Pro-Nouns and Anti-Semantic

Over at Slate today, the estimable Dana Stevens gave an almost begrudging thumbs-most-of-the-way-up to the new Mel Gibson movie, The Beaver. The film's release, you may recall, was delayed to provide some breathing room between us, the movie-going public, and the stink of Gibson's latest odious transgressions.

In any case, the movie is directed by Jodie Foster, who also performs in the film, and about whom Steven writes:

It's notoriously hard for an actor to direct his or herself on-screen, which may account for the lack of warmth in Foster's scenes with Gibson.

The problem here is that, while his and hers go together like Mel Gibson and raging misogynist anti-Semite, the reflexive pronouns are, of course, himself and herself. (True, hisself is a variant in some dialects, particularly those featured in movies where Jackie Gleason plays a sheriff, but not in Standard Written English.)

So how do we solve this? Some people--those with a sense of panache and derring-do--see an opportunity here to deploy a sexy suspended hyphen, like so: "him- or herself." But if that seems too risqué, we can also go with the stodgy but serviceable "himself or herself." Or, we can simply avoid the whole pickle by recasting the sentence: "It's notoriously hard for actors to direct themselves on-screen...especially when playing opposite a volatile misogynist anti-Semite."

"All They Can Eat" Special

I'm in love with my favorite lunch place, the Mongolian Grill. I love being able to assemble my own meal (remember folks, spinach goes in the bowl first, then chicken, broccoli and onions, then you weigh the whole thing down under a blanket of heavy egg noodles). I love concocting sauce combinations (a spoonful of garlic and ginger, 3 spoons each of black bean and peanut sauce) like a mad chemist in a lab. I love watching the guy dump my bowl onto the big round sizzling grill and deftly stickhandle the contents along the surface with two pool-cue-style chopsticks.

I also love the sign that is posted above the buffet-style assembly station:

For your health, everyone will be given a plate for your meal after it is cooked.

I suppose it would be good for my health--in a severe calorie restriction sort of way--if I were obliged to share my repast with everyone in the joint, but I'm just not feeling that generous when I'm hungry. Luckily for me, though, this is merely, once again, a case of singular/plural pronoun confusion, and I have not yet had to go table to table doling out my rice and veggies for supplicating patrons with watering mouths and thrust-out empty plates.

They Is The One

Have you ever noticed that people who die tragically young, or as innocent victims of criminal malfeasance, are invariably described in news reports as being the kind of person who could "light up a room with their smile" or "always had a kind word for everyone" or some such thing? And that the accompanying photo always depicts the victim "in happier times"? Me, too. That's why, in the interests of self-preservation, I'm dedicating myself to being a selfish, frowning, misanthropic asshole. Hey, it's worked for Andy Rooney.

Hang on a tick--did I just say "light up a room with their smile" when talking about an individual person? Strictly speaking, it should be "his or her smile" but that's an awkward phrasing that can lead to whole paragraphs of "he or she/ his or her" prolixity. Yet, seeing as how the English language has not been kind enough to provide a gender-neutral third person singular pronoun, many language authorities have come around to accepting they/their as a serviceable substitute--and I, for one, am willing to pull the stick out of my arse far enough to accommodate that.

But getting back to our unfortunate innocent victims, what are we to make of this excerpt from the weekend's Province, summarizing the words of the daughter of a woman who died when her car was rammed by a drunk driver?

She described her mom as being a selfless volunteer, a champion of the underdog and someone who always had a smile on their face.

Well, that's just wrong. In this case, we know the person being described was a woman, and the smile rightfully belongs on her face.

Perhaps the confusion arises from the word someone, which seems generic and gender-neutral. It's kind of like that other grammatical trickster, "one of those people who...", which is another singular/plural mind-bender. For example, we would say the victim was "one of those people who always have a smile on their face." (That's assuming we accept their in this context, and for Pete's sake I thought we already agreed on that.) So why not "one of those people who has..."? After all, one is singular so shouldn't it take a singular verb? No. Why not? Because people is plural and that is the word that governs the verb choice here. What we are saying, in effect, is that "of the people who always have a smile on their face, she is one."

My word, that was exhausting. I'm going to have to lie down now for awhile.

***

Bonus insensitive quibble: A headline from the San Francisco Chronicle reads, ONE DEAD, SEVERAL CRITICAL AFTER RAVE PARTY. What were they being critical of?