February 12, 2004

Gender-Neutrality

Posted by Brian

I hadn’t noticed this before, but Mark Kleiman has on his website a fun collection of aphorisms he co-collated with David Chu-wen Hsia. I normally stay away from aphorisms because they remind me of Wittgenstein and anything that reminds me of Wittgenstein makes me irritated, but there’s some good stuff here. What I really wanted to comment on though was the following.

Masculine pronouns, and “man” for “human being,” occur throughout. English needs neuter personal pronouns, but currently lacks them. We can’t do much about that now without great loss of force. (Those who doubt this sad fact are urged to try their hands at gender-neutralizing “Greater love hath no man than this: that he lay down his life for his friends.”) Our apologies to those offended.

That’s not the hardest challenge I’ve seen today. This isn’t a perfect translation into gender-neutral language, but it’s pretty close.

No person has greater love than to lay down their life for their friends.

People who think ‘they’ is invariably a plural pronoun won’t like this, but they’re wrong for both etymological and ordinary language reasons.

Posted on February 12, 2004 07:39 PM UTC
Comments

As long as you’re permitting “they”, my ear would
prefer:

Greater love hath no one than that they lay down their life for a friend.(The original was singular and to my ear that does sound stronger than plural.)

Posted by rams · February 12, 2004 08:15 PM

Mark plays a somewhat unfair game here. The prose of the King James Bible isn’t just good — for English prose, it’s part of the definition of good, part of the frame of reference against which we read any prose at all. So any translation from Jacobean to another idiom will sound like a loss.

That said, we can point to some specific features of the original which could be duplicated in your version. For example, the focusing of attention on “this”, which is perhaps redundant but undeniably part of the magic of the original.

Posted by Vance Maverick · February 12, 2004 08:22 PM

There’s also a slight cheat in using the archaic “hath” in a familiar quote to slide over the nonstandard nature of the grammatical construction. Brian’s version should not be compared with the original but with

“No man has greater love than this …”

I would use “No-one” rather than “No person”, and stick with “they” in the second clause.

Posted by John Quiggin · February 12, 2004 08:27 PM

Of course I should have used no one rather than no person. That sounds much better.

Posted by Brian Weatherson · February 12, 2004 08:37 PM

I’m still not sold on ‘they.’ It was built into me in high school, and it simply sounds offensive at this point. My ear twitches.

Posted by todd. · February 12, 2004 08:52 PM

I, for one, welcome singular Roman numeric pronouns.

Posted by nnyhav · February 12, 2004 10:51 PM

Never mind the clanging usage of “their”; your translation is nearly unintelligible apart from that.

“No person has greater hunger than to eat breakfast.”

“No one knows freedom better than to fly an airplane.”

See what I’m getting at? The infinitive form of any verb does not know freedom, or have hunger or love. Your usage is defensible*, barely, but it’s still lazy and mean.

* “[The infinitive form] functions as a substantive while retaining certain verbal characteristics…”

Posted by dipnut · February 12, 2004 10:58 PM

Dipnut, I know the sentence I came up with is pretty non-standard, but so is the original. It’s not like “Greater love hath no one than this: that they lay down their life for their friend,” or a gender-specific version thereof, is exactly standard English.

Posted by Brian Weatherson · February 13, 2004 04:52 AM

English does have a neuter personal pronoun pronoun - it’s “one”. Although “Greater love hath no-one than this: that one lay down one’s life for one’s friends” lacks a certain amount of poetry, it’s still correct and gender-non-specific.

Posted by Rich · February 13, 2004 03:13 PM

I think James Thurber nailed the problem with “one” as a neuter personal pronoun:
‘The chief objection to a consistent, or “cross-country” use of “one” is that it tends to make a sentence sound like a trombone solo - such as: “One knows one’s friends will help one if one is in trouble, or at least one trusts one’s friends will help one.” Even though this is correct, to the point of being impeccable, there is no excuse for it. The “one” enthusiast should actually take up the trombone and let it go at that.’
Read, as they say, the whole thing.

Posted by Matt Weiner · February 13, 2004 04:12 PM

Personally, I prefer the use of ‘one’ and infinitives, as follows: “Greater love hath none than this: to lay down ones life for ones friends.” But even then, I’ve never myself had a problem with somebody using ‘they’ as an epiciene pronoun.

Posted by Keith Gaughan · February 13, 2004 05:21 PM

I like to use “she” and “her” in a universal sense. Male pronouns got used for so long, so now we can switch. And it’s more pleasing than “he or she” or “they.”

Posted by Anne C. · February 13, 2004 09:22 PM

Take, for instance, the quote by the immortal Jack Nicholson:

“People who talk in metaphors should shampoo my crotch.”

….perfect gender neutrality.

Posted by John Avelis Jr. · February 14, 2004 12:20 PM
Followups

→ Beltway Traffic Jam.
Excerpt: The trip inside the Beltway and back went quite smoothly. One thing about DC area traffic is that, absent accidents and major weather events, it’s...Read more at Outside the Beltway
→ A couple of things....
Excerpt: My new arrived today and I'm too excited mucking around with it to think straight, but here are a couple...Read more at scribblingwoman
→ Gender-Neutral.
Excerpt: Brian gives a gender-neutral translation of "Greater love hath no man than this: that he lay down his life for his friend." (His main point is that "they" can be used as a singular.) In comments, Rich suggests using "one"...Read more at Opiniatrety

This discussion has been closed. Thanks to everyone who contributed.