than I already am:smallsigh:.
First off...that is a lot of smilies. :smallwink:
But what I mean by the pop culture comment is that a lot of commonly-used words and phrases that started off as neologisms came from books or some similar media. Cyberspace. Avatars. Truthiness. When it comes to mass propagation of ideas, it's hard to beat pop culture.


It's the same thing here. You're asking people to give up a compatible yet "inferior":smallwink: language quirk for one that is "superior" yet currently incompatible. It's incompatible because I'll not say it. It sounds dumb because other people aren't saying it.

So now you tell me that people should say it and it'll be better and I'll agree. But how to change it? See top of the post. The authorities can't due to high backlash probability and you the individual can't due to your limited influence and dumb-soundingness.:smallannoyed:
Again, books, shows, and other media. One person who goes around trying to popularize a term? Rarely effective, except in the probably-apocryphal case of "quiz." An author who uses a neologistic term in a book, or a writer who uses it on a show? Far more likely to be able to both spread awareness of their neologism, and to get people to use it.


I hope neither of the sides in this conflict read all this as a tirade against your side (in fact I'll go back and sprinkle the post with smilies just to be safe...). I mean it's not my battle I'm a white middle class guy so I can't lose whatever the outcome.:smalltongue:
Don't worry, it doesn't.

Ah. That's why the smilies. Okay.

[AgentPaper]

"Hir" really is a ridiculous word. Not the idea behind it, that's fine, but the word itself is just silly. For one, it's pronounced exactly like "her". Say both of them out loud. If you really need to make up a new word, at the very least make it sounds different from the words you're going to be using it instead of. "ham" for example, is short, everyone knows how to pronounce it, and while it is a word, nobody is going to wonder if you're talking about a slice of pig meat in context. (Compare "What's with ham?" to "What's with that ham?")

I'm not saying you should start using "ham" instead of "him" (and "has" instead of "his" and so on), but it's at least better than "hir" or "zir " or "xir". :smallyuk:

Edit: Now that I think of it, why doesn't someone just steal a gender-neutral pronoun from some other language? It seems to be the most logical choice.

[Totally Guy]

Again, books, shows, and other media. One person who goes around trying to popularize a term? Rarely effective, except in the probably-apocryphal case of "quiz." An author who uses a neologistic term in a book, or a writer who uses it on a show? Far more likely to be able to both spread awareness of their neologism, and to get people to use it.

Ok. That'd work, well, with the right person.

They'd need to be something special though. They'd need to be able to use their success to preach it. And they'd need to become successful in spite of it. And they'd need to understand it (maybe including all the compatibility bollocks I've been talking about).

(This is also why dictators suck, anyone who'd be a benevolent dictator tends to be someone who can't seize power, and one that can seize power tends not to be a benevolent character.)

[Ravens_cry]

Genderqueer and transexual are entirely different categories. I'm not terribly well-versed on the former, but ever-useful Wikipedia defines it as applying to people who identify as both male and female, neither male nor female, or complete outside the male-female dynamic. Going by that, a gender-neutral pronoun would seem an apt referent for a person who identifies genderqueer; I've no idea, however, if it would be perceived as insulting.
Well, the very same wikipedia article I read said otherwise. Chalk it up to a wiki's mutability, I guess.

[The Demented One]

Ok. That'd work, well, with the right person.

They'd need to be something special though. They'd need to be able to use their success to preach it. And they'd need to become successful in spite of it. And they'd need to understand it (maybe including all the compatibility bollocks I've been talking about).
All they'd have to be is someone whose work gets read/viewed by a relatively high number of people. For instance, the word "avatar," as it refers to our personal icons. I'm pretty sure Neal Stephenson and the other authors who first used it to mean that weren't trying to spread it at all - they just used it, because the term aptly described what they were trying to describe. And then their readers went "Hey, that term aptly describes that thing I'm trying to describe!", so it entered their vocabulary, and so on like that.


Well, the very same wikipedia article I read said otherwise. Chalk it up to a wiki's mutability, I guess.
It does relate the genderqueer orientation with the transgender orientation, but it also points out that they're not the same thing, and that transgender has had multiple meanings assigned to it.

[Ravens_cry]

I find it amusing when people use "hir" as a gender-neutral pronoun considering I usually see it being applied to hermaphrodites, which are as far away from being gender-neutral as it's possible to get without inventing a third gender.

(Yes I know I'm somewhat misusing 'gender' here.)
The first time I saw it was in a Star Trek: New Frontier novel. While an interesting read, it was rather confusing trying to figure out how to pronounce it. And it was referring to a hermaphrodite in that story. Everyone's favourite Vulcan matriarch (http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/T%27Pau) used 'it', by the way, much to the characters chagrin.

[Totally Guy]

All they'd have to be is someone whose work gets read/viewed by a relatively high number of people.

Oh, I was just testing you.:smalltongue:

I wanted to see what you'd use if I made you talk about a single person of undetermined gender.:smallbiggrin:

[The Demented One]

Oh, I was just testing you.:smalltongue:

I wanted to see what you'd use if I made you talk about a single person of undetermined gender.:smallbiggrin:
Haha, I should've caught that. But yeah, "they" is just what comes naturally to mean, unless I'm writing a paper.

[Ravens_cry]

Haha, I should've caught that. But yeah, "they" is just what comes naturally to mean, unless I'm writing a paper.
If this is the predominate response, it would show that 'they' is more quickly been assimilated into the vocabulary then 'hir', even if not technically correct as of yet.

[The Demented One]

If this is the predominate response, it would show that 'they' is more quickly been assimilated into the vocabulary then 'hir', even if not technically correct as of yet.
I don't think you could argue against that. "Hir" is a neolism, single-person "they" is an intuitive if incorrect usage of a pre-existing word. The latter is always going to catch on with both greater speed and spread. How that correlates to the value of the term is less obvious.

[leafman]

I thought the gender neutral pronoun thing had been solved.

If you don't know the gender of a person but know the name, use the persons name. Ex: He = Bob, Him = Bob, His = Bob's or She = Jill, Her = Jill, Hers = Jill's

If referring to a theoretical person of unknown gender and name, use the word "one". Ex: He/She = One, Him/Her = One, His/Hers = One's

If referring to a known person of unknown name and gender, refer to them as a person until such time that a gender or name can be discerned. Ex: "That person over there is looking at me funny.":smalltongue:

[Ravens_cry]

I don't think you could argue against that. "Hir" is a neolism, single-person "they" is an intuitive if incorrect usage of a pre-existing word. The latter is always going to catch on with both greater speed and spread. How that correlates to the value of the term is less obvious.
Ask me in a few hundred years and we'll find out. As has been iterated by others, language is an organic thing. English is especially so. Which will be correct in the future? Since I left my time machine in my other pants, I guess we won't find out fore sure. However, how deeply rooted into the language each becomes inm say, 50 years, will give us a good idea. Some slang stay slang for hundreds of years, while others become part of the language.
Now if only I could find my other pants. . .

[The Demented One]

Ask me in a few hundred years and we'll find out. As has been iterated by others, language is an organic thing. English is especially so. Which will be correct in the future? Since I left my time machine in my other pants, I guess we won't find out fore sure. However, how deeply rooted into the language each becomes inm say, 50 years, will give us a good idea. Some slang stay slang for hundreds of years, while others become part of the language.
Now if only I could find my other pants. . .
Dude. I want in to your other pants.

[Ravens_cry]

Dude. I want in to your other pants.
Hells, I want in my other pants.

[Coidzor]

Hells, I want in my other pants.

But are you zoned for all of these people who want to attend the party in your other pants?

[Ravens_cry]

But are you zoned for all of these people who want to attend the party in your other pants?
It simply amazing what they can do with spandex these days.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

It simply amazing what they can do with spandex these days.

Zoning laws + spandex = ...

:smalleek:

Pass the brain bleach, please?

[Coidzor]

Haha. Now that is a humorous mental image. As long as everyone goes to the bathroom first. :smalleek:

[The Demented One]

Zoning laws + spandex = ...

:smalleek:

Pass the brain bleach, please?
Two words: David Bowie.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Two words: David Bowie.

La la la la la I CAN'T HEAR YOU la la la la....

[The Rose Dragon]

Two words: David Bowie.

Man, that guy can look as sexy as he looks ridiculous.

[Coidzor]

Well, his crotch is a cult movie star.