The Inadequacies of English Pronouns

When Ms. Picky was a child, she had an Irish grandmother, and her melodic brogue was a constant source of comedic imitation by her grandchildren—behind her back of course. One aspect of her speech seemed particularly quaint: the use of “ye” for the second-person plural. 

That Irish use of “ye” illustrates—anecdotally at least—that English at one time had a second-person plural that was different from the second-person singular “you.” European languages continue to make the singular/plural distinction.

Today, of course, “ye” has become extinct; “you” serves as both singular and plural, which often leads to some ambiguity. 

If, for example I extend the invitation “Could you come to my house for dinner on Saturday?” how can the person I am addressing tell whether I am inviting her alone—or her and her entire family? The answer is that she cannot tell. Whether we are addressing one or one million, the only second-person pronoun we have to work with is “you.”

Small wonder then that, when some non-native speakers of English first came to America, they created a separate, plural form of “you”—“youse.” We condemn that word as an illiteracy, but perhaps it was not so much an illiteracy as an attempt to try to make English follow the same logical rules of grammar that exist in various other languages, to create a discrete second-person plural where there was none.

It’s not as if we haven’t sought a second-person plural. For the last hundred and fifty years or so, Southerners (in the U.S.) have dealt with the linguistic conundrum by using “y’all” as the second-person plural. More recently, Northerners have found a solution in using “you guys,” at least informally, to differentiate the plural (“guys,” in that usage, not being considered gender specific). But how does one indicate number in a more formal context?

Sadly, our pronouns’ inadequacies do not end there; indeed, we are obliged to mention that it’s not only the second-person English pronoun that has a problem; the third-person presents a quandary as well. What, for example, are the choices of the feminist grammarian in regard to the third-person singular pronoun? Addressing a mixed audience, he or she can choose only from among:

•   The politically incorrect “Would everyone please take his seat?”

•   The grammatically incorrect “Would everyone please take their seat?”

•   Or the self-conscious and cumbersome“Would everyone please take his or her seat?”  

Ms. Picky sympathizes with newcomers to English, who must grapple with such linguistic shortfalls. It is probably of little comfort to them to consider that native-born Americans struggle with the same shortfalls. 

________

*It would be useful and symmetrical to remember what Grandma used for the second-person singular, but that, unfortunately, will forever remain a mystery—because she addressed her grandchildren only in the imperative mood: “Sit up straight, young lady!”. . . “Child, say thank you to Mrs. McGillicuddy!”. . . “Tie your shoelaces, young man, and tuck your shirttail in!” In the imperative mood, of course, the pronoun (“you” understood) is unspoken.

________

Journalism Wall of Shame

The Journalism Wall of Shame displays errors in grammar, punctuation, or language that have appeared recently in the press. Submissions are welcome. Please include the publication's name and date, the story title, and the reporter's name. The publication of these errors in no way places blame for them on a particular person. Sometimes it is the reporter, sometimes an editor, sometimes a headline-writer, but—somewhere in the system—somebody should have known better.

“The moves by Austria, which appear to be unilateral, show how even the euro zones strongest economies are feeling the pressure of the sovereign debt crisis. . . . 


The Austrian central bank said in a statement that Erste Group, Raiffeisen Bank International and Bank Austria, owned by UniCredit of Italy, would be prevented from loaning significantly more in CEE countries than what they raise in local deposits. . . . 


The three banks CEE exposure exceeds Austrian GDP. . . .”

—“Austrian Banks Told to Limit Lending to the East,” Eric Frey, Neil Buckley and Stefan Wagstyl, the Financial Times, November 22, 2011 

Ms. Picky comments:

Zones, of course, should be singular possessive (zone’s), loaning should be lending, and banks should be plural possessive (banks’). Messrs Frey, Buckley, and Wagstyl have hit the trifecta in this story. Either all three gentlemen are missing the apostrophe keys on their keyboards, or there has been some new and sinister development in voice-to-text technology.

___________

This blog has been read in Albania, Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Finland, France, Greece, Guatemala, Honduras, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Latvia, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mexico, Montenegro, Nepal, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, the Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Puerto Rico, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Singapore, Slovenia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, the U.A.E., Uganda, the U.K., Ukraine, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, the U.S., and Vietnam.