Who
comes up with these awards? There really
is a word of the year, awarded by the American Dialect Society (ADS).
And
the winner for 2016 is…
they: gender-neutral
singular pronoun for a known person, particularly as a nonbinary identifier.
The
award ceremony (actually a vote was held) was held at the Marriott Marquis,
Washington D.C. on January 8th.
In its 26th annual words
of the year vote, the American Dialect Society voted for they used as a
gender-neutral singular pronoun as the Word of the Year for 2015. They was
recognized by the society for its emerging use as a pronoun to refer to a known
person, often as a conscious choice by a person rejecting the traditional
gender binary of he and she.
Presiding at the Jan. 8
voting session were ADS Executive Secretary Allan Metcalf of MacMurray College
and Ben Zimmer, chair of the New Words Committee of the American Dialect
Society. Zimmer is also executive editor of Vocabulary.com and language columnist
for the Wall Street Journal.
The use of singular they
builds on centuries of usage, appearing in the work of writers such as Chaucer,
Shakespeare, and Jane Austen. In 2015, singular they was embraced by the
Washington Post style guide. Bill Walsh, copy editor for the Post, described it
as “the only sensible solution to English’s lack of a gender-neutral
third-person singular personal pronoun.”
There
you go. The impetus for the selection is
tied to this mad, insane rush to destroy gender from our language and our
lives. So if you’re confused, let me
give you an example. Normally “they” is
a plural noun for multiple subjects.
Five horses crossed the
road. They neighed.
But
to use it as a singular pronoun for a known person is distort common usage. This is how we would normally use a singular
pronoun:
John wants a sex
change. He has discussed it with his doctor and wife.
Here’s
how the new usage would work:
John wants a sex
change. They has discussed it with his doctor and wife.
Makes
sense? Of course not.
John
Hovatt II had a very passionate disapproval in the American Thinker with his
article, “'They' is Destroying the English Language.”
This new usage is
politically-correct jargon that is being forced on the public. Singular they
now refers to those sexually-confused individuals who do not wish to be called
he or she. It has been determined that “they” can now refer to a “known person
as a non-binary identifier.” Predictably newspapers like the Washington Post
have already included this usage in their style books. In so doing, they
(plural) have declared grammatical war upon the language.
It is war, but a dirty
war. One cannot help but be struck by the utter mediocrity and cowardice of the
august assembly of linguistic warriors. Had these linguists had a bit of
courage they might have adopted any of the numerous “gender-neutral”
ridiculous-sounding pronouns such as “jee,” “ney” and “thon” that have already
been created by activists to promote their cause. They (plural) could even have
gone farther by making up their own new pronouns and challenging the world to
use a novel new creation to accommodate the sexually unsure.
Instead these jargonists
prefer to take a perfectly good pronoun and strip it down to singularity. In so
doing, they have mutilated, emasculated, and disfigured this faithful pronoun
and emptied it of meaning. These pedantic paladins of political correctness
hide behind the excuse that “they” already has some singular common usages as
when used with words like “everyone.” This can be seen in a sentence: “Everyone
likes their dogs.” However, this is purely a smokescreen in this dirty war to
hide an agenda that uses languages as one of its most effective weapons.
Of
course this only applies to a singular person who claims to not want to be
identified by his gender. From the ADS
post:
While editors have
increasingly moved to accepting singular they when used in a generic fashion,
voters in the Word of the Year proceedings singled out its newer usage as an
identifier for someone who may identify as “non-binary” in gender terms.
“In the past year, new
expressions of gender identity have generated a deal of discussion, and
singular they has become a particularly significant element of that
conversation,” Zimmer said. “While many novel gender-neutral pronouns have been
proposed, they has the advantage of already being part of the language.”
Which
infuriates John Hovatt II further:
This development is truly
tragic because such artificial impositions go against the very purpose of
language. Language should give clarity to thought. Its beauty consists in its
ability to define concisely and clearly. The richness of vocabulary comes from
how well words express nuance and subtlety.
But singular they? All is
muddled and confused. If you have one they and add another they do they become
two theys or are theys simply they? No one really knows, nor do the linguists
really care. They (plural) want to make a political statement and force upon
the users the task of determining the context of the usage. It assumes the
public is savy to the esoteric world of politically-correct jargon.
There is another reason
why this usage of singular they is wrong. The principal purpose of language is
to express the truth. Words are essential vehicles for uniting ideas to things
-- a simple definition of truth. A man, for example, has an idea of what a cat
is. When he sees the cat, he exclaims: Cat! The word communicates a truth to
all those around him. It instantly unites the idea and the thing.
Now
how is a person supposed to know when writing about most people that this
particular person wants to be identified as a “non-binary, gender-neutral”
person? You can’t, so the default will
ultimately be that all people will be referred to in a gender-neutral way. Just when you thought modernity can’t get
more insane, it does.
No comments:
Post a Comment