Humans/men

[57730]

Hello.

My native language is French, in which we can use the equivalents of "humans" and "men" as synonyms. I wondered if it was also true in English ("men" not only including men but also women)
Examples:
Humans have got opposable thumbs. (Men and women)
Men have got opposable thumbs. (Men and women)

I also wonder which pronoun you have to use when the gender of someone isn't known. In French, we generally use the gender of the common name we defined the person by, but common names in English don't have a gender.

 

[emsr2d2]

Hello.

My native language is French, [STRIKE]and[/STRIKE] in which we can use the equivalents of "humans" and "men" as synonyms. I wondered if it was also true in English ("men" not only including men but also women).

Examples:

1. Humans have got opposable thumbs. (Men and women)
2. Men have got opposable thumbs. (men and women)

I also wonder which pronoun you have to use when the gender of someone isn't known. In French, we generally use the gender of the common name we defined the person by, but common names in English don't have a gender.

Please note my corrections above, particularly to your capitalisation of the names of languages.

Sentence 1 includes men and women.
Sentence 2 excludes women.

We use the gender-neutral pronoun "they" in English when the gender isn't known. We use it with a singular or plural verb, depending on context.

(Historically, if the gender wasn't known or specified, we used "he". That is no longer seen as gender-inclusive.)

 

[jutfrank]

I'd say that when there's a contrast between humans and other species, the most appropriate word to use is humans.

Humans have opposable thumbs.

The gender-neutral men is only appropriate, I'd say, when the contrast is between humans and other 'fantastic' creatures, such as elves, aliens, and gods.

To talk generally in a gender-neutral way about members of our own species, people is usually the most appropriate word.

 

[jutfrank]

... as opposed to the gender-neutral women, I suppose.

Would you please clarify the purpose of this comment?

For learners: women is not used in the same way as men in the way I described above.

 

[jutfrank]

Some learners may not realise that I was poking fun in my original post #4 at jutfrank's claim that 'gender-neutral men could ever be appropriate.

I don't think my accurate answer deserved poking fun at.

I must make it clear that this is never appropriate these days.

In the context that I mentioned in my previous post, using men to describe humans as a race of beings is quite appropriate, and still commonly used in, for example, fantasy literature.

 

[jutfrank]

It may still be used in that genre. That does nor make it appropriate

In the sense that we use the word 'appropriate' when talking about language use, that's exactly what it is. In other words, it fits the genre of discourse.

I suppose your prescription to never use the word in the way mentioned is motivated by other concerns, in which case it's just an opinion that not everyone shares. That's fair enough but I don't think you made that clear in previous comments.

 

[emsr2d2]

57730, I notice that you edited post #1 after I wrote post #2. Please don't do that. All the corrections I made in post #2 now look nonsensical because it now appears that none of those errors appeared in your original.

 

[Tdol]

I use they as a gender-neutral pronoun, favour humankind over mankind. As a basic rule of English today, I would recommend placing equality and inclusivity over arguments about grammar and tradition. Trying not to be rude is not a bad thing. Other languages and cultures are free to differ, but I do think the argument has been won in English in favour of equality.

 

[57730]

Thanks, everybody. Just to make sure, since "they" is a gender-neutral pronoun, does it mean that "their" is a gender-neutral possessive adjective? Does it also mean that "theirs" is a gender-neutral possessive pronoun and that "them" is a gender-neutral possessive pronoun?
For examples : let's say that I am talking about a doctor whom I don't know the gender of.

1) "I will consult a doctor soon ; I hope their advice will be helpful."
2) "I will consult a doctor soon ; you may be an acquaintance of theirs"
3) "I will consult a doctor before long ; I hope I'll see them soon."

Concerning the discussion between jutfrank and Piscean, what I have understood is that "men" is sometimes used as a gender-neutral word when there is a contrast between humans and other fantastic creatures (maybe mimicking the old use of the word since fantasy species like elves are usually part of fictions that are inspired by the Middle Ages period?). But generally, using "men" as "humans" seems rude to a lot of people, and thus shouldn't be used. Is this correct?

 

[57730]

Tdol, thank you for your answer!

Trying not to be rude is not a bad thing. Other languages and cultures are free to differ, but I do think the argument has been won in English in favour of equality.

I just want to precise that in French, the fact that "hommes", the equivalent of "men", can be used in the same way as "humains", the equivalent of "humans", doesn't seem rude to anyone (or at least I've never heard someone complaining about it). It is just a feature of the word. There are debates about changing some aspects of the language right now, but I never heard any of them concerning the use of "hommes" as 'humains". It may be explained by the fact that the two words sound really close.

 

[jutfrank]

Thanks, everybody. Just to make sure, since "they" is a gender-neutral pronoun, does it mean that "their" is a gender-neutral possessive adjective? Does it also mean that "theirs" is a gender-neutral possessive pronoun and that "them" is a gender-neutral possessive pronoun?

Yes to everything.

Concerning the discussion between jutfrank and Piscean, what I have understood is that "men" is sometimes used as a gender-neutral word when there is a contrast between humans and other fantastic creatures (maybe mimicking the old use of the word since fantasy species like elves are usually part of fictions that are inspired by the Middle Ages period?). But generally, using "men" as "humans" seems rude to a lot of people, and thus shouldn't be used. Is this correct?

That summarises the thread content reasonably well, yes.

(I don't completely agree that the use of men 'mimics the old use of the word', but okay.)

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

Tdol, thank you for your answer!

I just want to precise that in French, the fact that "hommes", the equivalent of "men", can be used in the same way as "humains", the equivalent of "humans", doesn't seem rude to anyone (or at least I've never heard someone complaining about it).

It's fine in France. It used to be fine here, but it's not anymore.

It is just a feature of the word. There are debates about changing some aspects of the language right now, but I never heard any of them concerning the use of "hommes" as 'humains". It may be explained by the fact that the two words sound really close.

I've met people who object to human and humanity because they man in it — and history because it has his in it!

English changes much faster than French does. Maybe it's because English isn't officially regulated.

 

[57730]

(I don't completely agree that the use of men 'mimics the old use of the word', but okay.)

Since it can also be used in constrast with fictional species that are not related with the Middle Ages at all like aliens and gods, I think that my guess was probably false. :-?

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

Thanks, everybody. Just to make sure, since "they" is a gender-neutral pronoun, does it mean that "their" is a gender-neutral possessive adjective? Does it also mean that "theirs" is a gender-neutral possessive pronoun and that "them" is a gender-neutral possessive pronoun?
For examples : let's say that I am talking about a doctor whom I don't know the gender of.

1) "I will consult a doctor soon. I hope their advice will be helpful."
2) "I will consult a doctor soon. You may be an acquaintance of theirs."
3) "I will consult a doctor before long. I hope I'll see them soon."

Most people would go along with those. When it's easy to rephrase, though, it usually sounds better:

1. I'll see a doctor soon. I hope the advice is helpful. Or better: I hope it helps.

2. It sounds like you already know who the doctor is. If you do, say his or hers.

3. This is redundant, since before long means soon. You might say: I'll see a doctor — soon, I hope.

(Doctors consult with doctors. Patients see doctors.)

And sometimes you'll see sentences like: Each Boy Scout should learn to put up their tent. That's absolutely unforgivable.

Concerning the discussion between jutfrank and Piscean, what I have understood is that "men" is sometimes used as a gender-neutral word when there is a contrast between humans and other fantastic creatures . . . .

Just use gender-neutral language, and don't look for exceptions that not everyone will agree with.

Remember that English has lots of tendencies, but there's someone who will disagree with almost any so-called rule.

In general, stick with the conventions: They, them, and their are plural, short-cuts happen, gender neutrality is preferred, and it's okay to break a "rule" as long as you know you're breaking it.

 

[jutfrank]

... concerning the use of "hommes" as 'humains". It may be explained by the fact that the two words sound really close.

Indeed, both words, along with the English human, derive in some way from the Latin homo/hominem. (We still use this Latin word in scientific literature to label our genus 'Homo', of course, although in common speech we refer to 'Neanderthal man', 'cavemen', 'early man', etc.) These words can be traced much further back to the roots of our language family (i.e., to Proto Indo-European) thousands of years ago, where the word (dh)ghomon was used to mean 'earthling', in a sense opposed to a god. (These were days before ideas of elves and aliens were fully formed.)

https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=human

The root of the English man is somewhat less clear, but more interesting. This from the Online Etymology Dictionary:

man (n.)

"a featherless plantigrade biped mammal of the genus Homo" [Century Dictionary], Old English man, mann "human being, person (male or female); brave man, hero;" also "servant, vassal, adult male considered as under the control of another person," from Proto-Germanic *mann- (source also of Old Saxon, Swedish, Dutch, Old High German man, Old Frisian mon, German Mann, Old Norse maðr, Danish mand, Gothic manna "man"), from PIE root *man- (1) "man." For the plural, see men.
Sometimes connected to root *men- (1) "to think," which would make the ground sense of man "one who has intelligence," but not all linguists accept this. Liberman, for instance, writes, "Most probably man 'human being' is a secularized divine name" from Mannus [Tacitus, "Germania," chap. 2], "believed to be the progenitor of the human race."

Specific sense of "adult male of the human race" (distinguished from a woman or boy) is by late Old English (c. 1000); Old English used wer and wif to distinguish the sexes, but wer began to disappear late 13c. and was replaced by man. Universal sense of the word remains in mankind and manslaughter. Similarly, Latin had homo "human being" and vir "adult male human being," but they merged in Vulgar Latin, with homo extended to both senses.

Generally regardless of any arguments pertaining to a lack of inclusivity (which I am certainly sympathetic to), the majority of contemporary English dictionaries list the gendered sense of the word man/men first and the generic sense second. However, we should remember that the main aim of lexicographers is to be descriptive of how the language is used. Any political/ideological concerns about usage are I think a separate matter.

 

[Tdol]

Tdol, thank you for your answer!

I just want to precise that in French, the fact that "hommes", the equivalent of "men", can be used in the same way as "humains", the equivalent of "humans", doesn't seem rude to anyone (or at least I've never heard someone complaining about it). It is just a feature of the word. There are debates about changing some aspects of the language right now, but I never heard any of them concerning the use of "hommes" as 'humains". It may be explained by the fact that the two words sound really close.

I excluded all other languages and cultures from my opinion, which is still just a personal view of the state of affairs in English.