Hacker News Reader

> Manderin has non-gendered pronouns referring to a person (something missing in English)

English actually has a complicated gender neutrality history. For instance, it used to be that only women had a specific pronoun while what we regard today as male pronouns used to be neutral [1]. We also have "they"/"them" which have been historically baked into the language for these purposes.

1: https://las.illinois.edu/news/2020-01-29/tracing-history-gen...

Yeah. I forgot that written Chinese has 他 as the generic and 她 as the gendered one specific for women. In Mandarin, 他 and 她 are both pronounced the same.

Also 它 and 牠.

They/them is only plural. It works ok in writing but IMO it sounds really weird to use it in casual conversation. I used to agree with the APA style guide that you should just use them but lately I've been having second thoughts.

this is a common misconception, but it isn't true, and it hasn't been true since the days of Shakespeare, who used they/them as a singular. Jane Austen did the same thing. I don't know who misinformed you on this topic, but I am willing to bet it was not a writer of that caliber. I think we can safely consider Shakespeare and Austen to be experts in the English language.

I wouldn't consider them experts on the language, since English is not a prescriptive language. However, they do provide good historical references on use of words to avoid the ridiculous 'you can't use that word like that' arguments.

If we're going to be prescriptive about use of 'they' as a definite pronoun we may as well complain about how particular and peculiar swapped meanings in common vernacular.

  > English is not a prescriptive language

Do you mean that there is no single body, like the French have, directing the usage of the language? I would consider "prescriptive / descriptive" to be properties of a dictionary, but not properties of the language itself. I'm not a subject matter expert so I'm not contradicting you, rather I'm asking.

If people who are widely considered among the greatest English writers of all time aren't experts in English, then no one is.

English is defined by use, and they are the best users of it.

This isn't true though, they has been used for centuries as an indefinite singular pronoun, like "oh someone left their umbrella, they probably want that back let's see if there's a tag".

It is the case that using it as a definite singular is new, and we'll see if that lasts.

> non-gendered pronouns referring to a person (something missing in English)

"they"? People pushing for "they/them" pronoun acceptance are always quick to point out "singular they" (even though the usage is quite contextual and limited).

RMS tried to promote the use of “perse”, “per”, derived from “person”. As with anything, accepted usage depends on if it becomes viral.

> Manderin has non-gendered pronouns referring to a person

That's only when spoken, because 他 and 她 are homophones, no? Otherwise when written it is almost exactly the same as English in how pronouns are gendered with he/she/it.

Correct

> These words encourages a more collectivist rather than an individual mindset with biases based on the person's seniority

I don’t follow how very specific relational pronouns leads equality. Explain.

The unempathetic programmer in me says it prevents bikeshedding and the subsequent emotionally charged conflict.

(The lefty liberal in me says don't be a cunt to people)

We’ll thats certainly not the “lefty liberal” shining through with that gratuitous use use of derogatory terms for female anatomy as an insult in that comment.

You’re not from Australia, I see.

I don’t claim that it leads to equality. That’s a problematic assertion.

I said that the relational words in Mandarin leads to (and enforces) a collectivist rather than than individualist mindset. There is less semantics about identity and more about relations. Identity is a reference to a self, whereas relational words refer to how a self relates to another self. The emphasis is on the relation — and the social expectations, responsibilities, and priveledges of that relation, and less on the identity of either the speaker or the person the speaker refers to.

So for example, I wouldn’t say “Bob”. I’d say “my da-ge” (big older brother). When I use the latter in conversations with other people, those people knows I have this relation I can lean on. When referring to younger siblings, I might not even use their names even if I could do so without being rude. I might say to someone else, “my xiao-de”, my little brother, making an implicit claim that this person is family, under my protection. Whether the kid is worthy of such protection, whether I personally want to or not, is secondary that there is a relation and there are expectations that goes with it.

I don’t know if I agree, that seems more tribalism than collectivism. In comparing Bob, Jane and smith or similar nondescript lao baixing names vs distinguishing family/non family plus exact hierarchical familiar relation, it doesn’t seem hierarchical exact relations is more communal. Opinions can differ.

Collectivist, as I am using it, is not the same as being communal, as in having no hierarchy. I am using “collectivist” to mean a deemphasis on the individual and an greater emphasis on the collective. How exactly that collective is structured is not a part of this assertion.

It could well be tribalism, and the way I mean “collectivist” is not exclusive to tribalism.

Your explanations are nice and clear.

I’ve observed this as an outsider with my wife of Vietnamese background. Just one example — amazing to western eyes — is that our wedding invitation to her uncle, aunt and two cousins (i.e. one nuclear family) contained not one name. It was (if I translate) “aunt ten, husband-of-aunt ten, older brother two, older brother three”. And the two cousins are younger then her! But because the aunt is older than her mother, the “older” status transfers down the generation. That older status is reflected in the inter-family relationships and perceived obligations.

It is fascinating to see the structure of language being persistently deployed to reinforce the sublimation of self and reinforcement of familial status and responsibility.