wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (06/11/85)
I ran across the following interesting English country dialect in an historical mystery (fiction), called The Pangersbourne Murders, by J. G. Jeffreys (pseudonym of Jeremy Sturrock), Walker & Co., 1983. This is supposed to be taking place in 1814 or thereabouts, and the books (this is one of a series) appear to be well-researched and well-written, so I have no reason to believe that the passage of dialect is not correct for the time and place. (I have no proof it is realistic, though, either! :-) Page 58, country locals sitting in an inn and discussing the narrator-character, who is a man: '...old Aaron. "Be that'n a lawyer, think you? Her've got that wicked inquisitive look about her, and me and Moses watched her in the churchyard poking and peering where her shouldn't have no business to peer. 'Tes a harnet's nest anyways if her be a lawyer, and fearful trouble for all."' So, notice the generic use of "her", when the person referred to is male. This same usage appears at least once elsewhere in the book, though there is little more country dialect quoted. So, it appears that in at least one area of England, "her" was used instead of "him" or "his" or "he". The question remains if this is merely a pronunciation anomaly, not carried over into written English, and if it is for real at all. It does NOT appear that using this sort of gender-reversed language had any effect on sexist attitudes, though the society depicted appears more matriarchal (the women are the only intelligent or sensible individuals of the lower-class people in the book). For what its worth... Will
bsc@wuphys.UUCP (Bryan Coughlan) (06/14/85)
<A very ineffective pickup line.>
I've seen alot of discussion recently on
the problem of what word to use to refer to
a person of unknown gender. There are several
word pairs which have this problem, among them:
1) man-woman
2) she-he
3) him-her
4) his-her
5) hers-his
#1 seems to have an agreeable solution: person.
The others however are not quite so obvious.
So far, the proposed solutions to #2 have been:
Solution Comment
a) he -------- conjures up male image
b) she ------- conjures up female image
c) it(?) ----- conjures up non-human image
d) he or she - messy
e) s/he ------ O.K. for writing, but how do you
pronounce it?
As you can see by my comments, I don't think any
of those solutions is the way to go. Instead,
I think a new word is in order. The problem is,
new words have a hard time getting accepted for
normal use. I think the reason behind that is
the lack of planning when inventing the word.
What do we want in a new word?
Well, it should not conjure up any innappropriate
images, for one (he, she, and it are out!). Also,
it should be easy to substitute in for the word
he or the word she in a sentence. This would be
best accomplished if the word were a one-syllable
word, probably with some similarity to the words
in the word pair. This would mean that it would
take the least amount of effort to use the word
in place of he or she.
My nomination ? Zhe.
(The zh is pronounced like the z in azure)
Example:
If a person saw an automobile accident,
what should zhe do?
Of course, the strange spelling and pronunciation
of this word could cause acceptance problems. If
anybody can come up with a better word, I would
welcome the suggestion. Also, suggestions for
new words for other problem word pairs are
welcome. Comments anyone ?
[ These are MY opinions ! ]
--
Bryan S. Coughlan "... No one will tell me what all this is about
Wash. U. Physics Department - but -
St. Louis, MO 63130 I WILL FIND OUT !!! "
ihnp4!wuphys!bsc - Moribund the Burgermeistermmar@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Mitchell Marks) (06/16/85)
Bryan Coughlan suggests that the solution to the "he or she" problem
is the creation of a new word, but acknowledges that it would be difficult
for such a coinage to catch on.
The difficulty is not in the incorporation of new words per se -- after
all, that much happens all the time. But pronouns in English are a closed
class (as they are in any language). We don't resist new nouns or verbs
or adjectives in the same way, because there are already so many, and because
the corresponding semantic field is open.
I remember seeing suggestions for gender-neutral pronouns in the middle
or perhaps early seventies. None of them has caught on. One system had
'shem' for the accusative or objective (i.e. the equivalent of 'her' or 'him')
and something like 'hesh' for the possessive, but I don't recall the
nominative. It would be fun to collect the various attempts, and see which
are the most plausible; but I don't think we can pin our hopes for non-
sexist language on any scheme of this sort.
In writing, 's/he' works pretty well, but I don't see how to transfer
it to speech. And in any case, if given a distinctive pronunciation it would
run up against the closed-class problem, the slowness with which the pronoun
system changes.
My favorite choice would be to make hay out of a trend that's
already happening anyway. This is the habit which someone who has a stake
in prescriptive grammar would describe as ``using a plural pronoun where
you have a singular antecedent''; but I would resist that description, and
instead say that it involves taking the form of a plural pronoun and accepting
it as a new singular. The usage is familiar though nonstandard:
Has someone left their book up here?
If anyone imagines that, they're crazy!
When someone speaks to you, look them in the face.
(The last example also shows the potential for 'you' as another sort of
indefinite.)
I resist describing this as being reanalysis of the indefinite as
plural, since sometimes you hear the reflexive with -selF:
*? I think a person should exercise and take good care of themselves.
ok I think a person should exercise and take good care of themself.
A big problem with this suggestion, I admit, is getting yourself to
use it in your academic and professional writing, where a certain brand of
standard English is expected. If you wrote 'sher' it would be obvious that
you've intentionally used a special form, with a special purpose; whether your
reader likes that or not, still they won't think you've just accidentally
slipped into substandard usage, as they might with 'they'.
But apart from that last point, I suggest that it's in a better
position than any of the coined-word solutions to overcome the closed-class
problem, because:
1. All the forms (they, them, their, theirs) are already in
the language (though themself is nonstandard) as pronouns.
2. The usage as singulars also already exists (though currently
branded as substandard).
If anyone thinks this is a wrong-headed approach, I hope THEY'll explain why.
--Mitch Marks @ UChicago
ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!mmarsteven@boring.UUCP (06/17/85)
In article <290@wuphys.UUCP> bsc@wuphys.UUCP writes: > I've seen a lot of discussion recently on the problem of what word to use > to refer to a person of unknown gender. There are several word pairs which > have this problem, among them: 1) man-woman 2) she-he 3) him-her 4) his-her > 5) hers-his. #1 seems to have an agreeable solution: person. The others > however are not quite so obvious. [...] I think a new word is in order. > [...] My nomination ? Zhe. There already IS a word in the English language, used daily, and used at least since the fourteenth century, for a person of unspecified gender. The problem is that eighteenth century grammarians pronounced this usage as 'bad English' (even though such notables as W. Shakespeare used it), and since that time its use has been frowned upon in written English (though many people say it). That word is THEY, (along with its relatives). For example: "If anyone is going into town I can give them a lift". Although the rules prescribe "I can give HIM a lift", it is my opinion that that that is incorrect usage. Now the problem is, that since this is drummed into us from our earliest school years as bad English, people find it hard to re-accept as correct. I have a collection of 35 quotations, most from the Oxford English Dictionary, and I find that hard-line anti-'they'ers are usually convinced only by being shown such a collection of notables using this 'bad' English. I hesitated at first to post the whole collection, but on reflection I think sufficient people will find it interesting to warrant it. It consists of examples of the use of THEY, THEM, THEMSELVES, and THEIR taken from the OED, plus a few quotations from other sources. Steven Pemberton, CWI, Amsterdam; steven@mcvax. ----------------------------------------------- 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 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.
gadfly@ihu1m.UUCP (Gadfly) (06/17/85)
-- > My nomination ? Zhe. > (The zh is pronounced like the z in azure) > > ... If anybody can come up with a better word, I would > welcome the suggestion. Also, suggestions for > new words for other problem word pairs are > welcome. Comments anyone ? > > Bryan S. Coughlan The Twin Oaks Community in Virginia (anybody know if it's still there?), which modelled itself after Skinner's Walden II (but very loosely), referred to each other in the 3rd person singular as "co". -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 16 Jun 85 [28 Prairial An CXCIII] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7753 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken *** ***
polard@fortune.UUCP (Henry Polard) (06/17/85)
In article <290@wuphys.UUCP> bsc@wuphys.UUCP (Bryan Coughlan) writes: >Instead, I think a new word is in order. The problem is, >new words have a hard time getting accepted for >normal use. I think the reason behind that is >the lack of planning when inventing the word. Does anyone have information on the success of attempts of "conscious" linguistic change? Obviously such things as brand names have changed our vocabulary, but I am thinking of linguistic changes whose goal is to change attitudes, as described in the article quoted above, which proposes inventing a new gender-neutral animate pronoun. -- Henry Polard (You bring the flames - I'll bring the marshmallows.) {ihnp4,cbosgd,amd}!fortune!polard N.B: The words in this posting do not necessarily express the opinions of me, my employer, or any AI project.
rafferty@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA (Colin Rafferty) (06/18/85)
> In article <290@wuphys.UUCP> bsc@wuphys.UUCP writes: > > I've seen a lot of discussion recently on the problem of what word to use > > to refer to a person of unknown gender. There are several word pairs which > > have this problem, among them: 1) man-woman 2) she-he 3) him-her 4) his-her > > 5) hers-his. #1 seems to have an agreeable solution: person. The others > > however are not quite so obvious. [...] I think a new word is in order. > > [...] My nomination ? Zhe. > > There already IS a word in the English language, used daily, and used at > least since the fourteenth century, for a person of unspecified gender. The > problem is that eighteenth century grammarians pronounced this usage as 'bad > English' (even though such notables as W. Shakespeare used it), and since > that time its use has been frowned upon in written English (though many > people say it). That word is THEY, (along with its relatives). > ..... > Now the problem is, that since this is drummed into us from our earliest > school years as bad English, people find it hard to re-accept as correct. > I have a collection of 35 quotations, most from the Oxford English > Dictionary, and I find that hard-line anti-'they'ers are usually convinced > only by being shown such a collection of notables using this 'bad' English. > I hesitated at first to post the whole collection, but on reflection I think > sufficient people will find it interesting to warrant it. It consists of > examples of the use of THEY, THEM, THEMSELVES, and THEIR taken from the OED, > plus a few quotations from other sources. > > Steven Pemberton, CWI, Amsterdam; steven@mcvax. > > ----------------------------------------------- > 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. > > 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. > > 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. > > 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.) > > [ Plus quotes from many authors from various time periods. All pre-1900 ] Unfortunately, the problem with dictionaries in general is that they will list a common usage of the word, even if it is not correct. You'll notice that all the quotes are the second or third meaning, no the first. Problem with the quotes from the "notables" is that they don't necessarily use correct English, even for the time period. (Do you ever say "Zounds!"?) In fact, all the notables you mention are from at least 100 years ago, most from much further back. It may have been correct back then to use the term, but now, it is just the sign that you want to show that you are not a MCP (or if a female, that you are a feminist). The other possibility is that you don't speak English well. A main problem facing anybody that wants to introduce a new word, is that you can't change a language by decree. If nobody likes a word or a phrase, no one will use it. However, I don't what is wrong with using 'one'. ---- Colin Rafferty { Math Department, Carnegie-Mellon University } "I suspect that CMU would deny ever knowing me, let alone sharing my views."
mike@sabre.UUCP (Michael E. Lukacs) (06/18/85)
> <A very ineffective pickup line.> > > I've seen alot of discussion recently on > the problem of what word to use to refer to > a person of unknown gender. There are several > word pairs which have this problem, among them: > > 1) man-woman > 2) she-he > 3) him-her > 4) his-her > 5) hers-his > > #1 seems to have an agreeable solution: person. > The others however are not quite so obvious. > > So far, the proposed solutions to #2 have been: > > Solution Comment > a) he -------- conjures up male image > b) she ------- conjures up female image > c) it(?) ----- conjures up non-human image > d) he or she - messy > e) s/he ------ O.K. for writing, but how do you > pronounce it? > > > As you can see by my comments, I don't think any > of those solutions is the way to go. Instead, > I think a new word is in order. The problem is, > new words have a hard time getting accepted for > normal use. I think the reason behind that is > the lack of planning when inventing the word. > > What do we want in a new word? > > Well, it should not conjure up any innappropriate > images, for one (he, she, and it are out!). Also, > it should be easy to substitute in for the word > he or the word she in a sentence. This would be > best accomplished if the word were a one-syllable > word, probably with some similarity to the words > in the word pair. This would mean that it would > take the least amount of effort to use the word > in place of he or she. > > My nomination ? Zhe. > (The zh is pronounced like the z in azure) > > Example: > If a person saw an automobile accident, > what should zhe do? > > Of course, the strange spelling and pronunciation > of this word could cause acceptance problems. If > anybody can come up with a better word, I would > welcome the suggestion. Also, suggestions for > new words for other problem word pairs are > welcome. Comments anyone ? > > [ These are MY opinions ! ] > > -- > Bryan S. Coughlan "... No one will tell me what all this is about > Wash. U. Physics Department - but - > St. Louis, MO 63130 I WILL FIND OUT !!! " > ihnp4!wuphys!bsc - Moribund the Burgermeister [gblgblgnbl] It is not at all necessary to invent a new, unpronouncable, word for this usage. :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) I hereby submit for the net's consideration the ALL-PURPOSE-PERSONAL-PRONOUN a single sylable, easily pronounced, common and understandable, and combining in a single word all three of the old fashioned pronouns. SHE + HE + IT (that's right, Shit, [pardon me ladies]). :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) Mike Lukacs (pyux#!nvuxb!mike) Bell Communications Research Holmdel, N.J. 07733
steiny@idsvax.UUCP (Don Steiny) (06/20/85)
> > Unfortunately, the problem with dictionaries in general is that they will > list a common usage of the word, even if it is not correct. > Horsefeathers! Who determines the standards of correctness? "Correct" is what the "correct" people say, and who is considered "correct" changes. > > It may have been correct back then to use the term, but now, it is just the > sign that you want to show that you are not a MCP (or if a female, that you > are a feminist). The other possibility is that you don't speak English > well. > > Colin Rafferty { Math Department, Carnegie-Mellon University } Just listen, even though it is taught in normative grammar classes that "they" (and so on) is always plural, in speech people use "they" as an indefinate pronoun all the time. For instance we say: 1) No one was sick, were they? NOT: 2) ?No one was sick, was he? 3) Someone won the lotto, didn't they? NOT: 4) ?Someone won the lotto, didn't he? "One" is singular, as in 5) One is often amused by humor. 6) *One are often amused by humor. The funniness of #2 and #4 is a powerful argument that when the antecedent is indefinate for number or gender, you don't know how many people there are (if any) or what their sexes are (sex is). The idea that dictionaries just record what people use and not what is "correct" is an amusing one. Who should the dictionary makers consult for the "correct" usage? A dictionary? Your 9th grade English teacher? William Safire? Language is used by people to communicate with other people. It is the people who use it who give a language its life and they are the final arbitrators of what it is. pesnta!idsvax!steiny Don Steiny - Computational Linguistics 109 Torrey Pine Terr. Santa Cruz, Calif. 95060 (408) 425-0832
ed@mtxinu.UUCP (Ed Gould) (06/20/85)
In article <5327@fortune.UUCP> polard@fortune.UUCP (Henry polard) writes: >Does anyone have information on the success of attempts of >"conscious" linguistic change? The removal of the double negative from English was such a conscious change. It is now considered "bad grammar" to say things like "I don't like none of the things in that basket" (meaning, in conventional prasing "I don't like any ..."). I don't have any statistics about how often things like this have been tried, but the double negative is an example. -- Ed Gould mt Xinu, 2910 Seventh St., Berkeley, CA 94710 USA {ucbvax,decvax}!mtxinu!ed +1 415 644 0146
ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) (06/20/85)
>>Instead, I think a new word is in order. The problem is, >>new words have a hard time getting accepted for >>normal use. I think the reason behind that is >>the lack of planning when inventing the word. -- Bryan Coughlan >Does anyone have information on the success of attempts of >"conscious" linguistic change? Obviously such things as brand names >have changed our vocabulary, but I am thinking of linguistic changes whose >goal is to change attitudes, as described in the article quoted above, >which proposes inventing a new gender-neutral animate pronoun. >-- Henry Polard Henry's comments are most appropriate to this discussion. The worst problem with invented pronouns like (zhe, co, per..) is precisely their artificiality. Very few people will understand those using such words at first; worse yet, it would seem to require a very conscious effort on the part of some group to bring them into wide use. Those who resist, and there would be many, will understandably scream about Big-Brotherism. They/their/them has a big advantage over invented pronouns because it has been used in colloquial speech for almost precisely the desired purpose for centuries. Where I differ from Henry's viewpoint is the reason for any the gender-neutral generic. There may be some who claim it is some kind of Orwellian plan to manipulate societal attitudes. In fact, the major reason is to provide a way, for those who care, to say exactly what is meant. Modern English usage evolved at a time when there were fewer contexts where the generic he/his/him could cause problems. As our society has changed, the old generic he/him/his came to be felt awkward and unclear, at least to many speakers, who have naturally hit upon the time-honored colloquialism they/them/their. Generic he/his/him has been maintained artificially by prescriptive grammarians for centuries. Newer texts need only add a paragraph affirming the existence of a generic singular they/them/their to sanctify a handy colloquialism. -michael
rafferty@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA (Colin Rafferty) (06/22/85)
>> Unfortunately, the problem with dictionaries in general is that they will >> list a common usage of the word, even if it is not correct. >> > Horsefeathers! Who determines the standards of correctness? > "Correct" is what the "correct" people say, and who is considered > "correct" changes. > > The idea that dictionaries just record what people > use and not what is "correct" is an amusing one. Who > should the dictionary makers consult for the "correct" > usage? A dictionary? Your 9th grade English teacher? > William Safire? Language is used by people to communicate > with other people. It is the people who use it who give > a language its life and they are the final arbitrators > of what it is. > > Don Steiny - Computational Linguistics Standards must be kept up, or the language will be corrupted a million different ways. We need to keep words with distinct meaning distinct. I don't disagree with you about how the people create a language, I just think that the language should be kept "clean". Even if it means using non- standard usage. For example, I will use "y'all" when saying "you" wouldn't be specific enough. (When in a group, "See ____ later!") And I was born and raised in NYC (recent influence from Pgh, PA (P-U!)). By the way, I think Safire would be a good source of "correct" usage, although he is a little too conservative. ---- Colin Rafferty { Math Department, Carnegie-Mellon University } "I may not agree with your iedas, but I will defend to the death your right to speak them" -Thomas Jefferson
steiny@idsvax.UUCP (Don Steiny) (06/24/85)
> > Standards must be kept up, or the language will be corrupted a million > different ways. We need to keep words with distinct meaning distinct. > > Colin Rafferty { Math Department, Carnegie-Mellon University } The postion prevelent in natural-language linguistics is that attempts at setting standards don't work and are a bit silly. Here is a quote from *Introduction to Language* by Fromkin and Rodman. It is a good survey book on linguistics. The example is that of the French Academy, the organization with the longest record of failing to maintain a "standard." In France, a notion of the "standard" as the only correct form of the language is propagated by an official academy of "scholars" who determine what usages constitute the "official French language." All deviation from the standard are frowned on by the academy, which attempts to *legislate* what words, rules, and pronunciations are to be used. The Parisian dialect was selected as the basis for this norm, at the expense of the hundreds of local village dialects (called *patois*). Many of these *patois* are actually separate languages, derived from Latin (as are French, Spanish, and Italian). A Frenchman from the provinces who wishes to succed in French society must nearly always be bi-dialectal. The academy, acting as self-appointed guardians of the purity of French, may pull out their hair, rail against the language's corruption, and proclaim against all devaitions from the "official" standard, but they have not been able to prevent the standard from changing or determine how speakers of the standard actually do speak. The younger members of the academy sometimes let new "corrupt" usage slip in, and fifty or a hundred years after the fact, the "official" language is updated to conform with the language actually used by the people. *Introduction to Language* Fromkin and Rodman, p. 258 > > "I may not agree with your iedas, but I will defend to the death your right > to speak them" > -Thomas Jefferson Are you sure? I don't have a Bartlett's Familiar Quotations here, but I remember someone on the net attributing that to Voltaire. pesnta!idsvax!steiny Don Steiny - Computational Linguistics 109 Torrey Pine Terr. Santa Cruz, Calif. 95060 (408) 425-0832
ed@mtxinu.UUCP (Ed Gould) (06/24/85)
>>> Unfortunately, the problem with dictionaries in general is that they will >>> list a common usage of the word, even if it is not correct. >>> >> Horsefeathers! Who determines the standards of correctness? >> "Correct" is what the "correct" people say, and who is considered >> "correct" changes. > >Standards must be kept up, or the language will be corrupted a million >different ways. We need to keep words with distinct meaning distinct. Please dig back through the annals of net.nlang for discussions of descriptive (record the actual usage) vs. proscriptive (record the "correct" usage) dictionaries. Let's not rehash that one here. Rather, let's focus on what people really are trying to say. -- Ed Gould mt Xinu, 2910 Seventh St., Berkeley, CA 94710 USA {ucbvax,decvax}!mtxinu!ed +1 415 644 0146
ps@celerity.UUCP (Pat Shanahan) (07/01/85)
... > > Unfortunately, the problem with dictionaries in general is that they will > list a common usage of the word, even if it is not correct. You'll notice > that all the quotes are the second or third meaning, no the first. > > Problem with the quotes from the "notables" is that they don't necessarily > use correct English, even for the time period. (Do you ever say "Zounds!"?) > In fact, all the notables you mention are from at least 100 years ago, most > from much further back. > > It may have been correct back then to use the term, but now, it is just the > sign that you want to show that you are not a MCP (or if a female, that you > are a feminist). The other possibility is that you don't speak English > well. > > A main problem facing anybody that wants to introduce a new word, is that > you can't change a language by decree. If nobody likes a word or a phrase, > no one will use it. However, I don't what is wrong with using 'one'. > > ---- > Colin Rafferty { Math Department, Carnegie-Mellon University } > How do you define "correct" English? You seem to have excluded common usage, the writings of highly regarded authors, and decree. If none of these defines the language, what does? -- ps (Pat Shanahan) uucp : {decvax!ucbvax || ihnp4 || philabs}!sdcsvax!celerity!ps arpa : sdcsvax!celerity!ps@nosc