Quick and Dirty Tips Podcasts

Episode Transcript

Email This Page

Generic Singular Pronouns
Episode 29: December 08, 2006

View Comments (168) | Add Comment |

Subscribe to Comment

Grammar Girl here.

Today's topic is generic personal pronouns. Nolan in Victoria, British Columbia, asked the following question:

Just wondering about whether to use she or he in terms of giving examples. Since she was written out of the literature for many, many years, some authors have decided to use she exclusively to make their examples, whereas others maintain that he is the generic personal [pronoun] in the English language.

To be clear, the problem Nolan is talking about is that nobody really knows what pronoun to use anymore when talking about a person of unknown gender. Let's say you're writing a sentence that starts "When a student succeeds …" At this point there's enormous confusion about whether you should proceed with "he should thank his teacher," "she should thank her teacher," "he or she should thank his or her teacher," or something else.

Taryn from Evansville, David from New Jersey, and a listener named Gina also asked about this problem, and I think Betty summed it up best by saying, “He or she seems too awkward, he seems sexist, and one seems archaic.” I would add that exclusively using she also seems sexist, the hybrid s/he seems silly and awkward, and switching between he and she is downright confusing to readers. A listener named Bryan called switching between he and she “whiplash grammar,” which I loved. Then there's the solution that everyone loves to hate—using the personal pronoun they, which breaks the rule that you don't use a plural pronoun with a singular antecedent. Another Bryan from Nashville and a listener named Jimmy both wrote in after I used they with a singular antecedent in this way in episode 15. They wrote in to say that it's a cop-out.

Honestly, I don't think there is a perfect solution, and I've been avoiding the question because I know that no matter what I say I'm going to make someone angry. But then Ken from Denver wrote in literally* pleading for help. He had obviously spent a lot of time looking through the Chicago Manual of Style and had concluded that their answer is “My, that's a toughie. Try to avoid it.” I agree that an answer like that is unhelpful, so I decided to muster up some courage and try to do better.

First, some of you might disagree that using he is sexist; but even if you disagree, you should still at least consider the alternatives because all of the major style guides that I checked recommend against using he in a generic way. (I specifically checked MLA, APA, and Chicago, and I know I have seen it in others.)

When I am confronted with this problem, I first take the Chicago route and ask if there is any way to avoid the problem. Usually this involves simply making the original noun plural. You could say, "When students [plural] succeed, they should thank their teacher." Sometimes more extensive rewriting is required, and if necessary, I'll do it. I would rewrite a whole page if it meant I could avoid the problem.

Rewriting is almost always possible, but if it isn't, then you have to make a choice.

If I'm writing a formal document, I'll use he or she. For example, he or she accidentally knocked over a water bottle. Admittedly, it's a little awkward, but if you're already using formal language, I don't think it's too distracting. (This is also the solution recommended by The American Heritage College Dictionary.)

I will state for the record that I am a firm believer that someday they will be the acceptable choice for this situation. English currently lacks a word that fits the bill, and many people are already either mistakenly or purposefully using they as a singular generic personal pronoun; so it seems logical that rules will eventually move in that direction.

Nevertheless, it takes a bold, confident, and possibly reckless person to use they with a singular antecedent today. I could almost feel people's blood pressure rising as I started to imply that it is OK to use they.

The thing is, if you are a respected editor in charge of writing a style guide for your entire organization, you can get away with making it acceptable to use they with a singular antecedent. I would even encourage you to do so, and there are a variety of credible references that will back you up (1,2,3) including the Random House Dictionary and Fowler's Modern English Usage. You would be in the company of revered authors such as Jane Austen, Lewis Carroll, and Shakespeare. But, if you are responsible to superiors, there's a good chance that at least one of them will think you are careless or ignorant if you use they with a singular antecedent. When I'm writing for a client who doesn't have a style guide, I always, always use he or she.

And that brings me to an important point: everyone who hires writers or assigns writing needs to have a styleguide entry on this topic. Writers can waste a lot of time trying to decide what to do (especially in organizations where people collaborate on documents), and it is better to have one single style that some people don't agree with than to have different writers doing different things so that company documents are all willy-nilly. You don't want readers to end up thinking it's a disorganized, clueless company.

So here's the bottom line: Rewrite your sentences to avoid the problem. If that's not possible, check to see if the people you are writing for have a style guide. If not, use he or she if you want to play it safe, or use they if you feel bold and are prepared to defend yourself.

That's all. I know people have strong opinions about this topic, so I've put up a poll on the Grammar Girl website at quickanddirtytips.com where you can vote for the solution that you prefer when you need a generic singular personal pronoun.

Also, I have another Mark Phillips book to give away, and the winner is an English teacher named Elnora. This week, the book I'm giving away is The Wizard of Oz Vocabulary Builder, and it will also be available for sale on the Grammar Girl website.

And people have been calling in asking about topics that I've already covered, so I want to remind you that there is a list of all the old episodes in the sidebar at the Grammar Girl website at QuickAndDirtyTips.com, including when to use the words affect and effect.

Thank you for listening, and thank you to Steve Thornton for help preparing the transcript. You can e-mail a comment or question to feedback@quickanddirtytips.com. Finally, Warner wrote in this week to chide me for saying “O” for the numeral zero in my phone number, and I vow to change. The call in line is 206-338-GIRL (4475).

Cited References

Ask Oxford.com, "Ask the Experts," (accessed December 6, 2006).Burchfield, R. W., ed. The New Fowler's Modern English Usage. Third edition. New York: Oxford, 1996, p. 779. Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1). Random House, Inc., s.v. "they," http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/they (accessed December 6, 2006). (See the Usage Note about halfway down the page.)

Additional References

After writing this transcript, I found a very long piece, with many examples, that argues in favor of using their as a singular pronoun.Some lawyers put together a very complete web page documenting all the sources that support using they as a singular generic pronoun.Here's a very interesting piece examining why using he is sexist.
A Los Angeles Times article about they as a singular pronoun.

Diversions

Poll Results

*I'm not misusing the word literally here; his e-mail subject line was “Plea for help.”

Comments (168) for Generic Singular Pronouns | Subscribe to Comment

Espen Says:
6/12/2009 3:28:51 PM

I found a similar article on the topic that explains why a new pronoun can't just be added to English. http://www.brighthub.com/hubfolio/heather-marie-kosur/articles/38523.aspx I highly suggest you read this in addition to what Grammar Girl wrote.

Kathy S. Says:
6/8/2009 8:55:10 AM

So what you're saying is: if you don't want to do it correctly, dumb it down until the rest of us submit? I don't think so. Gender isn't the real issue - it's singulars and plurals. Shame on you for caving; how can you market yourself as an expert if you're willing to succumb to those who find it too cumbersome to use the language correctly?

saxtrain Says:
5/13/2009 9:14:06 PM

Why oh why have some many of us, even in our language, kowtowed to a bunch of stupid female Bolsheviks, (I refuse to call them women) most of them too ugly to catch a man, and therefore out to change the world to their Leninist likings.

Grammar Girl Says:
4/29/2009 4:40:29 PM

I found this quotation today in the OED under "neologist": 1992 Eng. Today July 59/3 "Over the past century and a half more than eighty neologists have coined common gender or epicene pronouns to fill what many people feel is a black hole in our pronoun system."

Ellen Ska. Says:
3/6/2009 1:22:38 PM

I was writing a brief book review and wanted to make a note about a character without revealing that character's gender. Here's what I settled on: "The most unlikable character was also the most realized, and though I didn't end up liking that person any better by the end, I did understand them -- completely, and much better than they understood themself." Not all writing needs to follow formal academic rules. In this case, I choose the language I would use in natural speech, where "they" is used nearly automatically as the gender-neutral singular pronoun. (When reading aloud, how does one pronounce "s/he" anyway?) If we could agree that speech has neatly solved some problems with which the written word still struggles, we have a natural answer. The rewriting of sentences to satisfy formalists doesn't contribute to the grace of the writing.

Dr. Kick Says:
3/2/2009 11:40:44 PM

It is interesting how much attention is being paid to the appearance of sexism. Were any UN-DAW or UNIFEM references checked? My karangge! as they say in Melanesia. Use whatever you are comfortable with and don't worry if some twit thinks your use of she or he makes you sexist. Just don't be sexist. Eventually things will settle down. And who knows, maybe we'll be lucky and someone will find a comfortable word for English the expresses the Fijian "okoya" which is gender neutral for 'that person'.

Brian Says:
3/2/2009 6:09:42 PM

Side-note regarding collective usage or "you": There is also the expression "y'all" (contraction of you all), which is explicitly collective, though (as with "they", etc) often assumed to be plural. This leads to confusion when it is applied toward a single person. It's a bit like "vous" in french (versus the explicitly singular "tu"), or "ye" in middle english (versus the explicitly singular "thee").

Brian Says:
3/2/2009 5:46:40 PM

They is NOT plural; it is COLLECTIVE—just as is "you" when addressing a group. Using it to refer to an abstract entity is, imhfo, entirely acceptable.

Anthony Says:
1/20/2009 12:09:03 PM

'A person who lies endangers their health' sounds wrong, but 'Someone who lies endangers their health' sounds better.

Norman Ramsey Says:
1/12/2009 10:51:52 PM

If it's too tough for the University of Chicago, then it's too tough for me. Luckily, a professor can get away with using 'he or she' in his or her writing.

a random bunny Says:
1/1/2009 12:34:32 AM

hmmm.... intresting... :p :):\ :B

Delilah Cannon Says:
12/4/2008 4:58:43 PM

I’m a little confuse do you use commas or ( )

John from Lorain Says:
11/30/2008 12:30:19 PM

I was glad to see that the majority of people reading/listening here still have the heads screwed on tightly -- and REJECT the improper use of "they/their" following a singular subject. It's just pathetic to see a supposed "authority figure" (GG) advising people to use grammatical barbarisms. Get over it! I don't mind people using "he or she" (or forms thereof), but just the generic "he" and its forms are PERFECTLY OK. Only ignoramuses and wimpish morons who kowtow to radical feminists insist on using "they" and its forms. It is as STUPID for GG to use "they/them/their" after a singular noun/pronoun as it is to say, "I is coming," or "he are going." That is why it drove me crazy to read these two statements of hers: (1) "To be clear, the problem Nolan is talking about is that nobody really knows what pronoun to use anymore when talking about a person of unknown gender." [Like hell we don't know! We DO know what pronoun to use: the one that AGREES in number -- namely, "he" (or "he or she," if one must).] (2) "But, if you are responsible to superiors, there's a good chance that at least one of them will think you are careless or ignorant if you use 'they' with a singular antecedent." [NO! They won't "think you are careless". They will KNOW that you are ignorant or a wimp, giving in to the politically correct but barbarian word police!]

jayla Says:
10/28/2008 4:25:27 PM

this is a good page

Gia Says:
10/16/2008 9:32:04 PM

I prefer "he." When I hear "she," it always sounds weird. It's like they're trying to hard to be politically correct. For some reason, political correctness ends up making everything wrong.

Kristal Says:
10/14/2008 1:18:26 AM

Why not just using someone or by letting us know of it's a she or a he why not just simply writing a girls or boy name. For example why not writing instead of "he should thank his teacher," or "she should thank her teacher,"."Jasmine should thank her teacher" or "Jason should thank his teacher". Then you'll know whether it's a girl or a boy.

Kristal Says:
10/14/2008 1:16:32 AM

Why not just using someone or by letting us know of it's a she or a he why not just simply write a girls or boy name. For example why not writing instead of "he should thank his teacher," or "she should thank her teacher,"."Jasmine should thank her teacher" or "Jason should thank his teacher". Then you'll know whether it's a girl or a boy.

Mostafa Says:
10/13/2008 3:59:53 PM

This is very intersting

Bill Ware Says:
10/7/2008 3:58:40 PM

How about "someone" and "that someone" as in "When someone encounters a difficult grammar construction, that someone should rewrite to avoid it"?

Ana Says:
9/10/2008 10:28:30 AM

why doesn't the word toy follow the pluarl rule of changing the y to i and adding es?

Sarah Says:
9/2/2008 11:53:16 PM

I am so glad to read about other people having a discussion about something I have wonder for a long time.

PaulPerrona Says:
8/27/2008 10:28:40 PM

The need for a pronoun can be avoided by using better sentence structure. For example, the sentence in the poll should read "The health of a patient who lies is endangered." The best way to avoid a pitfall is to take a better path.

Jim Says:
8/21/2008 5:02:11 PM

Grammar Girl, when you make a general statement like "You could say, "When students [plural] succeed, they should thank their teacher," should you say "they should thank their teachers [plural]?" In a general statement such as this, would we expect the readers assume all the students were in one classroom with one teacher? Perhaps it would depend on the context.

Mohan Kumar Says:
6/23/2008 11:52:40 PM

It is a good and fantasic work. Keep it up.

Pedro Says:
6/5/2008 12:43:00 PM

"When a student succeeds, one should thank the teacher." I like that better than mixing he/she with they. If I must use they, then I rather rewrite the whole sentence in plural form.

Kristin Says:
3/20/2008 12:39:17 AM

I think we ought to adopt a word from another language, or make one up, like "horshe." Then we can use "horher," which is conveniently one easy-to-say word. Plus "horshe" makes me think of "hershey," which makes me think of chocolate, which is always nice.

Jackie Says:
3/6/2008 1:44:10 PM

I can't understand what is so difficult about using 's/he'. Is it the slash and typing skills or something more psychological? It seems such an excellent, and simple, solution to me.

John Says:
2/8/2008 4:49:28 PM

It's Ok, just use they.

Cedrik Says:
1/29/2008 2:07:12 PM

I'm glad my language has a word for that situation. :D

marissa Says:
1/29/2008 10:47:26 AM

i like what you had to say

Cedrik Says:
1/17/2008 4:37:51 PM

'When a student succeeds the student should thank the teacher' Hah! I'm just silly. I get the problem. Using 'They' sounds wrong to me. Just write "he or she" and be truthful. You don't know the gender, and that's it. Then I wonder what they do in countries where the verbs are changed between feminine or masculine form, depending on gender, if they don't know the actual gender. That's even more troublesome.

jvc Says:
1/12/2008 5:34:06 AM

nice!

Alison Says:
1/10/2008 4:37:36 AM

I absolutely admire your site and your tips are incredibly helpful. While I was reading this I noticed a grammatical mistake and please correct me if I'm wrong. In the example you gave at the beginning you wrote "he or she should thanks his or her teacher," And I just thought shouldn't it be "he or she should thank his or her teacher"? Shouldn't it be thank instead of thanks?

Assistant to Grammar Girl Says:
1/10/2008 12:00:00 AM

Alison, Thank you for noticing the typo. We have corrected the error.

hadi Says:
1/5/2008 6:49:51 AM

i want to start for learn english plz tell ne how i cam stat but not have money i want to learn bye my self plz tell me how i can start thanks

Tom Storer Says:
1/3/2008 8:31:28 AM

I just stumbled upon this very absorbing site and have been reading it instead of working. Thank you! I always rewrite or use "he or she"; singular "they" is not in the company style guide largely because I wouldn't allow it. I understand the reasoning behind it and I agree the language is likely to evolve to make it a non-controversial solution, but it hasn't evolved that far yet. When I read singular "they" I always notice it, feel that it is inaccurate, and wince. However, ruling it out of the style guide is clearly a choice rather than a necessity. The page on the Canberra Society of editors site that you link to makes that clear. Reading through it, I did notice that some instances did not make me grit my teeth: when the antecedent is "whoever," "everyone," or "everybody," I find "they" doesn't bother me, probably because those words, while undeniably grammatically singular, nonetheless often refer to groups of people, at least potentially. "Whoever was responsible for this grave deed" doesn't necessarily refer to one individual, since several could have collaborated; "when the fire alarm rang, everyone ran out of the building" conjures up an image of mass flight; similarly, "everybody was delighted when the results were announced" evokes a smiling crowd. When the antecedent is "a person" or "someone" the singularity is more pronounced and therefore clashes with "they". Other comments on the comments below: Kriss, on 1/22/2007, objected to using "that" when it can be dropped, as in "all the guides that I checked" vs. "all the guides I checked," and brought Hemingway along to back her up. I'll just point out that if you're writing for translation, as technical writers often do, those pronouns should absolutely be left in. As grammatical markers they aid translators by eliminating any possible syntactical ambiguity. Translation, especially for large amounts of documentation, is often farmed out to large firms who work fast and dirty (dirtily?) to keep prices down, and it's worth the effort to make the source language as idiot-proof as possible. Michael Ward, on 1/24/2007, was skeptical about the possibility of rewriting "If someone has asked you out to dinner, and it is not someone with whom you have a long history, then I think he or she should at least offer to treat you," so I had to give it a try: "If someone has asked you out to dinner, and it is not someone with whom you have a long history, then at least you should not be asked to pay your own check [substitute "bill" outside the US]." OK, passive voice and not entirely explicit, but there's little chance the reader will be confused. (In French the verb "inviter" means "invite at the host's expense." "Je vous invite" means "it's on me." Very handy.)

JamesBond007 Says:
11/25/2007 11:52:05 PM

What's wrong with saying “O” for the numeral zero? Agent double zero seven or agent double naught seven. Hmm... how does that sound?

Editor Bob Says:
11/23/2007 3:12:43 PM

I just found your site, and I admire your bravery. Grammar, usage and writing are minefields. From an admittedly brief reading I have some points of disagreement (boom! boom! the mines are going off). 1. He-They. The real problem is confusion about who "they" refers to. Did one person (the patient)suddenly become a crowd (they)? In nearly every case, a re-casting of the sentence solves the PC-whiners' sexism complaint without adding confusion. 2. Thirty-eight. If only for a moment, the gun had a name, "Thirty-Eight." If the hero was simply describing the gun, "thirty-eight" or ".38" would be correct. 3. Brackets. A quick look at my 15th edition of CMS suggests(p. 267)that square brackets surrounding italicized text should not themselves be italicized. One of your comments in this section incorrectly italized the brackets. 4. I feel you overuse the word "lot" to mean "many," "often," "frequently," "a great number of," and so forth. Of course, if we are talking about the lot on which our house sits, that's a different matter. As a final comment, your writing would be easier to read and more energetic if the sentences that use "and" to connect two ideas were broken into separate sentences.

Rachel Says:
11/15/2007 4:47:01 AM

I like that, Ran! I also think that sexism is only a worry when there is a risk of gender exploitation related to the use (usually due to entrenched practice) - I can't see that using "she" will produce this. English-language philosophers have been using "she" for about 15-20 years (?) and it has become the norm. So if you are writing for a philosophy journal, use "she".

DeeDee Says:
11/7/2007 8:10:53 AM

There is the alternative word that could be considered if it could get past being considered more of a slang term. The word is Ze and is defined in the UrbanDictionary at the following link: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ze

Grammar Girl Says:
8/10/2007 5:33:47 AM

No, there's no reason to capitalize "thirty-eight."

Bob Morgan Says:
8/9/2007 12:41:46 AM

What would be the proper capitalization on this sentence? "I jerked my Thirty-Eight out and let fly with hot lead." it's from my novel and I've never known whether or not "Thirty-Eight" is supposed to be capitalized or not. Please let me know. Thank You very much. B.L.Morgan Author or Blood and Rain

Amanda Martinez Says:
6/21/2007 12:30:37 AM

I would like help with english(grammar) nouns, pronouns etc.

Irina Says:
6/20/2007 5:12:33 PM

Hi, I have two questions for you please: 1.When I send the email and I attach the file I always wonder what is the best correct way to write: "attached please find the file" or "please see the attached file" or something else? 2.I can understand the phrase "please find the attached ...", but I can not understand the phrase "attached please find...", can you please explain to me why is it built like that and what exactly it is meaning? Thank you very much

wex Says:
5/14/2007 5:05:15 PM

in chinese, we do not have gender-based pronouns. "ta" is a blanket pronoun that denotes he, she, and it. "ta de" = his, her, its. "ta men" = they, them. and etc. simplicity

wex Says:
5/14/2007 4:52:43 PM

i have no compunctions about being archaic. "one" is my solution of choice, but dad (english professor) and i (unoriginal, yet inspired english major) like to concoct our own stand-ins, such as heshe and hiser.

John Says:
5/8/2007 2:59:32 PM

none:

http://www.bartleby.com/61/82/N0138200.html

"... the word has been used as both a singular and a plural noun from Old English onward. The plural usage appears in the King James Bible as well as the works of John Dryden and Edmund Burke and is widespread in the works of respectable writers today. Of course, the singular usage is perfectly acceptable. The choice between a singular or plural verb depends on the desired effect."

Lisa Says:
5/8/2007 3:38:12 AM

Here's another pronoun issue. I've taught out of several different books which conflict -- which I'll attribute to the changing nature of language. What would be your preference: to use "none" as a singular or plural indefinite pronoun? In discussing subject/verb agreement and pronoun/antecedent agreement, some books say it's always singular (e.g., "None of the penguins keeps his promises."); some say to depend on the object of the preposition that follows it (e.g., "None of cupcakes were crushed under the pile of books.") Any thoughts?

John Says:
5/1/2007 5:25:22 PM

There is nothing wrong with "they" and "their" with a singular antecedent. It is not a new use, and it is not a mistake. It has been part of standard English for 500 years. Merriam-Webster’s Concise Dictionary of English says “[Uses of singular they] are uses following a normal pattern in English that was established four centuries before the 18th-century grammarians invented the solecism. The plural pronoun is one solution devised by native speakers of English to a grammatical problem inherent in that language - and it is by no means the worst solution.”

And every one to rest themselves betake - Shakespeare, The Rape of Lucrece, 1594

'Tis meet that some more audience than a mother,?Since nature makes them partial, should o'erhear?The speech - Shakespeare, Hamlet, 1601

Nobody here seems to look into an Author, ancient or modern, if they can avoid it - Lord Byron, letter, 12 Nov 1805

I would have everybody marry if they can do it properly - Jane Austen, Mansfield Park, 1814

A person can't help their birth - WM Thackeray, Vanity Fair, 1848

...every fool can do as they're bid - Jonathan Swift, Polite Conversation, 1738

John Says:
5/1/2007 5:15:52 PM

This is not true. "Ye" and "you" were forms (nominative and oblique respectively) of the plural second person pronoun. The singular second person pronoun was "thou."

John Says:
5/1/2007 5:15:52 PM

This is not true. "Ye" and "you" were forms (nominative and oblique respectively) of the plural second person pronoun. The singular second person pronoun was "thou."

Grammar Girl Says:
4/29/2007 7:52:42 PM

When you enclose something in parentheses it generally means that the statement is more of an "aside" comment than when you set it off with commas.

dennis Says:
4/28/2007 9:48:36 PM

Thank you Czak you are exactly right...

TJ Says:
4/28/2007 1:57:20 AM

Several years ago I told my students I expected to see they instead of s/he within ten years. Judging from the writing I see produced by other teachers and other adults outside our school setting, I think we are close to the shift. In our spoken language, they has even greater prevalence. Unless someone comes up with a new gender neutral they is our only pc choice.

eduart Says:
4/27/2007 11:45:03 PM

do you use commas or ()

Barb, the Media Specialist Says:
4/17/2007 12:36:45 AM

Please! I'd much rather use the traditional "he" than go against all those years in Catholic schools, and use incorrect grammatical structure. I'm as liberated as any female, but I believe in traditional, by-the-book style of communicating, in other words, using "he," when the situation arises. Really, how often do we come across that problem?

carl sanders Says:
4/16/2007 10:01:27 PM

I use "he" or "one". "she" just doesn't sound right to me.

Anne Says:
4/13/2007 2:19:19 PM

I like this thought. I too have heard of the convention that the gender coincide with that of the author, but I certainly do have any sources to back up that premise.

Anonymous Says:
4/9/2007 10:58:14 PM

LOOSERS!!!

Eden Says:
4/6/2007 11:40:10 PM

I have always used he/she when I am writing but if I am just talking to my friends or I am on they phone with someone and I am not paying attention I would just use 'they'. From Eden of Ontario Canada, (12)

grace Says:
4/4/2007 3:03:34 AM

i don't think is the pernonciation is wrong (personally). i thinks is all about how you spell it. some peoples biggest pronunciation is how to spell or the meaning behind the word/ have same word but have different meaning which irritates me. you believe what you WANT to believe..

Grammar Girl Says:
4/4/2007 2:51:24 AM

A tip-of-the-day calendar is on my list of things to do, but I have to write my book first!

Girl Says:
4/4/2007 2:50:15 AM

noo-klee-er

Candice Says:
4/4/2007 2:40:34 AM

Would love to see a one-a-day calendar with grammar tips. If there isn't one already, it would be great if you would create one. That way, every day, I (and others) could get a grammar tip in small, evenly-spaced doses. Not too much at one time, yet it would keep grammar in the forefront of my mind.

Shelly Says:
4/4/2007 2:34:33 AM

How do YOU pronounce "nuclear"? Noo-clee-ar OR Noo-cue-lar? I believe it is the first and it is a HUGE pet peeve. I hear news anchors say "noo-cue-lar" all the time! Please set everyone straight!

grace Says:
4/3/2007 2:03:42 AM

Dear Grammmer girl, im writing to tell you that i like your web site there are alot of genres of writing tchnique... umm I'm currently attending grade 9 in St.Catherine elemantry/junoir high school and my problem is that i had to write a business letter 2weeks ago and we had our class mates edited for us but mine was given lot's of comments due to the short paragraphs(sentences)and wrong use of words.. how do i make my business letter piece be attention drawing and strong? did you ever enjoy E.L.A classes and if so can you give me some tips for such class cause i get agitated and bored easy causing me to loose focus... By the way i sawyou on OPrah tallking about compession compounds.ou were cool. but do helpe please any comment would do. =)

Fred Says:
3/30/2007 7:34:09 AM

Spelling corrected, (it's 3:30 AM), political correctness is a scourge upon American society. As far as I'm concerned, it's "he" in my writings, and it shall remain thus.

"I have got" and similiar phrases used to drive my mother, an English teacher, to distration. Me, too.

Fred Says:
3/30/2007 7:34:09 AM

Fred Says:
3/30/2007 7:27:38 AM

Absolutely. Political correctness is a scourge upon Amrican society. As far as I'm concerned, it's "he" in my writings, and it shall remain thus.

Janet Says:
3/29/2007 7:23:14 PM

Sorry... I cannot agree that it's understood mankind is understood to include women. As a child, reading this term always left me feeling alienated and left out of society. Sure, as an adult I learned differently, but by then, low self-esteem had already taken its toll. I'd rather use humankind and be less poetic, than have a sister-child feel the way I always did.

Sabina Dominguez Says:
3/28/2007 10:58:00 PM

Grammar Girl,
I've lived in the US for about 28 years and I still get stuck when I'm writing process/technical documents for my company. Could you help me understanding how to use "in" and "on" in a sentence, half of the time I don't know which one to use.

Also, sometimes I doubt when to use "I", "me" or "myself". If you already have episodes covering these subjects, please forward me the link. I've been wanting to improve my grammar for years and even thought of taking an English/Business Writing class, but never found the time. Your website is in my favorites. Hope you come out with a DVD demonstrating your episodes live. Thank you!

Sabina Dominguez Says:
3/28/2007 10:58:00 PM

Sabina Says:
3/28/2007 10:58:00 PM

Alex Says:
3/28/2007 7:48:02 PM

In the English language, can a color ever be a noun, or is it always used as an adjective (the boy is painted black and blue, etc.)? Thanks.

Grammar Girl Says:
3/27/2007 6:06:14 PM

The sentence you read is correct. "Effect" is usually a noun, but less commonly it is a verb. I had to keep things very simple and short for the TV show. (Also, I meant to say "most of the time," but I was really nervous and forgot.) I covered the topic in more detail in the podcast.

Czak Says:
3/27/2007 6:05:09 PM

That is the problem. The dictionary is always adding new words in response to widespread use, but widespread use does not make it correct. And just because the dictionary says so, doesn't mean I will use those terms

Czak Says:
3/27/2007 6:02:58 PM

If someone with whom you do not have a long history has asked you out to dinner, I believe that someone should at least offer to treat you.

Czak Says:
3/27/2007 5:57:24 PM

What are "style guides"? Perhaps we should start consulting textbooks instead. One can barely trust the dictionary anymore, as every year common vernacular is added in the form of additional "words" simply because of widely accepted use. It's ludicrous!

Czak Says:
3/27/2007 5:50:30 PM

AMEN SISTER!!!! After all, we haven't adopted the much aligned "ain't" just because many people say it and assume it's acceptable!

Czak Says:
3/27/2007 5:46:42 PM

Because "he" and "man" and the like don't always refer to women . . . but rather BOTH sexes.

Czak Says:
3/27/2007 5:43:51 PM

Well, you are wrong.

Czak Says:
3/27/2007 5:43:51 PM

Well, you are wrong.

Czak Says:
3/27/2007 5:43:51 PM

Well, you are wrong.

Czak Says:
3/27/2007 5:43:51 PM

Well, you are wrong.

Czak Says:
3/27/2007 5:42:31 PM

The point is, it doesn't make sense. It's wrong. Singular with singular, plural with plural. That's the way it goes.

Czak Says:
3/27/2007 5:41:16 PM

This is an example of awkwardness. The sentence should be rewritten altogether to read: All applicantS should list the name of their respective husband or wife."

Czak Says:
3/27/2007 5:36:17 PM

I cannot believe that anyone would suggest that using a plural pronoun with a singular antecedant is an acceptable solution for using a generic pronoun!!! To make such a grave error in the name of political correctness is truly PC run amuck! Certain phrases are simply part of the english language - such as the term MANKIND. It's understood to include women. To be offended by this is insane and should not be sufficient to justify using an incorrect PLURAL term where a singular term is dictated.

Czak Says:
3/27/2007 5:36:17 PM

Mary Says:
3/27/2007 5:01:22 PM

On Oprah show you described the difference between "affect" and "effect", and if I understood you correctly 'affect' you indicated was the verb while 'effect' was the noun. In a book am currently reading, I came across this sentence: "...With the power to effect change, he replaced all .....". While I would also use 'effect' the same way, how do you explain the usage of 'effect' in the above sentence here, based on your definition, would you have used 'affect' instead? Kindly respond ASAP. Many thanks.

georgeann Says:
3/27/2007 1:06:38 AM

I cannot get into feedback@qdnow.com so here is my question.Is this correct....It is so fun! When I hear this it is like the chalk on the blackboard. I hear it even on the news! Help!!!!!

Jacque Kindle Says:
3/13/2007 6:16:42 AM

Grammar Girl,
Thank you for doing this show. I enjoy listening your podcasts. One of my pet peeves is misuse of the word "literally." I heard a radio commercial that stated "if you take vitamins, you are literally flushing money down the toilet." I also heard a radio talk show host tell a caller "You must have felt like the world literally fell out from beneath you." Will you please talk about this. If you save just one person from making this mistake, I could kiss you, figuratively speaking. :)

Mercedes Parts Blog Says:
3/8/2007 4:27:25 AM

From that the words where invited HE is the general term to identify someone who has unknown gender. Just in the auto world they used more the Chrysler bumper than a Jeep bumper... So, i rather stick to the old term...

Steven Lytle Says:
3/6/2007 3:40:15 PM

Esperanto has the same problem as English. It has words for 'he' (li), 'she' (shi [the "h" represents an accent mark, but the word is pronounced as in English), and 'they' (ili). The masculine "li" is usually the generic pronoun, although even the inventor of Esperanto, Lazar Ludwig Zamenhof, suggested using the word for 'it' (ghi [like the first part of "jeep"]) as the generic form. Another alternative that is occasionally found in use is the nonstandard pronoun "ri", which combines "li" and "shi" into one indistinguishable pronoun. This isn't really a bad thing, since many languages, such as Finnish, Turkish, and Chinese, do the same thing. "Ri" is considered by its users to be a logical pronoun for Esperanto, which otherwise does not make gender distinctions in its pronouns. "Ili", for example, means "they", whether they are male, female, mixed, or neither (objects, for example). The other plural pronouns ("ni" for 'we' and "vi" for 'you') also make no gender distinction.

Stanley Majka Says:
3/5/2007 4:17:07 PM

I have recently returned to law school and have confronted the he/she controversy there often. Interestingly, recent casebooks (texts) have taken to using she/her/hers for most generic examples and explanations. Although that practice does draw attention, it makes me smile when I see it, and it's not a bad thing to be reminded how gender-biased we often are by default. My problem comes when a reference is cited (which happens all the time in law) like a Restatement or a particular case in which the male terms were used in the original, and that language is quoted in the midst of a female gendered paragraph. This can become especially confusing when other parties are being refered to. The text authors often change the gender of the original material within the quote (using parentheticals) or just leave it when it becomes too disturbing for both their readers and writers or involves making significant changes to the original quote like verbs and other, formerly clear references to third parties, necessitating the need to change how they are referred to (replacing "her" with "defendant," eg.). That problem is not solved by using they/them/their. I've encountered this issue when writing an office memorandum (a formal document) about negligent parental supervision of their children. I'm told that most judges and attorney-partners harshly judge (as ignorant of proper English) the mixing a singular subject with a plural posessive, let alone the requisite verb forms. The better option is to be politically incorrect, however that, too raises some hackles. All alternatives become horribly confusing when opening a paragraph with a legal rule derived from a case or statute, then following that reference with specifics from the case that illustrates the rule (usually quite gender specific), and then, using that illustration to analyze the case at issue (also gender specific). For my memo, my client was male, his child was female (his daughter), the cases I needed to cite involved various configurations of both parents, single mothers, single fathers, their son(s), daughter(s), and the Restatement of Torts (source of the law) itself, which begins, "A parent is under a duty to exercise reasonable care so to control his minor child..." I should also point out that there was a word limit, so the repeated use of his or her, he or she, took up valuable space. I was often able to repeatedly name the parties by their functional role (parent, plaintiff, defendant, child, etc) but that wasn't always possible. I finally opted to use the male pronoun as a gender neutral, when necessary, because it seemed the least confusing and most concise. Had my client been female, I believe I could have opted to use the female pronoun(s) as my standard. Perhaps, like the bilingual doctor quoted earlier in this string implies, I should try using the French or German nouns and verb forms. Does anyone know how they address this in Esperanto?

Gregg Smith Says:
3/3/2007 1:03:32 AM

Love your site. There is a perfectly simple solution to all this gender business that doesn't twist the structure of the language into a pretzel. Whenever anyone gives me any guff for saying "Each student should bring his textbook to class," I happily change it to "Each student should bring its textbook to class." It's perfect -- its the only neutral pronoun in English (French, German, Spanish and Italian aren't so lucky -- EVERYTHING has a gender) AND it solves the problem of using a plural possessive pronoun (their)with a singular antecedent. So, what's the problem?

Kristen Says:
3/2/2007 4:53:36 AM

Amen! Perhaps a greater understanding of the history of language would decrease the likelihood of feelings being hurt by "he". This construction is found in other languages and is the best choice for avoiding confusion (he/she), the obviously incorrect (they), and politics (she). I know more feel left out when I read "he" than when I read "mankind" or "men" to describe the human population.

Anonymous Says:
2/23/2007 5:06:43 PM

This was so easy to understand thank you it really helped me understand which to use and I think it may seem sexist but its not. Thank You.

Netta Says:
2/2/2007 1:39:42 PM

Eight or ten years ago the National Council of Teachers of English announced that "the singular 'they'" would now be acceptable.

stephen shields Says:
2/1/2007 2:23:39 PM

Hi Grammar Girl,

I thought you'd be interested in this:

This use of "they" is part of a raging controversy right now involving Zondervan, the publisher of the best-selling English version of the Bible, the New International Version (NIV).

A couple of years ago, they published an update to this translation called Today's New International Version . However, because they included what they called "gender-accurate" language in the TNIV - including this use of "they" - a firestorm of controversy erupted around it and the translations not been very well received in North America (though acceptance seems to be gaining). You can see this by walking into any Christian bookstore that sells Bibles. You'll typically see a ton of NIVs and only a few TNIVs. So imagine Ford having mostly 2006's on their lots and very few 2007's.

Here's their comment about this use of "they" in the forward to the TNIV:

Relative to the second of these, the so-called singular "they/their/them," which has been gaining acceptance among careful writers and which actually has a venerable place in English idiom, has been employed to fill in the vocabulary gap in generic nouns and pronouns referring to human beings.

I suspect, however, that the TNIV will grow in acceptance, particularly since Zondervan does not intend to update the NIV any further. This important piece of religious literature, therefore, could have a significant linguistic impact on North America in terms of influencing wider acceptance of this previously idiomatic use of "they."

Thanks for your podcast!

Daniel Says:
1/30/2007 7:39:21 PM

Thanks for raising this issue. It's one I confront a lot in academic writing.

I alternate between using 'he' and 'she'. So in the first full example I might use 'he' consistently over several sentences and then the next time I needed a generic pronoun for a new general statement I would use 'she' consistently. For the next one I would switch back to 'he' and so on. I've never had any complaints, and this seems to me the fairest thing to do if we can no longer accept 'he' as a generic pronoun, but we want to avoid the cumbersome mess that is 'he or she', as well as the grammatical nails-on-the-chalk-board of 'they' used as a generic singular. If the overall point we're trying to make is that the person in question might well be either male or female, why not simply assume one on one occasion and another on another occasion. That way the writing reflects the reality that we are trying to describe.

If context makes it obvious what the gender must be, I use the corresponding gender. (e.g. "The typical Roman orator began to develop _his_ skills at a young age..." because in actual fact the typical Roman orator was male.)

Also, there's one bright spot in the midst of this mess. If we need two distinct generic people in a paragraph, we can now keep them quite clear by designating one of them as 'he' and one of them as 'she'. This way we can avoid having to refer to "the first person" and "the second person."

Thoughts?

Susan B. Sharp Says:
1/28/2007 1:36:14 PM

Great site.

Michael Ward Says:
1/24/2007 9:29:45 PM

I know it was a long time ago that this subject arose, but I couldn't help noticing this bit on Mr. Manners' page:

"If someone has asked you out to dinner, and it is not someone with whom you have a long history, then I think he or she should at least offer to treat you"

I think it would be difficult to rewrite this sentence.

Althea Says:
1/24/2007 6:56:02 PM

"...men and women are still more alike then they are different?" I hope "then" is a simple typo and that you meant "than".

Erin Says:
1/23/2007 1:57:56 PM

In speech I use "they." In writing I rewrite to avoid the problem. My use of "they" is a purposeful choice because I believe it to be a perfectly acceptable option. I avoid it in writing only because some people still frown heavily on it.

My least-favorite solution is "it." In my opinion, "it" refers only to animals and inanimate objects in English. Even a lot of animals are referred to as "he" or "she," especially if they are beloved pets, so why refuse a human the same dignity?

I agree wholeheartedly with Grammar Girl that "they" may someday become an acceptable solution.

Historical Precedent: "you" and "ye"

No one even thinks about this today, but it was once incorrect to use "you" as a plural pronoun. It was exclusively singular, with "ye" used for the second person plural. I wish people still used "ye" today because it adds precision to the writing, but it is one of those words that have dropped out of usage. The plural pronoun has been replaced by what was once a singular pronoun, but I have never heard one grammar purist complaining. Face it: change happens.

Personally I think "he" is just fine as long as people understand it to be a gender-neutral pronoun, like the words "mankind" and "human" have historically been. However, this does not seem at all likely to happen, so I think the second-best choice is "they."

Oh, and one little unrelated nitpick, if I may: this podcast contains one phrase that jumped out at me and hit me in the face: "there are a variety of credible references" should be "there IS a variety of credible references." The verb goes with the singular word "variety." "Credible references" is only an object of preposition.

Thomas Says:
1/23/2007 12:29:15 AM

Free? You give gold away for free. Wow. You could make a living off a minimal subscription of 10 cents per download. I would subscribe.

Kriss Says:
1/22/2007 8:35:22 PM

As a grammar purist and a writer who is always looking for the most efficient way to communicate, may I suggest you take a hint from Ernest Hemingway and drop the superfluous use of the word 'that' in your own writing. Example: "...all of the major style guides that I checked recommend..." Hemingway felt the word 'that' was overused 90% of the time. You use 'that' a lot, and most of the time it's unnecessary. Hope you'll try it. It really cleans up copy. Another way to clean up copy (and speak/write correctly) involves the contractions I've got, you've got, he's got, etc. Take away the contractions and we're left with 'I have got', which is redundant. "I have" is sufficient. Finally, the one grammar error that drives me absolutely nuts is the mixing of plural nouns and singular verbs: There's four hundred runners; where's the dogs; there's several examples, etc. That's all. Thanks!

adem Says:
1/8/2007 6:17:35 AM

The question has been fairly well answered (though not definitively) of how to handle this situation in the case of a neutral narrator (if such a thing exists), or in the case you are writing as yourself and have to choose between one kind of correctness and another. However, for writers of fiction this choice is less about grammatical or political correctness, and more about authenticity. I think it is really great that we have so many choices for how to reveal the character of our...characters. A character who chooses to use the masculine pronoun is one kind of person (I won't say what kind, exactly), while a character who uses the plural pronoun in another kind of person, the character who used "s/he" would be unmistakable, and so on, and on, and on. And between the characters and the reader, various relationships are formed - antagonistic or sympathetic. So while my own character is more inclined to use "she or he" (I like to put "her" first because "she" has been last for so long) if rewriting is impossible, the characters in my stories have all different thoughts on the matter - and most of them really couldn't care less, so they use "they" without thinking twice.

adem Says:
1/8/2007 6:17:35 AM

adem Says:
1/8/2007 5:55:35 AM

I have a problem with "equally as good as." For heaven's sake, when you're making a point about grammatical purity, have some respect for the language.