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
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