|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 3,065
Carpal Tunnel
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 3,065 |
In reply to:
The use of the third person plural pronoun in a singular context is, of course, marred by the fact that its roots are in the Dreaded Politically Correct notion that women deserve an even break
Sorry, Faldage, use of they/them/their/theirs to refer to an unspecified singular person antedates the political correctness movement by six hundred years. See http://www.pemberley.com/janeinfo/austheir.html
Bingley
Bingley
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613 |
Oh, Bingley. Oh, it is so good to see you back
here, cintaku.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
Bingley points out: use of they/them/their/theirs to refer to an unspecified singular person antedates the political correctness movement by six hundred years.
Interesting link, Bingley. I have added it to my English Language bookmarks.
I had thought that the use of the second person plural for singular had predated the corresponding use of the third person plural by a couple of hundred years. I'll stand by my notion even more firmly now that the modern objection to this usage has *its roots in PCphobia. If this helps you to avoid tripping over me in the dark, then so much the better for both of us.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
> I'll stand by my notion even more firmly now that the modern objection to this usage has *its roots in PCphobia. If this helps you to avoid tripping over me in the dark, then so much the better for both of us.
there's some illogic inherent in these statements (standing... tripping), which helps me to stand by my notion that this usage just *sounds wrong (see numerous other threads about usage choice) -- and I'm too much of an OP to change (each of us, of course, is left to his own devices in making this choice).
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
there's some illogic inherent in these statements (standing... tripping)...
I gots big feet, tsuwm. See my picture in AWADabilia.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,439
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,439 |
Many a fruitless hour has been spent in Editorial meetings and by reporters in the newsroom over the singular use of their rather than having to write he/she.
It was complicated by the fact that the slash was a command to the computer on the ATEX system we used in the 1970s.
So basically we threw up our hands and used their as a singular when the sentence could not be constructed to avoid it.
In Bingley's super link, the sentence about theft could be easily reconstructed to avoid using "their" by eliminating the "taken upon" phrase.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
Based on the OE 3rd pers pl pronouns hie, heome and heore (or something like that, the hs were replaced by ths due to Danish influence) I took to using he, him and her for the subjective, objective and possessive, respectively, in non sex specific contexts. I even wrote a tech report for a college tech writing class using that convention. I don't think the prof noticed.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 86
journeyman
|
|
journeyman
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 86 |
Several issues have been raised as posts have flowed so quickly on many interesting topics. If we are dividing the House (in spite of Lincoln), I want my votes counted. However, first things first: In reply to:
To Geoff- doesn't B96 call herself a goddess?"
Of course she does for the very simple reason that she is one, and would NEVER be confused for a mere god. You may have that upon the authority of one who is pleased to acknowledge that he is indeed a votary of our Cara Dea,aka known, to some mortals, as B96. Scribbler is further pleased to acknowledge, as did Dr. Bill earlier,that, in the Highpriestesshood of all believers, he is one who holds that Ann of Hampshire is the true and rightful holder of that sacred office.
My next agenda item is one about which I have, for a very long time,held VERY strong feelings. "You" (sing) and "You" (pl) is established usage but occasionally requires additional explanation to clarify meaning. The use of, e.g. "their, them" with singular antecedents AND singular verbs is anathema to me, seems counter-intuitive, and confuses rather than clarifies meaning. Query? Just what IS the basic purpose of speech if not to convey meaning? I am (on THIS issue) strongly in the camp with Mighty TSUWM, Lawyer Sparteye (enlightened view!) and Lord Baltimore (BYB) and others of the same view. As I look around, it is a PRETTY strong camp. A quick footnote is necessary: Bingley, my dear chap, thank you for that link. I must own that there is no more ardent admirer of our Jane than I, but, BUT --if she had been born in a later century and had had the educational advanatages of, say, a D.L. Sayers she would, without doubt, CLEARLY WITHOUT ANY DOUBT,have been in TSUWM's camp.
Must dash for now -- out of town for a few days -- PLEASE SAVE MY PLACE !!! Further thoughts on "sex" and "gender" and "man, woman" and "lady, gentleman" to follow. Keep the thread! Scribbler
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
Our dear Scribbler complains: The use of, e.g. "their, them" with singular antecedents AND singular verbs...confuses rather than clarifies meaning.
If anyone wants to come, they IS welcome?????
I think not.
As far as confusing goes, we have lived for a mighty long time with the same first person plural pronoun covering the inclusion and exclusion of the listener and seem to have managed. If you don't think that's confusing you haven't been listening.
Sparteye? Any other lawyers? Know of any cases where this has caused legal problems? Probably any lawyer writing up anything where this could be a problem has taken care to see that the document was worded in such a way as to make the meaning clear, but it is a constant problem in casual speech.
Challenge. Find me a sentence in which the use of the 3rd pers pl pron with a singular antecedent causes confusion and give me the full context.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
>If anyone wants to come, they IS welcome????? I think not.
no, of course not. editing to obviate the issue you'd get:
everyone who wants to come is welcome
or
all who want to come are welcome
what's confusing, to someone trying to logically parse the language, is why anyone would want to write:
if anyone wants to come, they are welcome. [antecedants be damned!]
and, to think that we are excluding someone by saying "if anyone wants to come, he is welcome" makes the whole thing illogical.
|
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics13,913
Posts229,322
Members9,182
| |
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
|
|
|
0 members (),
501
guests, and
0
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
