Very roughly translated as "book word". A word that only exists in books.
"Book word" is very evocative, I like the term actually. And that is also probably why other pronouns have failed to catch on in the past, because their use hasn't really spread into everyday language. Then again, this isn't an actual argument against the possibility of it happening. And every single word is manufactured.
This type of... mmm... appeal to history(?) tradition(?) is completely pointless.
Not really an appeal, more a refutation of the argument commonly appearing in such discussions, falsely claiming that anything that isn't strictly binary is entirely new and modern and, I guess, against 'tradition'. So in a way it's those opposing neopronouns that are bringing up tradition, I'm just arguing that it's an ordinary thing.
You *could* call both "he" and "they" gender-neutral pronouns in some sense.
'he' is by definition not neutral. This goes beyond English; at least afaik in most European languages where the masculine is used as a default, this is problematic because, well, it uses the masculine as the default. This ties back into the discussion about patriarchy and may be slightly outside the frame of this topic.
'they' is gender-neutral and serves very well for many who simply want a neutral pronoun that's already in use. Though not every language has that. In French for example 'iel' is often used, as a contraction of 'il' (he) and 'elle' (she). It is used much in the same way as singular 'they' is in English, but since it's relatively new it counts as neopronoun.
Additionally, some individuals may feel that neither the masculine, feminine or neutral pronoun feels appropriate to their sense of gender. What if you do have a strong feeling of gender that isn't within the binary? 'they' is neutral and may not convey that strong feeling, and therefore neopronouns are used. Which is also why the following point:
Irish has no word for "yes". Nonetheless, the Irish carry on, yesless. There is no need for them to develop a word for "yes".
is moot. First, because necessity doesn't even begin to explain all the quirks of languages, and secondly because there are obviously people who feel a necessity for more varied pronouns, otherwise 'they' would suffice. (Also, technically we really don't
need gendered pronouns in the first place, so why bother with he and she? ^^ )
are not built in the spirit of the language
Agree to disagree?
and they aren't useful except as part of gender ideology.
The strict he/she binary is as much, if not more so, an expression of gender ideology. The binary gender ideology has been imposed on our western cultures for the last few centuries and ties back to some nasty -isms ^^ Again, maybe slightly off-topic and too broad for this discussion. For now my point is simply that the he/she binary is very far from being the neutral standard.
