English evolving

If you had to give someone a succinct idea of Saipan’s unique cultural blend, you could merely mention the various of tongues spoken here.

The beloved English tongue, for its part, is struggling to keep up with America’s social changes. The syntax, for example, is still grappling with the fact that women are now running corporations, military units, and even running entire nations.

For all the hype and preaching in the U.S. about equality, Uncle Sam has never had a female head of state.

England has.

India has.

The Philippines has.

Even Indonesia– no bastion of social enlightenment–may soon have a woman at the helm.

Maybe if women ran the world there would be less stupid wars…and, face it, most wars are pretty stupid.

Moving from the battlefield to the mine field of language, we’re up against a lot of challenges as our language is brought into alignment with modern times.

For example, is “chairman” now “chairperson”? Or is it “chairwoman” when appropriate? I dunno. I think in a lot of cases they’ve changed it to a simple “chair.”

We hear of committee “chairs,” but we usually hear “Chairman of the Board,” not “Chair of the Board.” In this one simple word (“chairman”), we can see that bringing our lexicon into alignment with today’s social outlook can be a bit tricky.

How about “fishermen”? Everybody calls fishermen “fishermen.” Will this be changed to “fisherperson”? Or will we say “fisherwoman” when a woman is the one hooking the fishies? It’s an interesting question. (The official U.S. government term, by the way, is “fisher.”)

Leave me out of all the social discussions pertaining to this stuff; I’m just interested in the wordsmith angles. The fact is that saying “he or she” is clunkier than a plain “he” or a plain “she.” If you’re writing a bureaucratic memo, then it’s not a big deal. But if you’re writing something that has to be a good and tight read, then you force yourself to edit out every single non-essential word. Every “him or her” and “he and she” is a little word bomb that dilutes the effect of a sentence.

For professional writers it’s a big deal, and language is being used in new ways now. Consider the following evolution of a simple sentence:

(1979): “If someone borrows your car, he should fill it with gas.” (Apparently sexist to some readers, but easy to read).

(1989): “If someone borrows your car, he or she should fill it with gas.” (Not sexist, but it’s now two words longer and clunky.)

(1999): “If someone borrows your car, they should fill it with gas.” (Aha! Note the “they.” A new wrinkle here, eh?)

How does that “they” ring in your ear? It used to strike me as awkward but as it gets more common, I’m getting used to it.

Easy enough? Then try to overhaul this simple, nine-word sentence and not make it appear sexist: “If you like your boss, take him to lunch.”

I’ll offer a solution to this word puzzle tomorrow. As you ponder it, keep in mind that I’m not getting embroiled in any discussions of gender issues–I’m just talking about the elements of writing in modern times. If you’re one of those flustered people who hasn’t had a date in 12 years and who wants to vent your frustration at someone when the topic of gender is mentioned, go bother somebody else–leave me alone.

As for the rest of us, the normal people, we’ve got this Gordian knot of a sentence to untie….