h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

The particular gender-neutral pronouns you suggest (sie, hir, hirs) would never work, in my opinion. You have [si(] versus [Si] and [hir] versus [hr=]--not a great difference; people would start off assuming that you're using a funny accent. If the words became common, then people would often mistake "sie" for "she" and "hir" for "her". Not to mention that we already have two words pronounced /si/ and two pronounced /hir/. "I saw hir" could be distinguished from "I saw, hear?" by intonation, but there might be trouble with "I saw here". Not a lot, I'll admit, but some.

Even if adequate forms could be constructed, people are happy with the ambiguities of English. Only if sound changes (palatalization, most likely) or other processes mangle "he" and "she" into the same pronunciation will people accept gender-neutral pronouns, and even then, they'd write them "she" and "he".

As for the benefits of this, what's the advantage of having words convey less information? I simply fail to see why anyone would want this change. What I'd prefer to see in English is an exclusive/inclusive distinction in first person plural pronouns, and perhaps a singular/dual/plural distinction rather than singular/plural. That would be quite useful. I've never wanted to say "A student should study more if sie wants good grades", but I've often wanted to say "We (and not you) wish this", or "Why don't we (thou and I) grab a bite to eat", or "We (y'all and myself) shall overcome".

Hmm, you criticise sie/hir because of potential ambiguity when spoken, and then undermine your own point by saying that people are happy with the ambiguities of English! In any case, I don't think the hir/here ambiguity is a real issue: they're different parts of speech: compare here/hear, for example.

The advantage of having words convey less information is that it allows for a greater control of what information is conveyed, and avoids the conveyance of misinformation. A good thing.

An inclusive/exclusive "we" and a singular/plural "you" would indeed be a joyful thing.

Be well,
-Martin

You equate phonetic ambiguity with semantic ambiguity. People are happy with semantic ambiguities such as specific "he" versus general "he" (or at least, those who are not constitute a minority), but people tend to get confused more when they have several ways to parse the same utterance.

Perhaps it would be a convenience, but /zi/ and /zir/ would much better than /si/ and /hir/ for accurate parsing.

We already have a singular version of 'you'. Just say 'thou' and 'thee' and 'thy' (with appropriate verb forms, of course) for the singular. People will look at you oddly, but it's less of a transgression than writing 'Sie claims...' on a term paper.

`gareis^\

Use of sie/hir on a term paper, where linguistic conservatives hold domain, is an equal transgression to use of "generic he" in places where I hold domain. One must match the language to the audience. 'twas ever thus.

Well, of course. There are only a couple thousand linguistic liberals, by that definition, and perhaps ten times as many who know of sie/hir. Then there many more linguistic conservatives who at least accept use of generic "he" than linguistic PCers, who are between the liberals and conservatives and accept neither generic "he" nor sie/hir.

But using sie/hir would be akin to mixing a bit of Afrikaans grammar with Dutch. Some would understand, but no one thinks it right.