![]() |
Aardvark DailyThe world's longest-running online daily news and commentary publication, now in its 30th year. The opinion pieces presented here are not purported to be fact but reasonable effort is made to ensure accuracy.Content copyright © 1995 - 2025 to Bruce Simpson (aka Aardvark), the logo was kindly created for Aardvark Daily by the folks at aardvark.co.uk |
![]() Please visit the sponsor! |
I was in a video conference with a couple of people from the USA yesterday.
During the conversation, I used a word that neither of these Americans understood.
To be honest, I forget exactly which word it was but it raised a very interesting situation because I speak English and they don't.
Okay, they speak a derivative of English that we'd probably call "American". Most of the lexicon of both languages is common but sometimes there are some jarring differences in the meanings of those words.
A good example of this is the word "fanny".
In the USA, "fanny" is a pretty innocuous word which refers to the gluteous muscles that comprise buttocks.
In "The King's English" (ie: real English), this word as a rather different meaning which perhaps is best described as "front bum".
Now rest assured that this wasn't the word that highlighted the differences between variants of English that we were using but it is perhaps a great example.
To my mind, real English is a very interesting language.
It deviates in a number of ways from the syntax of other languages, for example the adjective usually comes before the noun rather than the other way around. We say "the blue car" whereas the syntax in many other languages, such as French, would be to say "the car blue".
Thanks to the enormous subtlety of real English, we have the ability to describe things, actions and everything else in microscopic detail. For this reason, I believe we should preserve the accuracy and precision of the language whenever possible and avoid bastardising it to the point where it becomes a blunted tool for expression.
Allow me to present such an example.
This story from Stuff that appeared yesterday made me shudder.
At the heart is the issue of preferred pronouns.
Before being a snowflake was fashionable (nay, mandatory), we managed to just use pronouns such as "he" and "she". These days however, we must accomodate those who wish to be non gender-aligned. Perhaps they are bisexual, asexual or bloody awkward but neither "he" nor "she" will do when addressing such people.
Unfortunately, real English doesn't seem to have a gender-neutral pronoun that can also indicate whether you're talking about a single person or multiple persons.
That reduces the precision of the language.
If you say "they called in for lunch", how is anyone supposed to know whether several people called in or perhaps just one ungendered person was dining?
In the referenced Stuff story, former Green MP (now independent) Darleen Tana makes it clear that she wants to be referred to as "they" rather than "she" -- and the media buys into it.
The story sounds ludicrous, as this woman is constantly referred to as "they" throughout the article.
I know that in 2024, mis-gendering someone is considered a capital offence, worse even that armed robbery or murder -- but I do wish that the media would stop pandering to this sort of butchery of the English language.
Perhaps it's time to add "neut" to the list of pronouns. Those identifying as males can use "he", those identifying as females can use "she" and all the rest become "neut".
Neut is already part of English and is defined as an abreviation of the word "neuter" which is to render something genderless.
That seems appropriate to me so instead of using "they" in a confusing way, why not use "neut" in an appropriate way?
Carpe Diem folks!
![]() Please visit the sponsor! |
Beware The Alternative Energy Scammers
The Great "Run Your Car On Water" Scam