In these postmodern times, it seems like everything is up for debate. It only makes sense that, if everything was built on inherently oppressive, morally repulsive foundations, the only way we can possibly move forward is by tearing it all to the ground. Language, of course, is no exception. Much has been written about the problematic aspects of Romance languages, such as Spanish and Portuguese, and good work has been done towards rendering them scarcely recognizable to their backwards native speakers if todes ustedes know what I mean. But if the language of Cervantes and Borges is subject to revision, then perhaps we shouldn’t shy away from correcting that of Shakespeare and Mark Twain. And I don’t mean mere cosmetic changes here and there. Trudeau’s “peoplekind” is a step in the right direction, but as we will see, it goes nowhere near deep enough to address the thoroughly entrenched problems with English grammar.
Let us begin with possessive nouns, as in Mary’s pencil or George’s flashlight. Other languages don’t have them, and it certainly seems problematic to attribute possession to an object in such a grammatically definitive manner. One way out of this would be to say something like the flashlight of George, much closer to the Spanish. However, it’s not even clear that people should own things — after all, capitalism has only existed for around three hundred years — so it’s important to emphasize that the ownership relation is strictly temporary. From now on, you go on and say the pencil now of Mary.
The problems now of the English language, however, go further than that. Placing adjectives after nouns is also a problem, since it decenters the individual and essentializes their characteristics. In Spanish, adjectives go after nouns, as it should be. This change big will make the language now our bigoted seem much adapted better to these more times inclusive.
The pronouns possessive his and hers are also in need desperate of reform, since they assert a notion outdated of gender binary. Spanish is, again, more advanced in this regard, using the adjective gender-neutral su. Maybe we can consider a variant now of English, such as hu. And on a note similar, why are there not gendered professions in English? Doctor is clearly thought of as a masculine term, and yet women are subjected forcibly to it. We should distinguish between Doctoro, Doctora, and Doctx for those gender identity now of them is fixed not. Yes, I understand. Maybe Doctx doesn’t sound natural. Would Doctine be more palatable to your tongue primitive?
I believe I’ve made my point clear. In the effort to make our societies more respectful to everyone, it may be tempting to make seemingly insignificant changes to the languages we’ve inherited. But to view every grammatical construct with suspicion, to extirpate the roots and bark of the dynamic and ancestral organism that is a language, and to do so from an ivory tower, without consulting the hundreds of millions who wield it as their mother tongue is an act of almost incomprehensible arrogance. I say this as a Hispanic, as a person who can belong to a grammatically male “todos” as well as a grammatically female “personas”. I say this as a citizen of a country with much deeper problems than those conceived of at the Latinx Studies departments across the United States, where vocal fries are much more common than rolling R’s. I’m very sorry for butchering your language, a language I have nothing but respect for. But now, I ask that you stop butchering mine.
