I recently wrote an article with 2 co-authors where our editors changed our pronouns to "s/he." Is this a newly accepted gender neutral pronoun? I did find it in AHD.
I've seen it. I've used it. It's been around a while. I'd say more than a decade. I like it because many distain it. The real question is: does it count as one or two words?
I don't care for it any more than I care for the use of the plural pronoun "they" to agree with a singular and will usually re-write to avoid the problem.
Having said which, I suspect that the plural "they" will become common and replace the singular he/she, in much the same way as the plural "you" has replaced the singular "thee/thou".
Richard English
Posts: 8038 | Location: Partridge Green, West Sussex, UK
My biggest objection to s/he (apart from my belief that it's ugly) is that if you have to read out a passage containing it it's intrinsically unpronouncable and has to be replaced by one of the other forms.
I said before though that "they/their" has a long history of gender neutral singular usage and I'm a supporter of it.
"No man but a blockhead ever wrote except for money." Samuel Johnson.
Use of they as a singular gender-netural pronoun has been around since at least Chaucer's time. Is six centuries not a long enough time for something to be accepted. It is no worse than using aren't as the question form of be with the first person singular. I guess I like /she because of its virgule.
Originally posted by zmjezhd: Use of they as a singular gender-netural pronoun has been around since at least Chaucer's time. Is six centuries not a long enough time for something to be accepted.
Precisely why I like it.
"No man but a blockhead ever wrote except for money." Samuel Johnson.
The problem with using "they" is that those prescriptivists think you are ignorant about grammar. And, yes, I probably care too much about what people think. I have already have been looked at askance by our editors when I have made suggestions, based on our Wordcraft discussions. For example, I have asserted that I can end a sentence in a preposition; or that I can use the passive voice once in awhile; etc.
It doesn't matter what you say or write: prescriptivists will think you're an ignorant clod. (Not you personally, K, but all of us mere speakers and writers.) They tell us that Chaucer and Shakespeare often made grammatical mistakes. I am reminded of that famous record sketch by the Firesign Theatre: Everything You Know Is Wrong.
If you adopt s/he for writing, how do you pronounce it in speech? Or does your speech continue with the he-vs-she dilemma?
Another problem is that by any logic that requires you to use s/he, you must also devise substitute pronoun for him/her, for his/her, and for his/hers. And there things begin to get a little awkward, not to say silly. "Give himmer the hammer. It is hizzer hammer. It is hizzers." Or perhaps "Give herrim the hammer. It is herris hammer. It is hersis."
Pink fish, wordnerd. Or is that read herring? Heck, I dunno... Anyhoo, when one knows the gender, one uses "him" or "her." Only with people of ambiguous gender does the problem arise. One may say, "sh'he" without too much non-English lip and tongue contortion.
I know a lot of people, including Wordcrafters, think that he/she is awful. I don't mind it at all and will use it from time to time. However, I agree with Richard that often I will just try to reword the sentence.
While I don't like s/he, I did find the following about s/he in the OED:
"1977 Gay News 24 Mar. 6/3 The questionnaire asks congregations whether they would call a minister to their pulpit if s/he were gay. 1978 Amer. Educator Winter 65 A child's sexual orientation is determined before s/he enters school. 1982 Benedicta! Fall 13 Can s/he figure out your address?"