• Tuesday, May 29, 2012

Previous

Next

Ortholinguistry: Filling the Gaps in Language

October 11, 2011, 6:42 pm

A language is like a mouthful of teeth, right?

The individual teeth are the words. And those who would improve the language are like dentists. Extraction here, filling there, braces to align the words nicely.

Chew on that for a while. Because my concern here is whether modern ortholinguistry, for better or worse, is actually capable of changing a language.

In particular, there is the question of gaps. It’s easy for even unlicensed amateurs to notice that any language, including ours, has gaps aching to be filled. And there is no lack of would-be language menders—call them ortholinguists—ready to provide the filling.

Take the most notorious gap in English, the lack of a gender-neutral singular pronoun. That has been a concern for centuries, but especially since we have become aware of the sexist bias of using he for both genders. As long as there has been a concern, so there have been fillings prepared for that gap: thon, zhe, hu, ey, co, among others. Not to mention they, but filling a singular gap with a plural doesn’t satisfy every ortholinguist. No success so far.

It’s not the only gaping gap. From the time the millennium approached, there has been a painful need for a word that would label the first and second decades of the 21st century. Suggestions for the first decade included aughts, noughts, 2000s, 00s, zeroes, and oh-ohs, but none of them fit. As for the second decade, nobody even seems to be trying.

What gives? Why can’t we fill these and other gaps, like the gap for a gender-inclusive word for “brothers and sisters”? We even have such a word, siblings, but we reject it as too technical for everyday use.

The reason we can’t is—spoiler here—a language is not like a
mouthful of teeth. Languages seem indifferent to gaps. They are quite content to bridge perceived gaps with combinations of words when a single word won’t name a concept. We go ahead and say “he or she” or “first decade of the 21st century” or “brothers and sisters” comfortably enough.

Also, languages resist innovation. For a new word to gain a permanent place in the vocabulary, it generally needs to be a stealth word, to sneak in, to look as if it has been around all the while. That’s why we will talk about the twenties, following the familiar pattern of twenties through nineties, but won’t speak of the aughts.

Most deliberately invented words are just too conspicuous. I wrote a book about it once (Predicting New Words). But that’s a topic for another blog.

This entry was posted in Words. Bookmark the permalink.

  • Print
  • Comment
  • alexis_v

    Speaking of pronouns, methinks it doth protest too much.  Yet, the rest of its essay is the cat’s meow.  23 skidoo…

  • http://www.arrantpedantry.com Jonathon Owen

    I think it’s worth noting that deliberate attempts to change the language are often passively resisted—that is, nobody picks them up—while more natural changes, such as singular, gender-neutral they, are often deliberately resisted.

    • dank48

      Indeed, even though the OED makes it clear that third-person indefinite-singular “they” and its other forms have been in use for hundreds of years.

      Language isn’t something to be manipulated by “experts.” It’s an organic thing, and what the experts can do is observe, note, record, and so on. No one is in charge of anything.

      Btw, it’s interesting that English always gets rapped for not having a gender-neutral pronoun (say those who can’t accept singular “they” but have no trouble with originally plural “you” replacing the old singular “thou”). You’d think English was unique. Yet French doesn’t, Spanish doesn’t, German doesn’t, and to the best of my knowledge no other European language does.

      Are there languages that naturally have gender-neutral ability?

      • jffoster

        Not sure this is what you have in mind, but many languages there are which have no gender at all.  Japanese and Turkish are but two.  Finnish almost hasn’t any gender, the “almost” being a third person pronoun distinction, I think, between animate and inanimate (which is really what English does with ‘it’ v. ‘he’ and ‘she’., and Dutch with _het_ versus _hij_ and _zij_ .)   Hungarian has no gender, not even pronominal gender.

        Incidentally, the P-Celtic language Welsh, like most (all?) of the Romance languages, has two genders, Its personal pronouns are in the nominative  _ef (Southern Welsh) [ev] / _fo_ [vo] (Northern Welsh) ‘he / it’ and _hi_ [hi] ‘she / it.’    In Welsh, the “dummy” pronoun (when there is one) for things like “It’s cold.” is the feminine form.

  • johnbarnes

    Many of us do use “siblings” in ordinary conversation, or the short-form, slangish “sibs.”  I think some people are just uncomfortable at the idea that their parents have sibled.

  • 11251332

    Since we’ve failed to come up with a gender-neutral pronoun in English, let’s borrow one. I propose Hungarian ő (plural ők). Example: “Ő’s on first” = ‘S/he’s on first’. Who’s on first? Ő’s on first! That’s what I’m asking you!

    • jffoster

      Or we could borrow the Welsh third person feminine pronoun _hi_, identical in pronunciation to the English 3rd person masculine pronoun _he_.

  • carrieprz

    We have a gender neutral singular pronoun:  “it.”  But no one would use “it” for a human.
    I use s/he to solve the “he or she” conundrum. 
    As the daughter of TWO English teachers, I shudder using the plural “their” when referring to just one person, but I haven’t come up with a satisfactory short replacement.

    But the real answer in changing language is being consistent in usage of a particular word, and try to spread it through others.  English faculty could play a pivotal role in that . . .

    • dank48

      The OED says “themself” has been obsolescent for a few centuries. But people eventually accepted “yourself” (singular) after “you” wiped out “thou.”

    • jffoster

      Note that the pronoun ‘You’ is used in English for one person, and it still gets a plural verb (are, were). 

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1132728331 Alon Lischinsky

      “As the daughter of TWO English teachers, I shudder using the plural “their” when referring to just one person”

      Well, it was good enough for Shakespeare, and a considerable number of other major authors, so your shudders are unjustified.Singular ‘they’ is no innovation. It has been a standard feature of English for centuries, and rejecting it is one of the most egregious failures of prescriptivists to get to grips with real language.

    • dank48

      “It” isn’t gender neutral; “it” is neuter. But come to that, “gender neutral” could be improved. I suppose “gender unspecific” would be ungainly. I like “indefinite.”

      It’s interesting how the second-person plural used for second-person singular has acquired the singular form “yourself” but still takes the plural verb. Just like in French and German.

  • mkt42

    “Suggestions for the first decade included aughts, noughts, 2000s, 00s, zeroes, and oh-ohs, but none of them fit. As for the second decade, nobody even seems to be trying.”

    That’s because in about 14 months everyone (in the US at least) will be calling the second decade the “teens”.

  • The Chronicle of Higher Education
  • 1255 Twenty-Third St, N.W.
  • Washington, D.C. 20037