Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13
  1. #1
    Mike Epstein Guest

    Default "Hu," from "human," as a pronoun

    In our class on the future of the humanities (at Emory) we are using "hu",
    a clipping from "human", as a 3rd person gender-neutral pronoun. It is
    pronounced [hju:], like "hu" in "human". Its brevity and morphological
    structure (one open syllable: a consonant + a vowel) make it similar to
    other personal pronouns -- a typical, easily recognizable member of this
    class: he - she - hu. It is truly neutral and has no artificial flavor, as some
    other candidates to the rank of a NEW PRONOUN, such as "o, et, han, na,"
    etc. The motivation -- the genderless HUman--is always implied in "hu"'s
    usage. "Hu" belongs to the category of back-clippings, in which an element
    or elements are taken from the end of a word: flu (influenza) lab(oratory),
    math(ematics), ad(vertisement), piano(forte), and condo(minium). Endings
    with an open syllable, like in "hu", are ordinary in such clippings as flu,
    piano, condo...

    As a sound pattern, "hu" is closest to the only other genderless, singular,
    person-related English pronoun: the interrogative "who". Both pronouns are
    naturally drawn to each other by rhyming and communicational contexts, as
    a question and the answer: [hu:]? - [hju:]. "Hu" designates precisely that
    generic, un-gendered HUman to whom the question "who?" is addressed.
    Thus the answer is prompted by the question itself. Who? - Hu.

    The derivative forms of "hu": reflexive "huself," [ [hju:self], possessive
    "hu's" [hju:z], and objective "hu'm" [hju:m]. At the first stages of usage, an
    apostrophe may be inserted to clarify the pronunciation, but then (') may
    be conveniently dropped, as there is no "hus" in English, and it's difficult
    to confuse contextually "hu'm" with "hum" [ham] (murmuring sound).

    Examples:

    Anyone who believes that hu has a conflict of interests should not serve as
    an investigator.

    When the lecturer arrives, hu will be speaking on the topic of anonymity.

    An employee may choose to cover only huself and hu's child or any number
    of children.

    If a person introduces huself to you using hu's patronymic, use it to
    address hu'm as a sign of respect.

    The vice-president shall support the president and take the place when hu
    is in absence.

    * * *
    How does it sound to you? Ready to use it? Any pros and contras?

    Mike Epstein

  2. #2
    Red5 is offline Webmaster, UsingEnglish.com
    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • Interested in Language
      • Native Language:
      • British English
      • Home Country:
      • England
      • Current Location:
      • England
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    3,392
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Interesting.
    Red5
    Webmaster, UsingEnglish.com

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    12,970
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: "Hu," from "human," as a pronoun

    Mike, that's really cool!

    Years ago when I was a grad student in the faculty of linguistics, we joked about changing he/she to [i:slae'shi], a kind of Bronx, if you will, slang. As I mentioned, we joked about it--it being a heated debate amongst theoretical linguists at the time.

    I know there's been a great deal written on the subject since then. But way back in the days, I remember [hju] was rejected down right, given its semantic association to a male first name: "Hugh" [hju] :wink:

    By the way, what's wrong with using 'their' instead of s/he? It's economical: It's already in the system. Native speakers use it. The pronoun [hju], on the other hand, posses problems (i.e. the homophonous forms "who", "hu", and, lest we forget the ever present real human "Hugh").

    Adopting [hju] is interesting but, in terms of how systems work, it's not very economical. It adds more problems than solutions.

    All the best,

    Cas (Hughman) :)

  4. #4
    Mike Epstein Guest

    Default Re: "Hu," from "human," as a pronoun

    Quote Originally Posted by Casiopea
    Mike, that's really cool!
    I remember [hju] was rejected down right, given its semantic association to a male first name: "Hugh" [hju] :wink:

    By the way, what's wrong with using 'their' instead of s/he? It's economical: It's already in the system. Native speakers use it. The pronoun [hju], on the other hand, posses problems (i.e. the homophonous forms "who", "hu", and, lest we forget the ever present real human "Hugh").

    Adopting [hju] is interesting but, in terms of how systems work, it's not very economical. It adds more problems than solutions.

    All the best,

    Cas (Hughman) :)
    I'll respond point by point to some objections.
    1. "Hu" is omophonic with the name Hugh.
    --I don't think there will be much confusion about it: Hugh meets only
    once in 1666 males; the name's popularity rank in the U.S. is #254. Even
    more popular proper names are safe from their common name doubles.
    Nobody confuses Ann with the article "an," or Nick with a small cut, or
    Rick with a stack of hay.

    2. "Hu" [hju:] may be confused with "who" [hu:].
    --The phonetic distinction between these words belongs to the
    differential structurec. [j] is a separate phoneme that serves to
    distinguish lexical units. Cf. feud [fju:d] and food [fu:d]; nuke [nju:k] and
    nook [nu:k]; hew [hju:] and who [hu:].

    3. "Hu" can be pronounced or heard as "you"
    --Well, there are many dialects and manners of pronunciation, but
    nobody suggests to ban the word "air" because it may be confused with
    "hair" or to drop the word "hear" because it may sound similar to
    "ear" (even as they are collocutives, in many contexts).

    Some people say that their preferable technique to avoid gender-biased
    pronouns is to change the noun into plural. I find such a solution
    problematic and even detrimental to the language's ethical and conceptual
    capacity to deal with individuals. Compare:

    A hero is one who places huself at risk for another.

    Heros are those who place themselves at risk for others.

    To convey this idea. I would like to imagine A HERO, a heroic
    human being, rather than a group of heros, a mass of heros.
    They-language successfully eliminates not only gender, but
    individuality as well. Should we speak and think about people
    only in terms of multitudes? I think it's important to talk
    about a student, an emploee, an author, a doctor, a
    physicist, a person, rather than to refer to faceless
    students, authors, doctors, persons, etc.We need to
    accommodate grammar to ethical concerns, not the other
    way around. Gaining a gender-neutral grammar at the
    expense of an individual reference is a self-defeating
    achievement.

    http://www.emory.edu/INTELNET/Index.html

  5. #5
    Tdol is offline Editor, UsingEnglish.com
    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • English Teacher
      • Native Language:
      • British English
      • Home Country:
      • UK
      • Current Location:
      • Philippines
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    43,310
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    It's an interesting idea and I can see the point, but adopting new forms is a difficult process. I once tried to use American spelling for a week on a forum and abandoned it very quickly.

    I have no problems with using the plural- it works in other languages, as seen in T&V forms in French, etc. I see the politeness principle as one that can over-ride numerical accuracy. The concept of numerical accuracy of the singular is also not always true:

    Someone hus umbrella.

    It could be that a single person or a couple left it. Wouldn't it make sense as a non-number specific word, too? I'll try to use it over the next week and see how it goes.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    12,970
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: "Hu," from "human," as a pronoun

    The original concern, which by the way wasn't mine , had to do with [huj]'s semantic association, not its grammatical function.

    The original concern was that [hju] (a.k.a. Hugh) like 'him/his' can be viewed by some as being exlusively male, wherein lies the problem. The
    -ologists at the time were trying to reduce gender bias.

    Suggesting [hju] is fine with me, but, again, to some people it neither address nor takes into consideration the original concern. As far as they are concerned, suggesting [hju] is comparable to suggesting "mr" for "mr/mrs".

    The issue at the time was not that [hju] and "mr" have male gender associations-on the contrary, it's that they are exclusive. -ologists were looking for an inclusive term.

    Mike:
    Some people say that their preferable technique to avoid gender-biased pronouns is to change the noun into plural. I find such a solution
    problematic and even detrimental to the language's ethical and conceptual
    capacity to deal with individuals. Compare:

    A hero is one who places huself at risk for another.
    First: Well, uhm, wouldn't we use "himself" in that sentence, "Hero" being male, and "Heroine" being female?

    A hero is one who places himself...
    A heroine is one who placed herself...

    Second: I think I understand, but how ethnicity relates to the topic of gender bias pronouns is a fuzzy one. Could you be more specific?

  7. #7
    Mike Epstein Guest

    Default

    I don't see how "hu"may be perceived as exclusive. It is inclusive, as "HUman"
    is inclusive of both men and women.

    "Hu," indeed, is omophonic with the name Hugh.
    I don't think, however, there will be much confusion about it: Hugh
    occurs only once in 1666 males; the name's popularity rank in
    the U.S. is #254. Even more popular proper names are safe
    from confusing with their common name doubles. Nobody confuses Ann with the
    article "an", or Nick with a small cut, or Rick with a stack
    of hay.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    12,970
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Mike:
    I don't see how "hu"may be perceived as exclusive. It is inclusive, as "HUman" is inclusive of both men and women.
    Exclusive in the sense that [hju] (a.k.a Hugh) sounds like a man's first name, thus some people, not little 'ol moi of course, might assume the selection process exlcuded female first names. In other words, why not use Uma (> hUMAn)?

    Mike:
    "Hu," indeed, is omophonic with the name Hugh. I don't think, however, there will be much confusion about it: Hugh occurs only once in 1666 males; the name's popularity rank in the U.S. is #254. Even more popular proper names are safe from confusing with their common name doubles. Nobody confuses Ann with the article "an", or Nick with a small cut, or Rick with a stack of hay.
    I was in total agreement with you the first time I read it

    :D :D

  9. #9
    Mike Epstein Guest

    Default Re: "Hu," from "human," as a pronoun

    Thanks to everybody for criticism and constructive comments.
    I'd like to summarize the objections to the use of "hu" as a gender- neutral pronoun.
    I'll respond point by point, first regarding the oral "hu" [hju:], then
    the written "hu". In fact, it was my fault to ask only
    "how does it sound to you?" In the first place, I should
    have asked "how does it look?" A gender-neutral pronoun
    seems to be a more urgent need in written language where a
    word's social and ethical effects cannot be supported or
    softened by an intonation, gesture, etc.

    Oral "hu".
    1. "Hu" is omophonic with the name Hugh.
    --I don't think that there will be much confusion about it: Hugh
    occurs only once in 1666 males; the name's popularity rank in
    the U.S. is #254. Even more popular proper names are safe
    from possible confusion with their common name doubles. Nobody confuses
    Nick with a small cut, or Rick with a stack of hay.

    2. "Hu" [hju:] may be confused with "who" [hu:].
    --The phonetic distinction between t! hese words belongs to
    the differential structures. [j] is a separate phoneme
    that serves to distinguish lexical units. Cf. feud [fju:d]
    and food [fu:d]; nuke [nju:k] and nook [nu:k]; hew [hju:]
    and who [hu:].

    3. "Hu" can be pronounced or heard as "you."
    --There are many dialects and manners of
    pronunciation, however nobody suggests to ban the word "air"
    because it may be confused with "hair" or to drop the word
    "hear" because it may sound similar to "ear" (even as
    they are collocutives used together in many contexts).

    Written "hu".

    4. "Hu" looks like a Chinese word.
    --Yes, but no more so than "van," a clipping of an
    exotic word "caravan" (looking like "Chinese" doesn't prevent "van" from
    being one of the most usable English words, 48 mln. in Google).
    "Hu," as a syllable, is common to English: "huge, humor, human, humility..."
    Both the pronunciation [hju:] and the spelling "hu" are quite ordinary, there is
    nothing exotic about them.

    5. The apostrophe in the possessive form "hu's". What is
    contracted here?
    --There is no contraction here. The apostrophe is
    a sign of the possessive case, like in "John's, author's,
    book's," etc. It would be even better to drop the apostrophe
    if we could have "hus" pronounced [hju:z], not [has], as in "bus";
    and "hum" pronounced as [hju:m].

    Examples:

    Hu that has ears to hear, let hum hear.

    It's the vice-president's job to support the president and take
    hus place when hu is away.

    It should be the chief aim of a university professor to
    exhibit humself in hus own true character - that is, as an ignorant
    human thinking, actively utilising hus small share of knowledge

    6. Possessive and objective cases, "hus" and "hum," fit the
    pattern of masculine "his" and "him" rather than feminine
    "her" and "her".
    -- In "hus" (or "hu's"), -'s is simply a possessive inflection without any
    gender bias ("author's, person's, student's, employee's").

    As for the objective case, "hum" follows the pattern not
    only of "him," but also of the objective pronuns "whom" and "them", which
    are gender neutral. "Whom do you prefer?" - "I prefer hum."

    I admit, however, that for the objective case the same
    form of "hu" can be used as for the nominative. This would
    follow the gender neutral "it" where the nominative and
    objective cases coincide.

    It would clear enough to say:

    An introvert can easily become an extravert when it is
    advantageous for hu to do so.

    Or you can say:

    An introvert can easily become an extravert when it is
    advantageous for hum to do so.

    Thus the four forms of the 3rd person pronouns make up the
    table:

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    nom gen (adj) posses acc refl
    --- --- --- --- ----
    male he his his him himself
    fem she her hers her herself
    neut hu hus hus hu huself
    (hum)

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Excuse me if I have missed any other specific objections.
    If you could bring them forth, I would be happy to
    consider them.

  10. #10
    Mike Epstein Guest

    Default Re: "Hu," from "human," as a pronoun

    [quote="Mike Epstein"]Thanks to everybody for criticism and constructive comments. I'd like to summarize the objections to the use of "hu" as a gender-neutral pronoun. I'll respond point by point, first regarding the oral "hu" [hju:], then the written "hu".


    Overall I don't see any grave inconsistencies or
    difficulties in hu-language. Furthermore, there are several
    considerable advantages of "hu" over other contenders for the
    vacancy:

    1. "Hu" is a short, one syllable word.
    The use of "hu" (2 keystrokes) cuts effectively the
    time needed to type "he or she" (9 keystrokes);
    cf. "huself" (6) and "himself or herself," (18) etc. This is a
    substantial economy of time, space,
    and effort in our frequent daily use of gender-neutral pronouns,
    especially in e-mails.

    2. "Hu" is fully motivated, semantically and etymologically
    justified, as a shortened form of "HUman." Whenever the pronoun is
    used, you have the idea of the noun behind it making it memorable,
    inherently meaningful and suggestive (unlike purely
    conditional, artificial pronouns earlier suggested such as "e,
    et, mon, na, ne, po, se, tey").

    3. "Hu" fits the pattern of existing 3rd person pronouns ("he" and "she"),
    first, by including the consonant "h" common to all of
    them; second, by containing only one vowel, like all of
    them. "Hu - he - she" - these words, all open syllables,
    one consonant plus one vowel, are good partners in
    distributing the gender roles within one lexical family.

    4. The spelling of "hu" coincides with its pronunciation; there
    are no irregularities of the kind that damages, for example, the
    "s/he" pronoun, making it good in writing but unpronouncable.

    5. "Hu" is used in a regular grammatical manner, in
    contrast to "they." "Hu" can be used automatically, without
    twisting the sentence to put all nouns in plural or
    exploiting "they" in a disagreeable manner to refer to a
    singular person.

    6. It is easy to form derivatives from "hu" following the
    existing patterns: "hus," "hu" ("hum"), and "huself".

    7. If we decide to borrow a gender-neutral pronoun from
    another language, we'll have to consider the Persian "u,"
    Arabic "hu" and Old English "ou." All of them could be
    easily incorporated in contemporary English with the
    addition or preservation of "h", as a shortened form of the
    genderless "human".

    So far, I don't see any strong logical or historical
    arguments against hu-language. Its advantages over other
    contenders are too obvious to ignore.

    I acknowledge, however, that language rarely is guided by logic or even by
    historical parallels and precedents. Words have their own magic, and, like
    books, have their fate. I feel this magic and potential
    in the "hu" language. It is the language of undivided HUmanness.

    In the near future, this HUmaness will need even better articulation to
    distinguish our species from artificial "it" forms of intelligence that are
    rising to a more active role in civilization and language. Soon we'll have to
    answer such questions as "Who is reading, writing, calculating, speaking, even thinking?" The answer may be "hu" (human) or "it" (machine). We need "hu" not only to speak equally about men and women, but in order to speak differently about humans and non-humans who share with us many similar qualities and predicates and fulfill many comparable tasks.
    We increasingly need "hu" as a sign of a humanly specific
    actor or agent in the language of mental actions and symbolical
    interactions.

    In a celebrated episode of "Star Trek: The Next
    Generation," the crew of the Enterprise manages to liberate an
    individual from the hive-like structure of the maleficent Borg
    Collective. They name hum, of course, Hu(gh)!

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Possessive pronoun
    By Anonymous in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 20-Jul-2004, 09:54
  2. Reflexive pronoun WHOM
    By tmarkl in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 13-Jan-2004, 11:01
  3. possessive pronoun
    By Anonymous in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-Sep-2003, 19:53
  4. (I) as an object pronoun!
    By ESL-lover in forum General Language Discussions
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 12-Jun-2003, 18:52
  5. personal pronoun 'I'
    By Michael W in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 07-Jun-2003, 21:02

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •