This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/25/indeterminate-masculine-pronouns-ernest-gowers

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
We need to talk about indeterminate masculine pronouns We need to talk about indeterminate masculine pronouns
(about 20 hours later)
The German language is reportedly considering simplifying its gender articles, like English has. But though we may be ahead on that one, questions of grammar and gender can still fox us too. The German language is reportedly considering simplifying its gender articles, as English has. But though we may be ahead on that one, questions of grammar and gender can still fox us too.
When I set about revising Plain Words, the guide to English usage by my great-grandfather, Ernest Gowers, I soon realised that applying the book's own principles to the job would require me to eliminate from its pages all uses of the indeterminate masculine pronoun. I was under orders to preserve the vintage charm of the original; but a writing guide must demonstrate what it is attempting to explain, and the most famous maxim in Plain Words is "be short, be simple, be human". In the 21st century, "he" used to mean "he or she" is annoying to so many people that it no longer qualifies as "human"– or charming. Tennyson, for his own reasons, explained this pithily: "Friend, man-woman is not woman-man."When I set about revising Plain Words, the guide to English usage by my great-grandfather, Ernest Gowers, I soon realised that applying the book's own principles to the job would require me to eliminate from its pages all uses of the indeterminate masculine pronoun. I was under orders to preserve the vintage charm of the original; but a writing guide must demonstrate what it is attempting to explain, and the most famous maxim in Plain Words is "be short, be simple, be human". In the 21st century, "he" used to mean "he or she" is annoying to so many people that it no longer qualifies as "human"– or charming. Tennyson, for his own reasons, explained this pithily: "Friend, man-woman is not woman-man."
This left me with an interesting experiment on my hands. How hard would it be to remove the generic "he" from the book while somehow preserving Ernest's voice? After all, not only is the text full of references to "the reader, he" and "the writer, he", but, as it prowls around Whitehall, "the official, he" and "the minister, he" as well. And let us not forget, as the book surely doesn't, "the man in the street".This left me with an interesting experiment on my hands. How hard would it be to remove the generic "he" from the book while somehow preserving Ernest's voice? After all, not only is the text full of references to "the reader, he" and "the writer, he", but, as it prowls around Whitehall, "the official, he" and "the minister, he" as well. And let us not forget, as the book surely doesn't, "the man in the street".
At least I did not doubt that Ernest would approve of the change. Even when he wrote Plain Words, six decades ago, he was describing the supposedly neutral "he" as merely the best shift available "for the present". And in 1965, when he revised Fowler's Modern English Usage, he quoted the following sentence to demonstrate the problem: "There must be opportunity for the individual boy or girl to go as far as his keenness and ability will take him." So far, so ridiculous. But what was I going to do about it?At least I did not doubt that Ernest would approve of the change. Even when he wrote Plain Words, six decades ago, he was describing the supposedly neutral "he" as merely the best shift available "for the present". And in 1965, when he revised Fowler's Modern English Usage, he quoted the following sentence to demonstrate the problem: "There must be opportunity for the individual boy or girl to go as far as his keenness and ability will take him." So far, so ridiculous. But what was I going to do about it?
Simon Heffer, in Strictly English, declares that he will stick to what he calls "the old rule", because to plaster his work with "he or she" would represent "tedious verbosity", and to use "them" instead is "abominable". He adds consolingly: "This implies no offence to my women readers." But really, how consoled does he expect them to be when the options he dismisses are not the only ones available to him?Simon Heffer, in Strictly English, declares that he will stick to what he calls "the old rule", because to plaster his work with "he or she" would represent "tedious verbosity", and to use "them" instead is "abominable". He adds consolingly: "This implies no offence to my women readers." But really, how consoled does he expect them to be when the options he dismisses are not the only ones available to him?
Kingsley Amis, in The King's English, says that he gets around the difficulty by falling back on plurals or passives, or if necessary by recasting entire sentences – because he is a coward. Hurrah, except that he often forgot to be cowardly: the grammarian, the public figure, the writer of letters to the newspaper, "somebody": all end up as "he".Kingsley Amis, in The King's English, says that he gets around the difficulty by falling back on plurals or passives, or if necessary by recasting entire sentences – because he is a coward. Hurrah, except that he often forgot to be cowardly: the grammarian, the public figure, the writer of letters to the newspaper, "somebody": all end up as "he".
There is yet another approach, exemplified by Steven Poole in his book Unspeak, in which the author attempts to even things up with the occasional remark such as that the reader "may not care to hold her breath". I don't know about this, but find myself thinking that if it is wrong to neglect your cat, you do not greatly improve matters by occasionally remembering to neglect your dog instead.There is yet another approach, exemplified by Steven Poole in his book Unspeak, in which the author attempts to even things up with the occasional remark such as that the reader "may not care to hold her breath". I don't know about this, but find myself thinking that if it is wrong to neglect your cat, you do not greatly improve matters by occasionally remembering to neglect your dog instead.
Both Amis and Heffer heap derision on those illiterates who do not make the effort to write well (with explanations of what this might mean). Yet neither stooped to making an effort where it did not suit him to bother. I, however, definitely was going to bother. But I was limited by not wanting to change any single sentence of a revised Plain Words into something I thought my great-grandfather could never have written. This ruled out "he or she" except in emergencies (there wasn't one), and definitively ruled out a generic "she". It also put paid to the singular "they", which, even as it promises to solve one difficulty, creates another. (Consider this sentence, taken from the Guardian: "Were you hiring a manager for a small chain of discreet luxury business hotels, you would want them to look like Tony Gilroy." Quoi?)Both Amis and Heffer heap derision on those illiterates who do not make the effort to write well (with explanations of what this might mean). Yet neither stooped to making an effort where it did not suit him to bother. I, however, definitely was going to bother. But I was limited by not wanting to change any single sentence of a revised Plain Words into something I thought my great-grandfather could never have written. This ruled out "he or she" except in emergencies (there wasn't one), and definitively ruled out a generic "she". It also put paid to the singular "they", which, even as it promises to solve one difficulty, creates another. (Consider this sentence, taken from the Guardian: "Were you hiring a manager for a small chain of discreet luxury business hotels, you would want them to look like Tony Gilroy." Quoi?)
When I got down to it, my job of translation was a massive slog. But Ernest uses direct address ("you, the reader"), plurals ("officials, they"), and some passives, so I spread these around a little more. I also did what Amis advises and simply recast certain sentences.When I got down to it, my job of translation was a massive slog. But Ernest uses direct address ("you, the reader"), plurals ("officials, they"), and some passives, so I spread these around a little more. I also did what Amis advises and simply recast certain sentences.
Was the challenge overwhelming? Well, no. The single phrase it pained me most to change came in an unusually vulnerable note of Ernest's about why a writer, specifically a bureaucrat, might wish to come over as human, and even perhaps almost "quite a good chap". The best neutral substitute for "chap" seemed to me to be "sort", but I worried that this word lowered the temperature of the phrase. I worried a lot. Only in an insomniac fuss one night did it strike me that I could balance things by raising the temperature of "quite good". So it is that Plain Words now speaks of why a writer might wish to come over as perhaps almost "rather a decent sort". This is of course old-fashioned, but I hope in a good way.Was the challenge overwhelming? Well, no. The single phrase it pained me most to change came in an unusually vulnerable note of Ernest's about why a writer, specifically a bureaucrat, might wish to come over as human, and even perhaps almost "quite a good chap". The best neutral substitute for "chap" seemed to me to be "sort", but I worried that this word lowered the temperature of the phrase. I worried a lot. Only in an insomniac fuss one night did it strike me that I could balance things by raising the temperature of "quite good". So it is that Plain Words now speaks of why a writer might wish to come over as perhaps almost "rather a decent sort". This is of course old-fashioned, but I hope in a good way.