jgd@rsiatl.UUCP (John G. DeArmond) (10/17/90)
gdh@calmasd.Prime.COM (Gerald Hall) writes: >In article <2719D550.51BE@tct.uucp> chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes: >>According to dave@viper.Lynx.MN.Org (David Messer): >>>"To avoid confusing the reader by using a gender-specific pronoun where >>>proper English usage is to use a gender-unspecified pronoun, namely 'he.'" >>proper English usage may change to the optional >>use of "she" or "he" according to the whim of the writer. >> >Like it or not, the proper gender-unspecified singular pronoun is "they". >Various 'grammar fascists' have tried to suppress this usage over the >years by insisting that it is plural, however, the usage by native >speakers is the proper definition of 'correct' grammar and there are >pervasive examples in English literature where "they" is used as the >singular "he or she" equivalent. Just think of "they" as number- >unspecified (possibly or specifically singular from context) as well >as gender-unspecified. Like it or not, the first poster is correct, feminist chest thumping to the contrary. (Boy, I bet that hurts :-) Quoting from "Reference Manual for Stenographers and Typists" by Gavin & Sabin on page 155, "Use a singular pronoun when the antecedent consists of two SINGULAR nouns joined by OR or NOT. Use a PLURAL pronoun when the antecedent consists of two PLURAL nouns joined by OR or NOR (empahsis theirs). Examples: Either Will or ed will have to give up HIS office (NOT: their) Neither Joan Nor helen wants to do her share (NOT: their) Either the Wilsons or the Hensleys will bring their phonograph. (following page) "When the antecedent applies to either sex or to both, a masculine pronoun is used. Examples: A parent is responsible for the conduct of HIS children. Each person should hold HIS own ticket. Each boy and girl should hold HIS own ticket. OR: Each boy and girl may hold his or her own ticket. (for exactness, HIS OR HER may be substituted for HIS.) "Use a singular pronoun when the antecedent is a singular indefinite pronoun. The following indefinite pronouns are always singular: anyone everyone someone no one anybody everybody somebody nobody anything everything something nothing each every either one each one many a neither another "Examples: Everyone has submitted HIS expense account today. (NOT: their) Nobody could have helped HIMSELF in a situation like that. (NOT: themselves) If anyone should ask for me, tell HIM that I won't return until Monday. (NOT: them) Every company has ITS own vacation policy. (NOT: their) Neither of the clerks has HIS records up to date. (HIS agrees in number with NEITHER, not with CLERKS.) (Emphasis theirs in all cases.) So there you have it. According to my mom who is a retired executive secretary, this book has been the authority on proper grammar since day one and does not respond to the political correct-think of the day. (I typed this in under Unix which makes it relevant to this group :-) John -- John De Armond, WD4OQC | "The truly ignorant in our society are those people Radiation Systems, Inc. | who would throw away the parts of the Constitution Atlanta, Ga | they find inconvienent." -me Defend the 2nd {emory,uunet}!rsiatl!jgd| with the same fervor as you do the 1st.
rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) (10/17/90)
In article <4363@rsiatl.UUCP> jgd@rsiatl.UUCP (John G. DeArmond) writes: >Like it or not, the first poster is correct, feminist chest thumping to >the contrary. (Boy, I bet that hurts :-) Quoting from "Reference Manual >for Stenographers and Typists" by Gavin & Sabin on page 155, > With all the flames about he/she/they and female wizards, I am surprised that nobody has yet mentioned that, strictly speaking, 'wizards' is it self a gender specific term. No, I am not proposing 'comp.unix.witches'. -- =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*= Neil W. Rickert, Computer Science <rickert@cs.niu.edu> Northern Illinois Univ. DeKalb, IL 60115. +1-815-753-6940
cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) (10/17/90)
jgd@rsiatl.UUCP (John G. DeArmond) writes: }gdh@calmasd.Prime.COM (Gerald Hall) writes: }>In article <2719D550.51BE@tct.uucp> chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes: }>>According to dave@viper.Lynx.MN.Org (David Messer): }>>>"To avoid confusing the reader by using a gender-specific pronoun where }>>>proper English usage is to use a gender-unspecified pronoun, namely 'he.'" }>>proper English usage may change to the optional }>>use of "she" or "he" according to the whim of the writer. }>> }>Like it or not, the proper gender-unspecified singular pronoun is "they". }>Various 'grammar fascists' have tried to suppress this usage over the }>years by insisting that it is plural, however, the usage by native }>speakers is the proper definition of 'correct' grammar and there are }>pervasive examples in English literature where "they" is used as the }>singular "he or she" equivalent. Just think of "they" as number- }>unspecified (possibly or specifically singular from context) as well }>as gender-unspecified. }Like it or not, the first poster is correct, feminist chest thumping to }the contrary. (Boy, I bet that hurts :-) Quoting from "Reference Manual }for Stenographers and Typists" by Gavin & Sabin on page 155, 'correct' is in the eye of the beholder, of course. To paraphrase the subject line of this: the nature of English is that it *changes*. ... }So there you have it. According to my mom who is a retired executive }secretary, this book has been the authority on proper grammar since day }one and does not respond to the political correct-think of the day. 'Since day one' is hardly a commendation, any more than claiming that a defintion from the "New Century Dictionary" [from 1900] is the final authority on the proper, _contemporary_ use of the word. }(I typed this in under Unix which makes it relevant to this group :-) Yes, this all isn't relevant, but what the hell...:-)... If you're a fan of old authorities, I think that Fowler ["Modern Egnlish Usage" from the 1920's] generally presents the case for the realities of the language better than the 'know it all' grammar references that are so handy when you only want a simple yes-or-no answer, but aren't so good when your inquiry is a bit more contemplative. What Fowler has to say about this matter is pretty reasonable (as is much of Fowler): Number (11) Pronouns and possessives after {\it each}, {\it every}, {\it anyone}, [...] and the rest are all singular; that is undisputed; in a perfect language there would exist pronouns and possessives that were of as doubtful gender as they and yet were, like them, singular; i.e., it would have words meaning him-or-her, himself-or-herself, his-or-her. But, just as French lacks our power to distinguishing (without additional words) between his, her, and its, so we lack the French power of saying in one word his-or-her. Ther are three makeshifts: first, {\it as anybody can see for himself or herself}; second {\it as anybody can see for themselves}; and third, {\it as anybody can see for himself}. No one who can help it chooses the first; it is correct, and is sometimes necessary, but it is so clumsy as to be ridiculous except when explicitness is urgent, and it usually sounds like a bit of pendantic humour. The second is the popular solution [this in 1926 in _England_! -- /b\]; it sets the literary man's teeh on edge, and he exerts himself to give the same meaning in some entirely different way if he is not prepared to risk the third, which is here recommended. It involves the convention (statutory in the interpretation of documents) that where the matter of sex is not conspicuous or important the masculine form shall be allowed to represent a person instead of a man, or say a man (homo)instead of a man (vir.) Whether that convention, with {\it himself or herself} in the background for especial exactititudes, and paraphrase always possible in dubious cases, is an arrogant demand on the part of male England, everyone must decide for himself (or for himself or herself, or for themselves). Don't you wish every grammar book was as readable, strightforward about the realities of the problems and alternatives, generall as informative about things as Fowler? Sure beats the "I know it all and you do it THIS way" grammar books... We now return you to your regularly scheduled Unix flame war... /Bernie\
dnb@meshugge.media.mit.edu (David N. Blank) (10/18/90)
> So there you have it. According to my mom who is a retired executive > secretary, this book has been the authority on proper grammar since > day one and does not respond to the political correct-think of the > day. So what you're saying is that language should not change to reflect and be useful to the society that is using it? In some senses the language we use helps to shape our perceptions and attitudes. If we wish to change these, the language we use will have to demonstrate it. More .misc than comp.unix, my apologies. Peace, dNb
shore@mtxinu.COM (Melinda Shore) (10/20/90)
[] See the APA guidelines for the use of nonsexist language (1977). These are distributed by Usenix to authors, speakers, and program chairs. See also the Chicago Manual of Style, where the use of sexist language and unnecessarily gender-specific pronouns is considered "infelicitous." -- Melinda Shore shore@mtxinu.com mt Xinu ..!uunet!mtxinu.com!shore
merlyn@digibd.com (Brian Westley (Merlyn LeRoy)) (10/23/90)
>So there you have it. ^-- should be "thou hast it." "You" is one of those new words. >John De Armond --- merlyn leroy