My co-workers generally think I'm an alright guy. Except for when I'm stubborn and disagreeable. Given the percentage of times when I'm right about the subject in question, you'd think that I'd have learned my lesson by now. Yet I do it anyway.
A few times over the last several months, we've had to edit some content for our company website. Each time, it seems like, a particular issue on English grammar comes up. Between us three, I go one way and the other two guys think the opposite. As a result, their way wins out, 2-1. (Stupid democracy.) Allow me to explain.
Suppose you have the following sentence:
"The chef lost ___ hat."
Now, assuming that the chef is a guy, the answer is clear: "The chef lost his hat." Likewise, if the chef is a she: "The chef lost her hat." But now let's assume we don't know the gender; after all the chef's name is Jessie, which could be male or female. With this curveball, now how do you complete that sentence?
Many people might say: "The chef lost their hat." That can't be right; the word "their" is plural, but there's only one chef. (This is what my co-workers thought was correct.)
The singular version of "their" is "its", but that doesn't make sense either: "The chef lost its hat." Sounds like the chef isn't human.
Another option is technically correct: "The chef lost his/her hat." But that sounds really clumsy to me, especially if you have to do this several consecutive times.
Old-school English profs (complete with tan elbow-patched corduroy blazers) might argue: "The chef lost his hat.", regardless of what gender the chef turns out to be, because masculinity is always dominant. That's not fair to the ladies.
So what's the right answer here? Anybody?
8 comments:
How about this:
"The chef lost said chef's hat."
Neutral, yes, but clumsy still.
I think we need a new word! Shehe. Yes, that'll work.
"The chef lost shehe's hat."
I think proper capital-E English requires that you grow a pair and pick one. Said chef is hypothetical, i.e. not based on a real chef, so if you choose to write about this chef, you have to make up certain facts. If your sentence had to do with what kind of chef this was, you'd have to make that up as well. As it is, your sentence presents a choice that must me made by the author, and it just so happens that one choice presents a remotely possible lawsuit (women are touchy about these things).
I would choose "her," as it's funner to picture a hot sexy chef in only an apron anyway.
Yeah this post had me wondering so I turned to wikipedia. I saw something about "it" being neutral.. then I saw this.. Historically, "his" was the possessive of "it" as well of "he;" nowadays it has been completely supplanted by "its." I get that "it" makes it seem like an object and not a person but it seems like that could possibly be the correct answer. I dunno man.. good luck though!
I'm OK with going with whatever Wikipedia said. It's never failed me before. :)
See, now if we all talked in Latin, we wouldn't have this problem.
Hey,
"Needlessly" shouldn't be under the linking verb "is"; the adverb "needlessly" modifies the adjective "confusing". And what's wrong with my cordoroy coat?
EA Sports
So it looks like the president/CEO of EA Sports grows weary of developing Madden 2009 and instead has taken an interest in sentence diagramming. I had no idea he/she was such a well-rounded individual.
(By the way, previous sentence = case in point.)
Or, it could be a certain English-teaching relative of mine...
Good posting. I have been grappling with this one for years. Seems odd that English, such a rich language, would have a fundamental deficit like this.
How can you not know the chef's gender?
Look under the hood.
Or, go with:
"The chef's hat was lost."
Post a Comment