-1

Is it correct to write:

He wants to explain X concept to the layman, not before warning him ...

Or should I write:

He wants to explain X concept to the layman, not before warning him or her ...

Kris
  • 37,386
c.p.
  • 593
  • 4
    Why not 'layperson'? –  Oct 08 '12 at 21:42
  • You can use layperson if you want to appear politically correct or gender-neutral. – Zairja Oct 08 '12 at 21:42
  • 2
    Obviously your first suggestion is entirely correct. The masculine includes the feminine and "him or her" is unnecessary. Unless you are insecure or wallowing in political correctness. – Andrew Leach Oct 08 '12 at 21:43
  • The title seems to be asking about the gender-neutrality of layman, while the body is asking for a gender-neutral pronoun. The latter is a duplicate. Please clarify what you're really after. – RegDwigнt Oct 08 '12 at 21:43
  • 1
    @Carlo_R. I like your suggestion. If I mean "non-expert" or "non-professional", is 'layperson' really common? So, the solution would be "He wants to explain X concept to the layperson, not before warning him" ...? – c.p. Oct 08 '12 at 22:01
  • 2
    More common to say "He wants to explain X concept in layman terms..." The later construct "not before" overcomplicates the sentence, it might be better to rephrase that. Do you simply mean "after"? – Chris Oct 08 '12 at 22:02
  • 3
    Jorge, "He wants to explain X concept to the layperson, not before warning whom ..." is better. –  Oct 08 '12 at 22:23
  • @AndrewLeach: If it's for publication, it probably demands PC language. If it's informal, then I agree that it's "wallowing" in PC. An ngram shows a steep curve of layperson usage from ca. 1975-1998, then an equally precipitous fall from 2001. "Him or her" peaked & fell at ca. the same time with twice the usage. We're conflicted about "gender neutral" nouns & pronouns. It's a small but real issue. When I was a kid, I didn't think that "The masculine includes the feminine and 'him or her' is unnecessary"; I thought "The masculine excludes the feminine". You're a reactionary. :-) –  Oct 08 '12 at 22:44
  • @BillFranke He's not a reactionary; he's a conservative, who (we may suppose) is in the happy position of being able to employ whatever rule he is comfortable with. More power to him. – StoneyB on hiatus Oct 08 '12 at 22:59
  • @StoneyB: He's a "reactionary" alright. He told me so himself and reaffirmed it after I said something about his being "retrograde". That's why I added the smiley face. "[I]n the happy position of being able to employ whatever rule he is comfortable with" is akin to being extra-social and a subjective idealist. But that's okay. As long as all the cards are on the table. –  Oct 08 '12 at 23:09

2 Answers2

2

I would suggest either using layperson and using either him or her or them which can be used as a singular.

Historically, he can be used to mean he or she, but nowadays I think it's less acceptible due to changing tastes and English being a living, changing language. I've also seen she used meaning he or she and I think that's fine but inelegant.

I would use he or she/*him or her* or they/*them*.

The singular-they has been used in English for a long time, and I think ultimately offends fewer people than just he or just she.

Gulliver
  • 749
0

The easy (and for once not inelegant) solution is to evade the issue by using the collective:

He wants to explain X to the laity, not before warning them ...

EDIT Since use of laity in a non-religious sense has excited considerable comment, I note that OED 1 dates it back to 1832, citing the Jurisprudence of John Austin, a leading philosopher of law:

The laity (or non-lawyer part of the community) are competent to conceive the more general rules.

And for those who object to grounding an argument on the usage of a lawyer, I offer the greatest modern master of English prose style:

All professions are conspiracies against the laity. —Bernard Shaw, Preface to The Doctor's Dilemma

StoneyB on hiatus
  • 68,905
  • just to be clear, "laity" doesn't sould disrespectful, right? – c.p. Oct 08 '12 at 22:40
  • 2
    That's right -- no more disrespectful than does "lay". "Laity" is the collective term for all lay persons; it is employed in the literal sense by religious writers (including those in the Church), and in the figurative sense wherever there is a clear distinction between experts and everybody else. If anything, disrespect is imputed in the other direction, when a writer wants to suggest that the experts take an inflated view of their status. – StoneyB on hiatus Oct 08 '12 at 22:47
  • 1
    Right, it doesn't sound disrespectful, just a bit more religion-related. If it's not about the Church, then people sometimes use "amateurs" or "civilians", both fairly informal, or "nonprofessionals", more formal. –  Oct 08 '12 at 22:49
  • @BillFranke In many fields, however, "amateur" is a term of distinct opprobrium. My impression is that "civilian" still has what the OED calls a joc. ring when not contrasted with the military. – StoneyB on hiatus Oct 08 '12 at 22:54
  • I'm not sure I like this solution, not unless we're talking about a pastor. When I look up layman, I see a primary meaning that fits the context exactly; when I look up laity, that meaning is conspicuously absent. While I realize some dictionaries will list BOTH meanings under laity, the expression in layman's terms is common, but terms that the laity can understand sounds almost foreign to my US ear. – J.R. Oct 08 '12 at 23:05
  • @J.R.: I agree. So only the pronoun is the problem. –  Oct 08 '12 at 23:11
  • To clarify, the topic X here stands for is about math and physics. I didn't know the answer would be that disputed, so I didn't specify the theme in the question. – c.p. Oct 08 '12 at 23:18
  • @J.R. It may not be common; but I Google "literary laity" and get 64 hits; and 3 of the first 10 are unambiguously in this sense. With "scientific laity" I get 1,840 hits; 10 of 10 are in this sense. – StoneyB on hiatus Oct 08 '12 at 23:19
  • 2
    Language use is a bitch. Words seem not to matter to so many speakers & writers until some word pushes their buttons, & then the sky falls. Everything said & written in English these days is indisputably disputable & has been exceedingly so since the 1960s. We're told in biomed that we must say "A patient with [disease X]" rather than "A [disease X] patient" because the latter makes it sound as if [disease X] is a personal trait (e.g., "a diabetic patient") rather than a temporary state of being ("fisherman" vs. "fishing man" vs. "sleeping man"). Makes writing tough sometimes. –  Oct 08 '12 at 23:40
  • Putting things in terms "a layman can understand", the problem is that version turns up 6,230 times in Google Books, but "the laity can understand" their stuff only 287 times. I also think that layman today usually just means nonprofessional, whereas laity still tends to mean lay people, as distinct from the clergy. – FumbleFingers Oct 09 '12 at 00:52
  • 1
    @BillFranke: Haha, ridiculous. PC-ness sucks. Just refuse! – Cerberus - Reinstate Monica Oct 09 '12 at 00:57
  • @Cerberus Ridiculous, indeed; but no more, and no more onerous, than, say, conforming your punctuation to a house style. He who pays the piper calls the tune, and the lyrics, too. – StoneyB on hiatus Oct 09 '12 at 01:05
  • StoneyB: For the record, I never doubted it was a valid use of the word (and even took care to link to a dictionary that supported you); I only meant to point out that what one might gain in political correctness could be easily offset by the relative rarity of the expression. As @Bill said in his comment to the O.P., it's a tradeoff, and the author would do well to consider the target audience before making a final decision. – J.R. Oct 09 '12 at 01:06
  • @J.R. Oh, I knew that. My feeling is that what you lose in familiarity you gain in panache. – StoneyB on hiatus Oct 09 '12 at 01:07
  • @Cerberus: If we refuse, we're told to change the expression if we want to have the article published. It's publishing politics. I've never liked PC language, but I'm socially challenged. :-) –  Oct 09 '12 at 01:09
  • @StoneyB: The problem with PC-ness is that there is a world of misunderstanding and finger-pointing behind it, while a house style will at least admit that it is fairly arbitrary. But, yes, it too can be very annoying. – Cerberus - Reinstate Monica Oct 09 '12 at 03:53
  • @BillFranke: Haha, I understand. But you are morally obliged to mutter and curse between your teeth! Preferably in un-PC terms. – Cerberus - Reinstate Monica Oct 09 '12 at 03:56
  • I do, I do, I do, I do, I do! link (8-E –  Oct 09 '12 at 03:59
  • -1 for Bernard Shaw, who had distinctly peculiar views on English (including "standardising" spelling, losing apostrophes and even capital letters, odd spacing...) – Andrew Leach Oct 09 '12 at 08:00
  • @AndrewLeach: Did you really downvote just because of Shaw? Or perhaps it was the labeling of Shaw as "the greatest modern master of English prose style" that prompted you to click the downvote button? Either way, OUCH! Like Shaw or hate him, I thought the quote was apt for the debate at hand. – J.R. Oct 09 '12 at 08:22
  • 1
    This comment thread is now getting auto-flagged for its length. Everybody is reminded of our chat. Here, things that are not directly related to the answer will have to be deleted. Thanks. – RegDwigнt Oct 09 '12 at 09:43