The Innovative Usage Thread

[Matrix]

English doesn't have a gender-neutral pronoun that is not inanimate and there are historical reasons for that.

Are you seriously so stupid? We've been telling you that English has had a gender-neutral singular pronoun for hundreds of years now. It's called "they". Are you seriously so full of yourself that you're not going to believe what the native speakers of a language tell you about that language? Get the fuck over yourself, you pompous twat.

[jal]

Are you seriously so stupid? (...) Get the fuck over yourself, you pompous twat.

Yes, he is seriously that stupid, but that has been established a long time ago. I don't think however, that using swearwords is the right approach to educating him about the error of his ways. I've linked, as a response to the same post, some Google articles that may add to his knowledge. He hasn't called in here since, so I'd advise giving him the oportunity to see the error of his ways.


JAL

[Viktor77]

Ok, this product has bothered me ever since I first saw it in stores. Would you say "Alcohol is in it?" like this? There's nothing wrong with the sentence but I wouldn't say this. I'd say, "Contains alcohol" but the way it's phased now really sounds like Engrish to me.

[linguoboy]

"Contains alcohol" sound legalese. If I wanted a colloquial version, I'd say, "It's got alcohol in it!"

[ol bofosh]

Or "It has alcohol!"

[alynnidalar]

"Alcohol is in it" sounds awkward to me, but I can't put my finger on why...

"With alcohol!" or "full of alcohol!" or something that like that might be more casual sounding.

[sirdanilot]

Contains alcohol sounds fine to me, and not overly formal. Is 'contain' such a formal word in English?

Dutch: 'bevat alcohol' (contains alcohol). 'Er zit alcohol in' (there's alcohol in it) would be very stupid to put on a package, though it is what you would say in spoken language. (note that Dutch prefers to use positionals, such as zit 'sit' here, rather than a form of the verb 'to be')

[ol bofosh]

As Linguoboy says, it sounds legalese. The packaging tries to express it in familiar terms. "Contains alcohol" would be something you find in the small print, not on the packaging to make something look cool and trendy.

[jal]

Which is why I find that package disturbing: they advertise their product solely based on alcoholic content.


JAL

[Viktor77]

As Linguoboy says, it sounds legalese. The packaging tries to express it in familiar terms. "Contains alcohol" would be something you find in the small print, not on the packaging to make something look cool and trendy.

I'd be ok with "Contains alcohol!" But "Contains alchol" is ok here to me simply because I expect an announcement like this to be a legalese disclaimer, not a method of advertising. But if they must advertise like this then it has to be something different. "Alcohol is in it" is jarring. I think it's the "it" that doesn't sit well with me.

[linguoboy]

"Alcohol is in it" is jarring. I think it's the "it" that doesn't sit well with me.

For me it's definitely the fact that alcohol is topicalised. That's why I have no problem with "There's alcohol in it!"

[Viktor77]

"Alcohol is in it" is jarring. I think it's the "it" that doesn't sit well with me.

For me it's definitely the fact that alcohol is topicalised. That's why I have no problem with "There's alcohol in it!"

See, I could handle that if a bartender said it to me, but I still can't deal with the pronoun. It just sounds clunky. The whole of that prepositonal phrase needs to be dropped for me. Of course "There's alcohol" is also not good form. I just need would prefer a topicalized verb, "Includes alcohol!" "Contains alcohol!" "Has alcohol!" (The last one is a bit odd. Perhaps "It's got alcohol!")

[Neon Fox]

"Alcohol is in it" is jarring. I think it's the "it" that doesn't sit well with me.

For me it's definitely the fact that alcohol is topicalised. That's why I have no problem with "There's alcohol in it!"

See, I could handle that if a bartender said it to me, but I still can't deal with the pronoun. It just sounds clunky. The whole of that prepositonal phrase needs to be dropped for me. Of course "There's alcohol" is also not good form. I just need would prefer a topicalized verb, "Includes alcohol!" "Contains alcohol!" "Has alcohol!" (The last one is a bit odd. Perhaps "It's got alcohol!")

My first impulse is to say "Alcoholic!", but these days the adjectival use of that word is dropping out.

[echt]

The packaging is as odd as the usage. Since when are alcoholic beverages sold in plastic bags? If they want to tell me it's not just a mix, I don't have to put my own liquor in it, they shouldn't use language. They should put it in a bottle. That said, I agree that topicalizing "alcohol" is what makes it sound weird. Of course alcohol is going to be involved in a strawberry daiquiri somehow, whether it's in the package already or you have to mix the contents of the package with your own booze. I can't think of anything that sounds better, though. "Already includes alcohol"? "Boozy contents"?

[TaylorS]

Using they in a singular way is stupid, so I don't use it. IF you must be gender neutral, use he/she, as this is done in all sorts of publications anyway (at least they do it in Dutch, hij/zij).

Swedish now also has this gender-neutral pronoun thing, and of course because Sweden is so incredibly progressive the thing actually does get some usage and then of course it may have some merit if it's here around to stay.

I never heard of efforts for a gender-neutral pronoun in Dutch, incidentally. Because we already have 'het' as a gender-neutral pronoun, hahahahaha. But of course that has negative connotations. We sometimes use it jokingly if we cannot discern the gender of a person (not with people who actually have trouble with that, don't worry we are not such assholes).

Singular They has been a normal part of English SINCE THE LATE MIDDLE AGES!!! Chaucer used it!

[احمکي ارش-ھجن]

Here, folks, we see a non-native speaker who thinks he knows more than a native-speaker...

[jal]

Here, folks, we see a non-native speaker who thinks he knows more than a native-speaker...

True, but we kinda moved on after scolding Sir D. for pages on end. I think he learned his lesson.


JAL

[sirdanilot]

now now

[Imralu]

now now

Haha, I first read that as a slightly ominous "for now".

Anyway, just curious, sirdanilot, let's say you're in an English speaking setting and you're leaving a classroom and you see that somebody has left their phone behind and you wish to mention this to someone, what would you personally say? You have no idea whether the owner of the phone is male or female. Would you say "his", "his or her" or something else? I'm a native English speaker and, bugger the stupid prescriptive rules - as far as I'm concerned, saying his is ungrammatical and his or her is poor style. I'd say around 99% of all native English speakers would use their in this sentence and all of those who wouldn't would probably find clause-final prepositions an abomination up with which they simply will not put.

[sirdanilot]

I would use 'his', as that is what you would say in Dutch, and English is my L2 so I will often calque Dutch structures into my English.

Iemand heeft z'n telefoon laten liggen (somebody has left his telephone (lying, remember in Dutch you always have to specifiy the position of the object)

Perhaps Dutch is a little bit better in this regard, haha. *iemand heeft hun telefoon laten liggen using a plural pronoun would be completely off.

[Grunnen]

I would use 'his', as that is what you would say in Dutch, and English is my L2 so I will often calque Dutch structures into my English.

Iemand heeft z'n telefoon laten liggen (somebody has left his telephone (lying, remember in Dutch you always have to specifiy the position of the object)

Perhaps Dutch is a little bit better in this regard, haha. *iemand heeft hun telefoon laten liggen using a plural pronoun would be completely off.

Could you, using objective rational arguments, make a case Dutch would be 'better' because of this use of 'zijn' instead of e.g. 'hun'?

[sirdanilot]

Of course no language is better than any other. But using a plural pronoun for plural things, and a singular pronoun for singular things seems much more logical and easy to learn (for L2 learners) to me than using a plural pronoun (their) for something singular.

[Matrix]

seems much more logical and easy to learn

Since when are natlangs anything like these?

[sirdanilot]

They don't have to be, but throughout history languages that seem more logical have been regarded more. Latin and Sanskrit as the ultimate, elegant, sophisticated languages.

[jal]

Latin and Sanskrit as the ultimate, elegant, sophisticated languages.

That seems to imply that other languages should strive to be like Latin and Sanskrit?


JAL