wjr@frog.UUCP (STella Calvert) (02/14/86)
In article <33100034@ISM780.UUCP> dianeh@ISM780.UUCP writes: >Poor grammar, on the other hand, usually bothers me. There are those >rare gems that actaully work, like "You're good -- you're awful good." >or some of the Tom Frye postings, which are clearly dialect (at least I >hope they are :-)). Unfortunately, poor grammar more often just makes the >person sound stupid and tends to make me immediately prejudiced against >any validity their statements might otherwise have. I suppose one of the >reasons it bothers me is that this is our *language* -- it's what we've >agreed to use to communicate to one another. If it didn't have some >structure, some agreed upon forms and rules, we wouldn't even be able to >come as close as we do (which, admittedly, isn't very) to understanding >one another. If a person can't take the time to learn their own language, >to learn about verb agreement or syntax, it just seems damn lazy to me. >English is a rich, open language; it allows for and adapts to our changing >needs, but abusing that, letting the language deteriorate into mush, >seems wasteful and inexcusable. Non-standard grammar only bothers me when it's impossible to figure out what the poster actually _meant_. (BTW, Tom Frye _speaks_ standard English....) And in general, unintentionally poor grammar causes me to devalue the entire posting. However, Usenet is a conversational medium in written form. As such, it invites us to write in conversational mode. When I _write_ for publication or evaluation by strangers, I attempt to conform to those standards. When I'm discussing something with friends, I may deliberately torture the language until it carries the right set of meta-statements. Compare "You haven't seen anything yet!" to "You ain't seen nuthin' yet!" I probably would choose the former in a job-application cover letter; I can't imagine _saying_ anything but the inelegantly emphatic latter in conversation. Perhaps we are evolving toward an intermediate form, neither formal written language nor conversational. Any comments? (If this line of discussion diverges from net.nlang's interests, PLEASE edit the newsgroup line to leave them out.) STella Calvert Every man and every woman is a star. Guest on: ...!decvax!frog!wjr Life: Baltimore!AnnArbor!Smyrna!<LotsOfHitchhikingAndShortVisits> !SantaCruz!Berkeley!AnnArbor!Taxachusetts Future: ... (!L5!TheBelt!InterstellarSpace)
albert@kim.berkeley.edu.BERKELEY.EDU (Anthony &) (02/21/86)
>In article <33100034@ISM780.UUCP> dianeh@ISM780.UUCP writes: >>Poor grammar, on the other hand, usually bothers me. There are those >>rare gems that actaully work, like "You're good -- you're awful good." >>or some of the Tom Frye postings, which are clearly dialect (at least I >>hope they are :-)). Unfortunately, poor grammar more often just makes the >>person sound stupid and tends to make me immediately prejudiced against >>any validity their statements might otherwise have. I suppose one of the ^^^^^ ?!? >>reasons it bothers me is that this is our *language* -- it's what we've >>agreed to use to communicate to one another. If it didn't have some >>structure, some agreed upon forms and rules, we wouldn't even be able to >>come as close as we do (which, admittedly, isn't very) to understanding >>one another. If a person can't take the time to learn their own language, ^^^^^ >>to learn about verb agreement or syntax, it just seems damn lazy to me. >>English is a rich, open language; it allows for and adapts to our changing >>needs, but abusing that, letting the language deteriorate into mush, >>seems wasteful and inexcusable. I am reminded of a parable which mentions stones and glass houses. Anthony Albert ..!ucbvax!kim!albert albert@kim.berkeley.edu
nather@utastro.UUCP (Ed Nather) (02/22/86)
In article <11949@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, albert@kim.berkeley.edu.BERKELEY.EDU (Anthony &) writes: > >In article <33100034@ISM780.UUCP> dianeh@ISM780.UUCP writes: > >>any validity their statements might otherwise have. I suppose one of the > ^^^^^ ?!? > >>one another. If a person can't take the time to learn their own language, > ^^^^^ > I am reminded of a parable which mentions stones and glass houses. > Anthony Albert The marked words are perfectly correct as used. Would you perhaps have preferred "they're" [they are] or "there" [where?] ... "Spell" is a nice tool but incomplete. "Gram" anyone? -- Ed Nather Astronomy Dept, U of Texas @ Austin {allegra,ihnp4}!{noao,ut-sally}!utastro!nather nather@astro.UTEXAS.EDU
ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) (02/23/86)
>> = dianeh@ISM780 > = Anthony Albert >>Unfortunately, poor grammar more often just makes the >>person sound stupid and tends to make me immediately prejudiced against >>any validity their statements might otherwise have. > ^^^^^ ?!? >> If a person can't take the time to learn their own language, > ^^^^^ >I am reminded of a parable which mentions stones and glass houses. Sorry, Anthony. Current usage is tending towards singular `their' in cases where the gender is unknown, as has been the natural tendency of english for at least ~300 years. dianeh@ISM750's usage is perfectly correct. If you do not like this, you win a pink leisure suit and two weeks at the men's bathhouse of your choice. -michael
dsn@umcp-cs.UUCP (Dana S. Nau) (02/24/86)
In article <407@utastro.UUCP> nather@utastro.UUCP writes: >In article <11949@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, albert@kim.berkeley.edu.BERKELEY.EDU (Anthony &) writes: >> >In article <33100034@ISM780.UUCP> dianeh@ISM780.UUCP writes: >> >>any validity their statements might otherwise have. I suppose one of the >> ^^^^^ ?!? >> >>one another. If a person can't take the time to learn their own language, >> ^^^^^ >> I am reminded of a parable which mentions stones and glass houses. >> Anthony Albert > >The marked words are perfectly correct as used. Would you perhaps have >preferred "they're" [they are] or "there" [where?] ... The basic problem is that although English has a non-gendered plural possessive ("their"), it doesn't have a non-gendered singular possessive. The use of "their" for singular as well as plural is becoming more and more common--but strictly speaking, it's not correct. Correct usage would have been "If a person can't take the time to learn his/her own language ..." -- Dana S. Nau, Comp Sci Dept, U of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742 dsn@maryland seismo!umcp-cs!dsn (301) 454-7932
jbs@mit-eddie.UUCP (Jeff Siegal) (02/24/86)
In article <407@utastro.UUCP> nather@utastro.UUCP (Ed Nather) writes: >In article <11949@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, albert@kim.berkeley.edu.BERKELEY.EDU (Anthony &) writes: >> >In article <33100034@ISM780.UUCP> dianeh@ISM780.UUCP writes: >> >>any validity their statements might otherwise have. I suppose one of the >> ^^^^^ ?!? >> >>one another. If a person can't take the time to learn their own language, >> ^^^^^ >> I am reminded of a parable which mentions stones and glass houses. >> Anthony Albert > >The marked words are perfectly correct as used. Would you perhaps have >preferred "they're" [they are] or "there" [where?] ... > Wrong. The marked words are plaural pronouns. In each sentence, the subject is singualar. The correct pronoun is "his," although some would argue for "his/her." Jeff Siegal - MIT EECS
jin@hropus.UUCP (Jear Bear) (02/24/86)
> dianeh@ISM750's usage is perfectly correct. If you do not like > this, you win a pink leisure suit and two weeks at the men's bathhouse > of your choice. > > -michael Why don't you take your homophobic bullsh*t off the net. I really thought that people on the net were mature enough to be accepting of other people's life-styles but apparently at least one person is insecure enough about his own sexuality to use "homo" as an insult (in a later posting). Grow up. And *excuse* my grammer and spelling, I'm just an uneducated grunt. You may misinterpret my .signature any way you wish. -- Jerry Natowitz ihnp4!houxm!hropus!jin The Master Baker
cjhoward@watnot.UUCP (Caleb J. Howard) (02/25/86)
> >>any validity their statements might otherwise have. I suppose one of the > ^^^^^ ?!? > >>one another. If a person can't take the time to learn their own language, > ^^^^^ > > I am reminded of a parable which mentions stones and glass houses. I'm in math, so I don't count, but is this not correct? (I.E. 'their' showing plural ownership).) .
nather@utastro.UUCP (Ed Nather) (02/25/86)
> Correct usage would have been "If a person can't take the time to learn > his/her own language ..." > Dana S. Nau, Comp Sci Dept, U of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742 I was unable to find the word "his/her" in my dictionary. -- Ed Nather Astronomy Dept, U of Texas @ Austin {allegra,ihnp4}!{noao,ut-sally}!utastro!nather nather@astro.UTEXAS.EDU
geoff@ism780c.UUCP (Geoff Kimbrough) (02/25/86)
Diane Holt sez: >> If a person can't take the time to learn their own language, and Dana Nau sez: > Correct usage would have been "If a person can't take the time to learn >his/her own language ..." ^^^^^^^ Dana, YOU'VE *GOT* TO BE KIDDING. Tell you what, show both versions of the sentence to the head of your English department. You're a CS major, and (I happen to know) Diane has a degree in English, go argue about computer languages if you must, but leave english grammer to the experts.
susie@uwmacc.UUCP (02/26/86)
>> Correct usage would have been "If a person can't take the time to learn >> his/her own language ..." >> Dana S. Nau, Comp Sci Dept, U of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742 > >I was unable to find the word "his/her" in my dictionary. >Ed Nather You can add the word "his/her" to your dictionary by typing the WWB command dictadd. ;*) Susie
kgd@rlvd.UUCP (Keith Dancey) (02/26/86)
In article <11949@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> albert@kim.berkeley.edu.UUCP (Anthony Albert) writes: >>In article <33100034@ISM780.UUCP> dianeh@ISM780.UUCP writes: >>>Poor grammar, on the other hand, usually bothers me. There are those >>>rare gems... etc >>>any validity their statements might otherwise have. I suppose one of the > ^^^^^ ?!? >>>reasons it bothers me is that this is our *language* ... etc >>>one another. If a person can't take the time to learn their own language, > ^^^^^ >>>to learn about verb agreement or syntax... etc > > > >I am reminded of a parable which mentions stones and glass houses. > Anthony Albert Well, Tone, just what is it about the *correct* spelling of 'their' that reminds you of this parable? -- Keith Dancey, UUCP: ..!mcvax!ukc!rlvd!kgd Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Chilton, Didcot, Oxon OX11 0QX JANET: K.DANCEY@uk.ac.rl Tel: (0235) 21900 ext 5716
michaelm@bcsaic.UUCP (michael maxwell) (02/26/86)
In article <407@utastro.UUCP> nather@utastro.UUCP (Ed Nather) writes: >In article <11949@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, albert@kim.berkeley.edu.BERKELEY.EDU (Anthony &) writes: >> >In article <33100034@ISM780.UUCP> dianeh@ISM780.UUCP writes: >> >>any validity their statements might otherwise have. I suppose one of the >> ^^^^^ ?!? >> >>one another. If a person can't take the time to learn their own language, >> ^^^^^ > >The marked words are perfectly correct as used. Would you perhaps have >preferred "they're" [they are] or "there" [where?] ... > We'd probably prefer that he spell "their" as "his" or "his/hers." -- Mike Maxwell Boeing Artificial Intelligence Center ...uw-beaver!uw-june!bcsaic!michaelm
nather@utastro.UUCP (Ed Nather) (02/26/86)
In article <11530@watnot.UUCP>, cjhoward@watnot.UUCP (Caleb J. Howard) writes: > I'm in math, so I don't count, but [...] Does this mean you *refuse* to count, or never learned how? ...just curious :@) -- Ed Nather Astronomy Dept, U of Texas @ Austin {allegra,ihnp4}!{noao,ut-sally}!utastro!nather nather@astro.UTEXAS.EDU
gam@amdahl.UUCP (G A Moffett) (02/27/86)
About a year ago I posted an article explaining the
history and status of the use of "they" in reference
to a singular person. (It was excerpts from the book
"American Tongue and Cheek" by Jim Quinn). I did put a long
expiration date on it as I expected this issue would arrise
from time to time, but the expiration date seems to have
arrived, and besides not everyone reads "old" news anyway.
If you are interested in this posting I will mail copies out
upon request. If the demand becomes "big" (more than 10)
I will repost it, again, with a 12-month expiration date.
Please MAIL your requests for the "he/she/they" article.
Convienient paths to reach me are implied below.
--
Gordon A. Moffett ...!{ihnp4,seismo,hplabs}!amdahl!gam
Her name was McGill, and she called herself Lil, but everyone
knew her as Nancy...jew@usl.UUCP (James E. Wilson) (02/28/86)
In article <135@spar.UUCP> ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) writes: >>> = dianeh@ISM780 >> = Anthony Albert > >>>Unfortunately, poor grammar more often just makes the >>>person sound stupid and tends to make me immediately prejudiced against >>>any validity their statements might otherwise have. >> ^^^^^ ?!? >>> If a person can't take the time to learn their own language, >> ^^^^^ >>I am reminded of a parable which mentions stones and glass houses. > > Sorry, Anthony. Current usage is tending towards singular `their' > in cases where the gender is unknown, as has been the natural > tendency of english for at least ~300 years. >-michael ...among the illiterate, perhaps. Sorry, my vote is with Anthony. JW
geoff@ism780c.UUCP (Geoff Kimbrough) (02/28/86)
>> I was unable to find the word "his/her" in my dictionary. > You can add the word "his/her" to your dictionary by typing ... ...but it would be wrong.
nather@utastro.UUCP (Ed Nather) (03/02/86)
In article <8@mit-eddie.UUCP>, jbs@mit-eddie.UUCP (Jeff Siegal) writes: > Wrong. The marked words are plaural pronouns. In each sentence, the > subject is singualar. The correct pronoun is "his," although some would > argue for "his/her." > Jeff Siegal - MIT EECS They would lose the argument. -- Ed Nather Astronomy Dept, U of Texas @ Austin {allegra,ihnp4}!{noao,ut-sally}!utastro!nather nather@astro.UTEXAS.EDU
jeff@qubix.UUCP (Jeff Bulf) (03/03/86)
> >> [Dana S. Nau] > >> Correct usage would have been "If a person can't take the time to learn > >> his/her own language ..." > > > > [Ed Nather] > > I was unable to find the word "his/her" in my dictionary. > > [Susie] > You can add the word "his/her" to your dictionary by typing > the WWB command dictadd. ;*) All points with truth in them, but I'll stand by the following: In any society, Correct Usage is the dialect of the class that has an army. BTW My memory insists that this is from Heinlein, but gives no help in verifying that impression. it. Anybody know the source for sure? -- Dr Memory ...{amd,ihnp4}!qubix!jeff
cdsm@icdoc.UUCP (Chris Moss) (03/03/86)
> >Wrong. The marked words are plaural pronouns. In each sentence, the >subject is singualar. The correct pronoun is "his," although some would >argue for "his/her." > >Jeff Siegal - MIT EECS Consult the Oxford English Dictionary for a more authoritative angle on this. It quotes singular uses of 'their' and even 'they' dating back to the sixteenth or seventeenth century (I think), and accepts the usage. If you want to argue right against wrong, use authorities worthy of the name! I won't comment on Jeff's spelling :-) Chris Moss, Imperial College, London.
steven@boring.uucp (Steven Pemberton) (03/03/86)
In article <691@usl.UUCP> jew@usl.UUCP (James E. Wilson) writes: > > Sorry, Anthony. Current usage is tending towards singular `their' > > in cases where the gender is unknown, as has been the natural > > tendency of english for at least ~300 years. > > ...among the illiterate, perhaps. Sorry, my vote is with Anthony. In another article, Jeff Siegal - MIT EECS says: > >The marked words are perfectly correct as used. Would you perhaps have > >preferred "they're" [they are] or "there" [where?] ... > > Wrong. The marked words are plaural pronouns. In each sentence, the > subject is singualar. The correct pronoun is "his," although some would > argue for "his/her." Here we go again. Last June I posted an article quoting the Oxford English Dictionary, and tens of worthy authors through the ages from the 1300's to the present day, who have used 'they', 'them', 'theirs', etc as SINGULAR gender-unspecific words. It is CORRECT English. It was only later grammarians who tried to enforce the rule that they are plural words, and force us to use 'he', etc. Luckily, most people have not followed their dictates. Illiterate? Shakespeare was just one of the many to use the form. Let history be the judge. Steven Pemberton, CWI, Amsterdam; steven@mcvax.uucp -------------------------------------------------------- Here are the quotes from the OED again, for the doubters: THEY 2. Often used in reference to a singular noun made universal by every, any, no, etc., or applicable to one of either sex (= `he or she'). See Jespersen Progress in Language 24. 1526 Pilgr. Perf. (W. de W. 1531) 163b, Yf,.a psalm scape ony persone, or a lesson, or else yt they omyt one verse or twayne. 1535 FISHER Ways perf. Relig. ix. Wks. (1876) 383 He neuer forsaketh any creature vnlesse they before haue forsaken them selues. 1749 FIELDING Tom Jones viii. xi, Every Body fell a laughing, as how could they help it. 1759 CHESTERF. Lett. IV. ccclv. 170 If a person is born of a gloomy temper ..they cannot help it. 1835 WHEWELL in Life (1881) 173 Nobody can deprive us of the Church if they would. 1858 BAGEHOT Lit.Stud. (1879) II.206 Nobody fancies for a moment that they are reading about anything beyond the pale of ordinary propriety. 1866 RUSKIN Crown Wild Olives 38 (1873) 44 Now, nobody does anything well that they cannot help doing. THEM 2. Often used for `him or her', referring to a singular person whose sex is not stated, or to anybody, nobody, somebody, whoever, etc. 1742 RICHARDSON Pamela III. 127 Little did I think..to make a..complaint against a Person very dear to you,..but dont let them be so proud..as to make them not care how they affront everybody else. 1853 Miss YONGE Heir of Redclyffe xxliv, Nobody else..has so little to plague them. 1874 DASENT Half a life II. 198 Whenever anyone was ill, she brewed them a drink. THEMSELVES 5. In concord with a singular pronoun or sb. denoting a person, in cases where the meaning implies more than one, as when the sb. is qualified by a distributive, or refers to either sex: = himself or herself. a. 1464 Rolls of Parlt. V. 513/2 Inheritements, of which any of the seid persones..was seised by theym self, or joyntly with other. c 1489 CAXTON Sonnes of Aymon i. 39 Eche of theym..make theymselfe redy. 1533 MORE Apol. 55b, Neyther Tyndale there nor thys precher..hath by theyr maner of expounyng..wonne them self mych wurshyp. y. 1600 SHAKS. Lucr. 125 Eury one to rest themselues [ ed. 1594 himselfe] betake. 1654-66 EARL ORRERY Parthen. (1676) 147 All that happened, which every one assured themselves, would render him a large sharer in the general joy. 1874 DASENT Half a life 3 Every one likes to keep it to themselves as long as they can. THEIR 3. Often used in relation to a singular sb. or pronoun denoting a person, after each, every, either, neither, no one, every one, etc. Also so used instead of `his or her', when the gender is inclusive or uncertain. (Not favoured by grammarians.) 13.. Cursor M. 389 (Cott.) Bath ware made sun and mon, Aither wit ther ouen light. c 1420 Sir Amadace (Camden) 1, Iche mon in thayre degre. 14.. Arth. & Merl. 2440 (Kolbing) Many a Sarazen lost their life. 1545 ABP. PARKER Let. to Bp. Gardiner 8 May, Thus was it agreed among us that every president should assemble their companies. 1563 WYNGET Four Scoir Thre Quest. liv, A man or woman being lang absent fra thair party. 1643 TRAPP Comm. Gen. xxiv. 22 Each Countrey bath their fashions, and garnishes. 1749 FIELDING Tom Jones vii, xiv Every one in the House were in their beds. 1771 GOLDSM. Hist. Eng III. 241 Every person..now recovered their liberty. 1845 SYD. SMITH Wks. (1850) 175 Every human being must do something with their existence. 1848 THAKERAY Van. Fair xli A person can't help their birth. 1858 BAGEHOT Lit. Studies (1879) II. 206 Nobody in their senses would describe Gray's `Elegy' as [etc.]. 1898 G.B SHAW Plays II Candida 86 It's enough to drive anyone out of their senses. Other quotes (Not OED) SHAKESPEARE God send everyone their heart's desire. THAKERAY No one prevents you, do they? GEORGE ELIOT I shouldn't like to punish anyone, even if they'd done me wrong. WALT WHITMAN ..everyone shall delight us, and we them. ELIZABETH BOWEN He did not believe it rested anybody to lie with their head high... LAWRENCE DURREL You do not have to understand someone in order to love them. DORIS LESSING And how easy the way a man or woman would come in here, glance around, find smiles and pleasant looks waiting for them, then wave and sit down by themselves.
gam@amdahl.UUCP (G A Moffett) (03/04/86)
I am shocked and appalled by the objections raised to sentences
such as:
"Each person does as they think best."
This is not ungrammatical, wrong, in error, mistaken, illiterate,
or otherwise stupid. Those of you who believe otherwise should
read my previous posting (a quote of respectable texts on
the English language, including the OED).
Those of you reading net.singles are at a disadvantange, as the
aritcle was posted to net.nlang and net.women only. Sorry, but
that was the best choice for the subject matter, in my opinion.
The article's title is:
"he or she" -- a grammatical problem solved
I suggest you read it before you continue your criticisms of
statements that use "they" with singular pronouns.
--
Gordon A. Moffett ...!{ihnp4,seismo,hplabs}!amdahl!gampaul@axiom.UUCP (Paul O`Shaughnessy) (03/05/86)
I have a better suggestion. Please pause before you followup and point out grammatical shortcomings for all of us. We (or most of us) are quite familiar with the language and its grammatical rules yet find it within ourselves to pass over the occasional error and move on. Please consider the possibility that your constant badgering on this subject is tiresome and infantile. The 'n' on my keyboard will thank you. Stop it. Now.
lee@dsi1.UUCP (Lee Hagerty) (03/05/86)
In article <2867@amdahl.UUCP> gam@amdahl.UUCP (G A Moffett) writes: >I am shocked and appalled by the objections raised to sentences >such as: > > "Each person does as they think best." > >This is not ungrammatical, wrong, in error, mistaken, illiterate, >or otherwise stupid. Those of you who believe otherwise should >read my previous posting (a quote of respectable texts on >the English language, including the OED). I didn't see your previous postings. If I had, I would still consider your example sentence to be wrong. I am one of those who believes that pronouns must agree with their antecedents, or that a pronoun agrees with its antecedent. I understand that "they" has been accepted in some circles when referring to an indefinite third-person singular antecedent. However, this can lead to unclear writing. "Each person does as they think (collectively) best" or "each person does as they think (individually) best"--which one is meant in your example? Lee
jew@usl.UUCP (James E. Wilson) (03/06/86)
RE: the use of "their" in such constructions as "If a person can't
take the time to learn their own language..."
Ed Nather from the University of Texas-Austin sends me an informative
note, where he summarizes in this way:
> There was long and anguished net.discussion about just that point,
> based on the desire to keep sex out of the pronouns, hence the plural
> form. Otherwise, it would identify the sex of the "person," which
> all and sundry agreed was sometimes undesirable. The concensus was
> to use the plural form, feeling that strict schoolbook grammar in
> this case did more damage than the (slight) disagreement in number.
Also discussed on the net were simple substitutions such as "his/her",etc.
But is it really necessary to reconstruct the language just to find a
detour around some questionable pronoun? It's not like we're picking
at some mere grammatical tort or ensnared with a desperate choice
of good grammar or social sensitivity. The problem here is quite
simply that the use of the plural possessive obscures (and in the
general case can change) the meaning of the sentence. The given
example has taken something simple and made it's meaning uncertain
and ambiguous. Consider the following, which I have corrupted from
an article in a local newspaper:
"Jury selection will continue today for the first degree
murder trial of Wilton C. Lindon, accused of the 1984
stabbing death of a 79-year-old Lafayette woman. Police
report that a witness claims to have seen the accused
first enter THEIR residence..."
Whose residence? The clear intent is to protect the identity of
the witness. The first assumption that one is likely to make is
that the victim and the witness lived together. Another good
possibility is that the victim and the accused did. Perhaps all
three. (Lafayette police do not all live together, nor do future
jurors. But who knows, given the above? Perhaps they were just
one big (unhappy) family! :-) ).
The newspaper example, of course, is a little noisier than the
original, but I think the point is clear. Given a plural possessive,
one can jump to some unpredictable conclusions as a result of chasing
this pointer back to a nonexistent or vaguely-disguised target. Even if
you "know the idiom", it makes for slower comprehension, and as I
will show, reasonable alternatives exist. It really is quite possible
to express possession, be understood, offend noone, and satisfy the
grammarians as well!!! After all, these grammarians are not really
these little people with pencils in their hair teaching high school
(or college) English courses, armed and ready to rap your knuckles at
the first sight of a double negative or split infinitive. Instead
they are people who believe, as I do, that things written should be
readable and that things spoken should be understandable. Clarity
is the basis of all grammar.
So let us consider the alternatives:
Wrong, undefined object modifier--
"If a person can't take the time to learn their own language..."
Standard, traditional, but offensive to some--
"If a person can't take the time to learn his language..."
"Turnabout is fair play"--
"If a person can't take the time to learn her language..."
Legalistic, clear, but awkward as spoken--
"If a person can't take the time to learn his/her language..."
Correct but less specific--
"If a person can't take the time to learn the language..."
But if possession is nine tenths of the law--
"If a person can't take the time to learn his or her own language..."
My preference--
"If a person can't take the time to learn one's language..."
I think any of the final three given would be sufficient for the
original context, even if one chooses to go no further than simple
pronoun substitution, and the above list is not exhaustive. Still
other possibilities arise with the restructuring of sentences, shifts
from active to passive voice, etc.
There. Now that wasn't so hard, was it?
I really question whether promoting some Orwellian Newspeak based on the
loose speech of high school sophomores is the proper way to advance
feminist (or any other) causes. English grammar is far more flexible
than some people would lead one to believe.
(By the way, how did this flare up in net.singles anyhow? Oh well...
If there is a need to do any followups on this, you will find them in
net.nlang or possibly net.women)
Jim Wilson
US Mail: USL P.O. Box 45147, Lafayette, LA 70504; tel. (318)231-6423
UUCP: {ut-sally, akgua}!usl!jew ARPA: usl!jew@ut-sallyfranka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (03/11/86)
In article <697@usl.UUCP> jew@usl.UUCP (James E. Wilson) writes: >My preference-- > "If a person can't take the time to learn one's language..." I would interpret the word "one" in this sentence to refer to the speaker (or someone else), not the "person". E.g., "The behavior of the French towards tourists who speak only English is rather intolerant at times. But if a person can't take the time to learn one's language ..." Frank Adams ihnp4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108
msb@lsuc.UUCP (Mark Brader) (03/12/86)
James E. Wilson (jew@usl.UUCP) considers: > "If a person can't take the time to learn their own language..." > "If a person can't take the time to learn his [own] language..." > "If a person can't take the time to learn her [own] language..." > "If a person can't take the time to learn his/her [own] language..." > "If a person can't take the time to learn the language..." > "If a person can't take the time to learn his or her [own] language..." And prefers: > "If a person can't take the time to learn one's [own] language..." Count me among those who like the first one. But as to the last, I would like to point out a few more options: "If one can't take the time to learn his own language..." This is normal English in the U.S., but the rest of the English-speaking world considers it illogical that a pronoun should be needed to replace another pronoun, and I think that this time they have a point. Besides, we're back to the original problem. Englishmen* and I would say: "If one can't take the time to learn one's own language..." which meets all requirements, except that it sounds odd to Americans. But there is also this possibility: "If you can't take the time to learn your own language..." which is the most forceful of the lot, and is in fact what the original poster probably meant. Conclusion: use the second person where possible. *I haven't yet heard a "non-sexist replacement" for this one! Mark Brader
mrgofor@mmm.UUCP (MKR) (03/14/86)
In article <697@usl.UUCP> jew@usl.UUCP (James E. Wilson) writes: >RE: the use of "their" in such constructions as "If a person can't > take the time to learn their own language..." > >and ambiguous. Consider the following, which I have corrupted from >an article in a local newspaper: > > "Jury selection will continue today for the first degree > murder trial of Wilton C. Lindon, accused of the 1984 > stabbing death of a 79-year-old Lafayette woman. Police > report that a witness claims to have seen the accused > first enter THEIR residence..." > >Whose residence? The clear intent is to protect the identity of >the witness. The first assumption that one is likely to make is >that the victim and the witness lived together. Another good >possibility is that the victim and the accused did. Perhaps all >three. (Lafayette police do not all live together, nor do future >jurors. But who knows, given the above? Perhaps they were just >one big (unhappy) family! :-) ). > > Jim Wilson As I pointed out in an earlier posting, the ambiguity shown above does not arise from plural/singular confusion. Change the word THEIR to HIS. Now: > "Jury selection will continue today for the first degree > murder trial of Wilton C. Lindon, accused of the 1984 > stabbing death of a 79-year-old Lafayette woman. Police > report that a witness claims to have seen the accused > first enter HIS residence..." > Whose residence? The witness's? The accused? If the victim had also been male, it could have been his house. If the word "HER" had been used, it could have been the victim's or the witness's house. All we gain by not using THEIR is knowledge of the sex of the owner of the house. If there is some confusion over the application of a pronoun, knowing the gender doesn't clear things up unless only one of the possible referents is of that gender. In cases like this, perhaps it is better not to use an ambiguous pronoun at all. -- --MKR Sometimes even the President of the United States must have to stand naked. - Dylan
laura@hoptoad.uucp (Laura Creighton) (03/21/86)
I was going to write this up, but then this article comes along. The problem which I have with the lnaguage changers is that they have a non-falsifiable hypothesis. And some of them present their opinions as scientific fact. In article <12460@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> asimov@degas.berkeley.edu.UUCP (Daniel Asimov) writes: >It has been suggested that examining cultures in whch the language >is neuter can show that it may be of little value to try to >"neuterize" the English language. > >I would like to comment that this idea ignores the effect of >*change* itself. The process of changing our language from one >which routinely uses ambiguous words ("man" for either all humans >or a male) or highly assymetrical ones (as "mailman" for mail carrier) >to a hypothetical English which doesn't do this, will (I conjecture) >have the effect of raising a lot of consciousnesses. No? >--Dan Asimov Now Dan Asimov has presented this nicely. He has a conjecture -- a hypothesis, an OPINION. He may be right. I happen to think that he is wrong, but that is okay. What is *not* okay is that a lot of people who share this opinion are forcing it down the throats of the rest of us. There are few things as frustrating as to have a paper or article which you have written mangled by some editor determined to get the ``sexism'' out. It is bad enough that they replace the elegent sentences that you have laboured over with stilted and ugly prose -- but sometimes they get in there and change teh whole meaning of what you wrote. To add to the frustration, if you talk to these same editors you discover that they have a very vague idea of what linguistics is, and that they are unaware of what the Sapir Whorf hypothesis is -- let alone any of the relevant research. So what do they have -- an opinion. A belief. Something they thinks *sounds* good or perhaps *feels* good. And because feminism is a politically active issue, feminists get to impose their beliefs and feelings on me. And I resent this a great deal. -- Laura Creighton ihnp4!hoptoad!laura utzoo!hoptoad!laura sun!hoptoad!laura toad@lll-crg.arpa