Editor for this issue: Ljuba Veselinova <lveselin
emunix.emich.edu>
It always seemed to me that the generic masculine pronoun rule of the 18th c. depended not so much on local English usage of he but on the Latin rule valorizing genders in the order m, f, n so as to take care of situations involving gender mixing (what was called the worthiness of the genders). Certainly h- stem pronouns in both fem and plu persist in speech (and especially in their unaspirated forms) long after they disappear from print, as the still common use of 'em and 'a attest. But even in the 18c the question typically involves everyone ... his (pronoun and antecedent in the same clause) rather than everyone ... he, where clause and sentence boundaries may interfere with agreement. Everyone ... her would be an h-stem option clearly distinguished from his, an option not chosen for mixed groups (or for all-male or even all female groups, occasionally). Initial calls for a gender-neutral 3 pers. sg. pronoun in the 19th c. emphasized that the generic masculine pronoun agreement practice based on the worthiness doctrine violated the equally stringent requirement that pronouns agree with their antecedents in _gender_ as well as number. Dennis -- Dennis Baron debaronMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issueuiuc.edu Department of English office: 217-333-2392 University of Illinois fax: 217-333-4321 608 South Wright Street home: 217-384-1683 Urbana, Illinois 61801
Surely, the "androcentric" "he-rule" is not restrictde to English. Hence, whatever the (highly interesting) facts about the H-stem vs. the SH-stem feminine in English, they will not help us deal with the question of the origins or the survival of the "he-rule". (Or am I wrong?) Alexis Manaster RamerMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue