Racist Idioms

[Mr_spamamam]

when i was younger, if i was going down the shop, i'd tell me mum i was going to the paki shop. i don't now because its not owned by pakistanis

 

[yeah_so_no]

Exactly, and traditionally the correct was to refer to a single person of indefinite sex is "they". Hence using "he" is not only sexist, it is non-traditional.

400 years? Not even close. More like 200.

http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/austheir.html

And using the plural they goes back even further than your 400 years--it's been used since the 1300's.

Even if it was as little as 200 years, its more than enough to establish its place as the current tradition. Maybe it wasn't the PAST tradition, but it is the CURRENT tradition.

Just because people used to do something centuries ago doesn't mean you can just up and do it claiming it preempts the current tradition. If you want to make that arguement that we SHOULD readopt that old tradition, FINE. But don't act like you are automatically correct because you dug up some old rule that was forgotten centuries ago.

And it's not "sexist." Sexism, like racism, is the belief that one is better than the other. Something can only be sexist or racist if you have that belief and an intent to convey it. It's NOT POSSIBLE to be "accidentally" racist or sexist.

Using words in their currently well established usage is NOT sexist or racist because it does not imply an attempt to convey racist or sexist beliefs. It implies nothing more than an attempt to use the word in its accepted manner.

*eyeroll* You're the one who brought up how old the "no plural they" rule is as proof of it somehow being inviolable, and now, when you've been shown that, no, it's been OK for longer than it's been not OK (and that the 'not OK' was created by academics trying to make English behave like Latin instead of like English), you try to act like I'm being pedantic? When you brought it up first? Whatever, dude. This isn't Calvinball; you can't change the rules of the argument just because someone countered you.

And I'll take the word of the author of "The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language" on this subject over you: http://www.ucsc.edu/currents/01-02/04-15/rules.html

You may perceive the plural "they" as overly PC because you have it in your head that being PC is the only reason someone would use it; however, that's not the case.

 

[pyrojam321moo]

First off, I prefer the linguists' rules of grammar where the only grammar that exists is the vernacular that gets the point across. In other words, if you use they to denote a singular object and your audience understands it's supposed to be a singular object then it is fine and dandy. Lets you get away with a lot more grammar wise, like the understood subject of the former clause. Language is meant to get the rough point across, not shove extra useless rules on people.

Now, onto the actual subject. "Don't be a half-back about [subject of discussion]" is one used here locally. It refers to northerners moving to Florida, realizing it's too hot for them there, and coming half-way back to good 'ole North Cakalacky. I used it in reference to a friend dropping out of college recently due to the fact it wasn't what she expected.

 

[kawligia]

*eyeroll* You're the one who brought up how old the "no plural they" rule is as proof of it somehow being inviolable, and now, when you've been shown that, no, it's been OK for longer than it's been not OK (and that the 'not OK' was created by academics trying to make English behave like Latin instead of like English), you try to act like I'm being pedantic? When you brought it up first? Whatever, dude. This isn't Calvinball; you can't change the rules of the argument just because someone countered you.

And I'll take the word of the author of "The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language" on this subject over you: http://www.ucsc.edu/currents/01-02/04-15/rules.html

You may perceive the plural "they" as overly PC because you have it in your head that being PC is the only reason someone would use it; however, that's not the case.

LOL, I'm not changing any rules. I said that the current rule is just that, the current rule. I only even mentioned history to illustrate that the current rule is not something we dreamed up yesterday. It is the rule that we have been using for a significant length of time.

I understand that you feel the rule's pedigree is suspect. My point is that since it is the established CURRENT rule nonetheless, your reference to a forgotten historical rule is not sufficient to unilaterally revolutionize our current system. It's enough for an ARGUMENT to the academic community that we should CHANGE the current rule, but until that change is made its use is officially incorrect for any FORMAL writing.

What I have noticed recently, is female authors using the word "she" as a general pronoun instead of "he." Since we CURRENTLY have no OFFICIAL gender neutral pronoun, I have no problem with this.

 

[Spacelord]

I prefer not to open my mouth at all, for fear of eventually sounding racist or sexist. I mean, think about it: the more words you speak, the chance of you saying something racist/sexist approaches 1 (certainty). It's like a reverse Godwin's law.

 

[LockHeart]

Guilty of this I must admit, trying to stop using such terms as corner shop, or ordering a chinky when ordering out a chinese takeout.

Sorry if I'm being ignorant here, but what's racist about corner shop?