The pronoun police are playing an ugly game of “Hu’s On First?”


Now that “hu” is circulating as a made-up pronoun choice, isn’t it time to acknowledge that transmania has jumped the shark? When you see the made-up word “hu”, the logical pronunciation reads like the word “who”. But we’re all supposed to guess that it’s pronounced “hew”, as in the first syllable of “human”. It is associated with “hum”, which you are supposed to understand is pronounced “hume”.

Libs from TikTok reliably illustrated this quirk by posting an advocate’s explanation of the hu/hum “humself”:

You say “hew”, I say “who”. You say “hume”, I say “who”. Let’s cancel it all!

Who is first?

Who would have thought that an old comic routine would be so relevant to today’s “progressive” language practices? ” Who is the first ? — Abbott and Costello’s 1930s baseball-themed sketch — is legendary and symbolizes the communication chaos of today’s pronoun project.

As I’ve written here before, the enforced ritual of “declaring pronouns” disrupts communication by undermining the purpose of pronouns as functional words that structure language.

But above all. Let’s watch “Who’s First?”

Bud Abbott tries to explain to an exasperated Lou Costello that “Who” is the first base guy. “What” plays second, and “I don’t know” is third. We laugh because all of us to know this grave confusion is the result of such distorted language. But today’s pronoun police require distortions in communication, and that’s no joke.

Everyone needs an introduction to pronouns

Too few people seem to even know what a pronoun is. This is especially true for those who demand that we constantly shift our mental gears to keep track of favorite pronouns. Those who do knowing the purpose of pronouns are more likely to be in a state of confusion Abbott and Costello.

Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary is an older dictionary, but I highly recommend it if you want an informative, grounded reference. His definition of “pronoun” is still solid. Pronouns are the parts of speech we use “to refer to people or things named, asked for, or understood in context.” This is a form of shorthand so you don’t repeat the same name or phrase over and over. But the key is that the pronouns are understood in context.

Personal pronouns are probably the ones we think of most often. ‘I’, ‘you’, ‘he’, ‘she’, ‘that’, ‘we’ and ‘they’ are subject pronouns. Their corresponding forms as object pronouns are ‘me’, ‘you’, ‘him’, ‘she’, ‘it’, ‘we’ and ‘them’. Personal pronouns also have possessive forms such as “my”, “his”, “our” and “their”. Reflexive forms end with “-self” or “-selfs”.

But personal pronouns are just one category of pronouns. There are demonstrative pronouns like “this”, “that”, “this” and “those”. There are interrogatives such as “who”, “who”, “what” and “whoever”. There are a multitude of indefinite pronouns such as “all”, “both”, “none”, “such” or “none”. In fact, there are at least 100 real pronouns. We all use them to structure our language and understand people and things in context.

Who’s on the attack?

However, if you search the word “pronoun” in the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, you will find signs of falsification in its first definition, which emphasizes personal pronouns as if other types of pronouns do not exist. no way. Even more contrived is that his second definition uses waking examples. In short, the former “Webster’s Seventh” respects organic use, while the online dictionary is astroturf because it serves to impose use.

Today’s awakened activists are mostly concerned with personal pronouns, especially in the third person. It is the form we use when we refer to someone or something other than ourselves or the people we are addressing. In standard terms, as subjects, they are ‘he’, ‘she’, ‘it’ and ‘they’. Still, I’d bet the pronoun police are hoping to obliterate not just those, but all pronouns since they work in Orwellian fashion to abolish language itself.

How else to explain the profusion of pronouns in the third person? Uh? By? She? They? X? Live? Ah? Who? Or to explain their insistence that we all memorize long lists of invented words such as “xi/xir” or “ey/em” and dutifully obey endless uses of a multitude of “neopronouns” invented on the fly like “fae/ more? »

Some people insist on mixed bags such as “he/they” or “she/they”. Others require “rolling pronouns”, a variety to sort through, perhaps based on the fluctuating moods of the so-called “gender fluid”. Thus, for third person pronouns, we could ask in the manner of Abbott and Costello: who is in the third? The clear answer among normal people trying to navigate this swamp is, “I don’t know.”

Going back to “Webster’s Seventh”, none of these mental gymnastics allow you to “understand in context” much. The effect is to undermine pronouns as functional words in our language, the words that give our language the structure on which clarity depends. A bit like the function of punctuation. How about we mix it all up there? I ask? . , . you use ;;#@; acertainorder/of punc!!tua*(tion& ? ma—-rkswh,en….ever ref%err:ing to /me (in) a [sent]in this;;,? How about filing that in your brain?

Those who continue to push for these mental circuses claim that it is simply a matter of respecting a person’s identity. But their mole antics reveal a path that leads to the deconstruction of the whole language. It starts with personal pronouns, specifically in the third person like “he/she/they”. If you’ve been lucky enough to learn standard English grammar, you also know the corresponding direct pronouns, as well as the rules for everything else. This logical and standardized structure allows for a flow of communication rather than communication dead ends.

But the pronoun police don’t care. They are more interested in gathering us at the top of their tottering tower of Babel.

How to push back: Emphasize the “I/me”

It will take a long time to re-establish a real education in the useful rules of grammar and syntax. But there are easier ways to come to your senses. You can refuse to comply, though you’ll likely be punished if you challenge schools and human resources departments that insist you “declare” pronouns.

I have another suggestion. If you have to declare your pronouns, always insist on a preference for the first person singular pronouns “I/me/my/mine/myself”. After all, these are your personal pronouns. That would mean bureaucrat-tyrants would always seem to refer come back to themselves by referring to you, by their own silly rules. In a base world, this would cause “Who’s on First?” office routines. So while you’re at it, announce that your name is “Who”.

Of course, the thought police may react by claiming that first-person “I/me” pronouns are outlawed and continue to move the goalposts. So if they insist on third person, respond Abbott and Costello style: “I don’t know”, which is the name of the player in third. Then tell them that’s your name and they can call you “I” for short. Such challenges could help expose the madness and hypocrisy of their tyrannical protocols.

Ultimately, we should think of standard pronouns as the ecosystem that keeps our common language going. Indeed, destroying their goal is like being stuck on third base forever with the name “I don’t know”.

Unlock comments by joining the Federalist community.



Comments are closed.