riggsby@h-sc1.UUCP (andrew riggsby) (03/05/86)
In article <6808@boring.UUCP> steven@mcvax.UUCP (Steven Pemberton) writes: >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: >[Here follow 113 lines of citations.] There is, I think, a flaw in the way this point is argued here. In several years of Latin and Greek prose composition I have observed two problems, which Ithink are relevant here, with using such citations to support various usages. The first is that even if a given word is acceptable among the poets (for ins- tance, Shakespeare), it may not be so in prose. E'en and e'er (for even and ever) are such words as are many concrete verbs used in metaphorical senses. Similarly, some constructions may be allowed in poetry but not in prose (This is generally not so much of a problem in English, but it does happen.) The second problem is that, of course, languages vary over time. Note that in addition to supporting Mr. Pemberton's position on the he/she/they issue, the quotations he cites also contain the forms "persone","twayne","forsaketh", "fell a laughing", and "Iche mon in thayre degre." These were all well and good in their time (the quotations range from the fourteenth century to 1898, only one is from the last 100 years), but I would question their impor- tance to the question at hand. It might be argued that since the OED was published early in this century, it is necessariy restricted to the 1800's and before. This is true, but I think that it merely shows that not the OED, but a more modern work, say Strunk and White's _Elements of Style_, should be con- sulted. A work such a Strunk and White's offers the additional advantage that it is not a general historical work (like the OED), but a guide to (proper?) prose. I do not mean to argue that Mr. Pemberton is wrong about this partic- ular problem, but I do question his reasoning in this article. Andrew Riggsby riggsby@harvunxu
steven@boring.uucp (Steven Pemberton) (03/12/86)
In article <6808@boring.UUCPsteven@mcvax.UUCP I wrote: >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. [Here followed 113 lines of citations.] In article <970@h-sc1.UUCPriggsby@h-sc1.UUCP (andrew riggsby) writes: > There is, I think, a flaw in the way this point is argued here. [...] > The first is that even if a given word is acceptable among the poets > (for instance, Shakespeare), it may not be so in prose. [...] > Similarly, some constructions may be allowed in poetry but not in prose > (This is generally not so much of a problem in English, but it does > happen.) The second problem is that, of course, languages vary over time. My aim in posting was twofold: firstly to demonstrate that this use of 'they' etc. was not 'illiterate' as someone claimed, but has been used by some very literate writers, secondly to show that it is not some recent corruption of the language, but has been in continuous use since the beginning of the English language. > Note that in addition to supporting Mr. Pemberton's position on > the he/she/they issue, the quotations he cites also contain the forms > "persone","twayne","forsaketh", "fell a laughing", and "Iche mon in thayre > degre." These were all well and good in their time (the quotations range > from the fourteenth century to 1898, only one is from the last 100 years), > but I would question their importance to the question at hand. It might be > argued that since the OED was published early in this century, it is > necessariy restricted to the 1800's and before. And that is why at the end of the quotations, I included some from recent use, to show that it still good use. Steven Pemberton, CWI, Amsterdam
aglew@ccvaxa.UUCP (03/14/86)
Andrew Riggsby says that "e'en" and "e'er" are words that are appropriate in poetry but not in speech. He has obviously never been to the village of Great Easton, near Market Harborough, Leicestershire.
riggsby@h-sc1.UUCP (andrew riggsby) (03/18/86)
In article <1400005@ccvaxa> aglew@ccvaxa.UUCP writes: > >Andrew Riggsby says that "e'en" and "e'er" are words that are appropriate >in poetry but not in speech. He has obviously never been to the village >of Great Easton, near Market Harborough, Leicestershire. True. This brings up another problem in "proof by citation"--accounting for variations in local dialect. Andrew Riggsby riggsby@harvunxu