Singular "they" revisited

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

"I really don’t give a damn where some politician or celebrity is
putting their penis" (P. Z. Myers today at Pharyngula).

It seems to me it would be safe to put "his" there.


--
athel

[Tom P]

I can think of a few female celebrities.

[Eric Walker]

Quite a number of similar nonsense are regularly reported, from remarks
about the inmates of an all-woman prison to comments on major-league
baseball players.


--
Cordially,
Eric Walker

[Eric Walker]

But I daresay very few of them are putting their penises anywhere.


--
Cordially,
Eric Walker

[Peter Brooks]

Where does this madness come from? More importantly, how does it
remain current? I'm sure there were some people who really cared about
this sort of thing half a century ago, but, surely, nobody is trying
to enforce this linguistic fascism now - are they?

[Guy Barry]

"Tom P" wrote in message news:agc35q...@mid.individual.net...

With penises?

--
Guy Barry

[Guy Barry]

"Peter Brooks" wrote in message
news:992545db-cc3e-4a39...@l7g2000vbj.googlegroups.com...

How is this "linguistic fascism"? In speech and informal writing, I've
always used "they" as a generic third-person singular pronoun. It wasn't
political correctness - that's just how I grew up speaking. "They" has been
used in English in that fashion for centuries, though some prescriptivists
still disapprove of it. I imagine that the speaker in that particular
example was simply using "they" because it was the pronoun that came
naturally, and didn't really think about the context.

--
Guy Barry

[mrucb...@att.net]

I thought nonsense was a mass noun and usually not considered countable. When it is, the reference at hand says it is nonsenses. Is this something you constructed to be provocative, or would you really write such a nasty thing?

[Peter Brooks]

Really?? I'm amazed. The only form that makes sense to me, as English,
is: "I really don t give a damn where some politician or celebrity is
putting his penis". Even if it wasn't a sexually distinguishing body
part. So it'd also be "I really don t give a damn where some
politician or celebrity is putting his soup spoon.".

[James Hogg]

mrucb...@att.net wrote:
> On Monday, November 12, 2012 5:09:59 AM UTC-6, Eric Walker wrote:
>> Quite a number of similar nonsense are regularly reported, from remarks
>>
>> about the inmates of an all-woman prison to comments on major-league
>>
>> baseball players.
>>
>

> I thought nonsense was a mass noun and usually not considered countable.
> When it is, the reference at hand says it is nonsenses. Is this
something you
> constructed to be provocative, or would you really write such a nasty
thing?

I concur that "Quite a number of similar nonsense are regularly
reported" is infelicitous and would recommend that it be recast.

--
James

[Guy Barry]

"Peter Brooks" wrote in message

news:f0567454-eafa-4951...@g18g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...

> On Nov 12, 2:41 pm, "Guy Barry" <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> > How is this "linguistic fascism"? In speech and informal writing, I've
> > always used "they" as a generic third-person singular pronoun. It
> > wasn't
> > political correctness - that's just how I grew up speaking. "They" has
> > been
> > used in English in that fashion for centuries, though some
> > prescriptivists
> > still disapprove of it. I imagine that the speaker in that particular
> > example was simply using "they" because it was the pronoun that came
> > naturally, and didn't really think about the context.

> Really?? I'm amazed.

Well, singular "they" has a long pedigree. Burchfield cites some examples
from the OED:

"Every Body fell a laughing, as how could they help it" (Fielding, 1749)
"If a person is born of a... gloomy temper... they cannot help it"
(Chesterfield, 1759)
"Nobody can deprive us of the Church, if they would" (W. Whewell, 1835)
"Now, nobody does anything well that they cannot help doing" (Ruskin, 1866)

Prescriptivists have always frowned on the use of "they" as a singular, but
I don't see how it's any worse than using "you" as a singular. It strikes
me as by far the least awkward pronoun to use it such constructions.

> The only form that makes sense to me, as English,
> is: "I really don t give a damn where some politician or celebrity is
> putting his penis". Even if it wasn't a sexually distinguishing body
> part. So it'd also be "I really don t give a damn where some
> politician or celebrity is putting his soup spoon.".

But in the latter case it sounds as though you're restricting yourself to
male politicians and celebrities. "His" sounds very artificial to me in
such contexts. Would you really say "his" if the discussion were about,
say, Nadine Dorries? (I leave you to judge whether she counts as a
politician or a celebrity.)

--
Guy Barry

[Tom P]

with boyfriends

[Reinhold {Rey} Aman]

Guy Barry wrote:
>
> "Tom P" wrote...

>>
>> I can think of a few female celebrities.
>
> With penises?
>

Sure, with strap-ons.

--
~~~ Reinhold {Rey} Aman ~~~
Rey's my name,
Lashon HaRa's my game.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

I noticed it, but thought it was probably a typo (or a thinko). In the
absence of a definitive explanation from Eric I still think that.


--
athel

[Dr Nick]

As a vigorous proponent of singular they, I can nevertheless only agree.

[Peter Brooks]

On Nov 12, 4:11 pm, "Guy Barry" <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> But in the latter case it sounds as though you're restricting yourself to
> male politicians and celebrities.  "His" sounds very artificial to me in
> such contexts.  Would you really say "his" if the discussion were about,
> say, Nadine Dorries?  (I leave you to judge whether she counts as a
> politician or a celebrity.)
>

In English, 'he' or 'his', is used to refer to either sex. If you say
'she', you mean a woman. It's rather discriminatory against men, that
they don't have a unique personal pronoun, but there you are, it's
language, not political correctness.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2012-11-12 19:43:52 +0000, Peter Brooks said:

> On Nov 12, 4:11�pm, "Guy Barry" <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>> But in the latter case it sounds as though you're restricting yourself to
>> male politicians and celebrities. �"His" sounds very artificial to me in
>> such contexts. �Would you really say "his" if the discussion were about,
>> say, Nadine Dorries? �(I leave you to judge whether she counts as a
>> politician or a celebrity.)
>>
> In English, 'he' or 'his', is used to refer to either sex.

That's what I was taught WIWAL, but the world has moved on since then.

> If you say
> 'she', you mean a woman. It's rather discriminatory against men, that
> they don't have a unique personal pronoun, but there you are, it's
> language, not political correctness.

--
athel

[Walter P. Zähl]

Athel Cornish-Bowden <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
> On 2012-11-12 19:43:52 +0000, Peter Brooks said:
>
>> On Nov 12, 4:11 pm, "Guy Barry" <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> But in the latter case it sounds as though you're restricting yourself to
>>> male politicians and celebrities. "His" sounds very artificial to me in
>>> such contexts. Would you really say "his" if the discussion were about,
>>> say, Nadine Dorries? (I leave you to judge whether she counts as a
>>> politician or a celebrity.)
>>>> In English, 'he' or 'his', is used to refer to either sex.
>
> That's what I was taught WIWAL, but the world has moved on since then.
>

Perhaps it's time for an initiative "No Adult Left Behind".
I'd apply for membership, because this development (similar here in
Germany) definitely left _me_ behind ...

/Walter

[Mike L]

On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 20:49:37 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:

>On 2012-11-12 19:43:52 +0000, Peter Brooks said:
>
>> On Nov 12, 4:11 pm, "Guy Barry" <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> But in the latter case it sounds as though you're restricting yourself to
>>> male politicians and celebrities.  "His" sounds very artificial to me in
>>> such contexts.  Would you really say "his" if the discussion were about,
>>> say, Nadine Dorries?  (I leave you to judge whether she counts as a
>>> politician or a celebrity.)
>>>
>> In English, 'he' or 'his', is used to refer to either sex.
>
>That's what I was taught WIWAL, but the world has moved on since then.

Quite so. I actually had to unlearn the older principle fairly
recently, though I don't think I ever used to put it into practice
very often. I usually try to write my way round the problem.

In one of these discussions, I mentioned that the 1920s-1930s
missionary travellers in China, Mildred Cable and Francesca French,
had the disconcerting habit of using impersonal "he" even when only a
woman could have been meant.

>
>> If you say
>> 'she', you mean a woman. It's rather discriminatory against men, that
>> they don't have a unique personal pronoun, but there you are, it's
>> language, not political correctness.

--

Mike.

[Donna Richoux]

Peter Brooks <peter.h....@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Nov 12, 1:09 pm, Eric Walker <em...@owlcroft.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 08:42:07 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> > > "I really don't give a damn where some politician or celebrity is
> > > putting their penis" (P. Z. Myers today at Pharyngula).
> >
> > > It seems to me it would be safe to put "his" there.
> >
> > Quite a number of similar nonsense are regularly reported, from remarks
> > about the inmates of an all-woman prison to comments on major-league
> > baseball players.
> >
> Where does this madness come from? More importantly, how does it
> remain current?

Well, what amazes me is how many people on this newsgroup say they can
understand and tolerate "they" used for any combination of male, female,
unknown, singular, and plural constructions -- *except* in the rare
extreme cases (involving, for example, penises, breastfeeding, and
all-women activities) where the gender is known. Then suddenly the new,
general, all-encompassing rule has to have exceptions, and these
participants demand that others use him, her, he, she.

That's not the way the rule looks, for my point of view. You don't get a
new, broad rule that doesn't need exceptions and suddenly demand
exceptions. If gender doesn't matter, it doesn't matter.

It's a lot like the contortions that "you" and "thou/thee" went through,
but we're on the other side of that one.

> I'm sure there were some people who really cared about
> this sort of thing half a century ago, but, surely, nobody is trying
> to enforce this linguistic fascism now - are they?

These changes do not arise, spread, or continue because of linguistic
fascism.

--
Best wishes -- Donna Richoux

[Eric Walker]

On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 05:25:52 -0800, mrucbeadco wrote:

[...]

> I thought nonsense was a mass noun and usually not considered countable.
> When it is, the reference at hand says it is nonsenses. Is this
> something you constructed to be provocative, or would you really write
> such a nasty thing?

Just a simple typo. Embarrassing, but there's no "edit" feature on
usenet.


--
Cordially,
Eric Walker

[Eric Walker]

Well, here we go on this whole thing again. My thoughts at length on it
are available on line:

http://owlcroft.com/english/they.shtml

In short form, it blatantly contravenes sanity to use "they" in the
singular. Yes, our language lacks a true neuter or generic third-person-
plural pronoun: so?

The fact is that there are numerous ways of avoiding the issue in the
first place; Garner ("A Dictionary of Modern American usage") mentions
five, but simply using the plural form works in some quite high
percentage of cases.

And when no such measure does work, what is this dire, profoundly
agonizing torture to which we are exposed? Two extra syllables, seven
extra characters (" or her"). O my God, the pain, the pain, spare me, O
Lord!

--
Cordially,
Eric Walker

[Robert Bannister]

Athel, we live in an age where women have balls. Best not to go there.

--
Robert Bannister

[Peter Brooks]

On Nov 12, 11:23 pm, Walter P. Zähl <spamsin...@zaehl.de> wrote:

Don't worry, the current trend is only a passing fad, the pukka use
will return - if you work on it, you can help it back. Not that, for
most people, it ever left.

[Peter Brooks]

On Nov 13, 1:12 am, Mike L <n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 20:49:37 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
>

> <acorn...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
> >On 2012-11-12 19:43:52 +0000, Peter Brooks said:
>
> >> On Nov 12, 4:11 pm, "Guy Barry" <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >>> But in the latter case it sounds as though you're restricting yourself to
> >>> male politicians and celebrities. "His" sounds very artificial to me in
> >>> such contexts. Would you really say "his" if the discussion were about,
> >>> say, Nadine Dorries? (I leave you to judge whether she counts as a
> >>> politician or a celebrity.)
>
> >> In English, 'he' or 'his', is used to refer to either sex.
>
> >That's what I was taught WIWAL, but the world has moved on since then.
>
> Quite so. I actually had to unlearn the older principle fairly
> recently, though I don't think I ever used to put it into practice
> very often. I usually try to write my way round the problem.
>
> In one of these discussions, I mentioned that the 1920s-1930s
> missionary travellers in China, Mildred Cable and Francesca French,
> had the disconcerting habit of using impersonal "he" even when only a
> woman could have been meant.
>

What's disconcerting about that? It's standard English.

What pisses me off is the authors who use something to alternate
between 'he' and 'she' throughout the text. Every time they say 'she',
I have to have a mental hunt for the woman being referred to - I only
persist in reading such books if I really have to. If somebody has to
play games like that because he's afraid of fascists, then it's highly
unlikely that anything he says is worth reading

It's nearly always authors, too, for some reason, authoresses tend to
be more sensible.

[Peter Brooks]

On Nov 13, 1:33 am, t...@euronet.nl (Donna Richoux) wrote:

> Peter Brooks <peter.h.m.bro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > I'm sure there were some people who really cared about
> > this sort of thing half a century ago, but, surely, nobody is trying
> > to enforce this linguistic fascism now - are they?
>
> These changes do not arise, spread, or continue because of linguistic
> fascism.
>

What makes you think that? I've encountered the linguistic fascism
first-hand.

[Peter Brooks]

In Thailand, I believe, it's possible to go there quite
unintentionally.

[Guy Barry]

"Peter Brooks" wrote in message

news:1969672f-32d0-4e0f...@c20g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...

> On Nov 12, 4:11 pm, "Guy Barry" <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> > But in the latter case it sounds as though you're restricting yourself
> > to
> > male politicians and celebrities. "His" sounds very artificial to me in
> > such contexts. Would you really say "his" if the discussion were about,
> > say, Nadine Dorries? (I leave you to judge whether she counts as a
> > politician or a celebrity.)
>
> In English, 'he' or 'his', is used to refer to either sex.

Not in my native dialect. "He" and "his" only refer to men. When I was
younger some prescriptivists insisted that they should be used to apply to
people of indeterminate gender as well, but I never really bought it - it
sounded completely unnatural to me. I wouldn't go so far as to call it
"linguistic fascism", but it comes across to me as insisting on an outdated
usage for the sake of being "anti-politically-correct".

> If you say
> 'she', you mean a woman. It's rather discriminatory against men, that
> they don't have a unique personal pronoun, but there you are, it's
> language, not political correctness.

As I've already said, singular "they" is in my native dialect. It's generic
"he" that people have tried to force on me, not the other way round.

--
Guy Barry

[Eric Walker]

On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 17:46:34 -0800, Peter Brooks wrote:

[...]

> What pisses me off is the authors who use something to alternate between
> 'he' and 'she' throughout the text. Every time they say 'she', I have to
> have a mental hunt for the woman being referred to - I only persist in
> reading such books if I really have to. If somebody has to play games
> like that because he's afraid of fascists, then it's highly unlikely
> that anything he says is worth reading
>
> It's nearly always authors, too, for some reason, authoresses tend to be
> more sensible.

I take it that the use of the generally deprecated "authoresses" was
deliberately provocative.


--
Cordially,
Eric Walker

[Nathan Sanders]

In article <k7s69c$ua6$8...@dont-email.me>,

Eric Walker <em...@owlcroft.com> wrote:

> In short form, it blatantly contravenes sanity to use "they" in the
> singular.

It contravenes sanity even more to use "you" in the singular, since we
already had "thou/thee". And yet we do it anyway (and thankfully,
don't get any backtalk from grammar mavens; I am fascinated by which
battles they pick and which they ignore).

> Yes, our language lacks a true neuter or generic third-person-
> plural pronoun: so?

Our language didn't even lack a true second-person singular pronoun,
and yet we allowed our plural to supplant it anyway. (See also "you"
and "ye".)

Language changes, sometimes to fill a gap (epicene use of "they"), and
sometimes for no particular reason whatsoever (plural second-person
object "you" unnecessarily replacing singular "thou/thee" and subject
"ye", despite a nearly consistent distinction between singular and
plural and subject and object for almost all of the other personal
pronouns).

> The fact is that there are numerous ways of avoiding the issue in the
> first place;

It doesn't matter how many ways there are; speakers will use whichever
ones they end up using. Logic is irrelevant.

Nathan

--
Department of Linguistics
Swarthmore College
http://sanders.phonologist.org/

[Nathan Sanders]

In article
<1969672f-32d0-4e0f...@c20g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>,

Peter Brooks <peter.h....@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Nov 12, 4:11 pm, "Guy Barry" <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >
> > But in the latter case it sounds as though you're restricting yourself to
> > male politicians and celebrities.  "His" sounds very artificial to me in
> > such contexts.  Would you really say "his" if the discussion were about,
> > say, Nadine Dorries?  (I leave you to judge whether she counts as a
> > politician or a celebrity.)
>
> In English, 'he' or 'his', is used to refer to either sex.

Not in my English, in which "the woman told the man that he had to
leave" cannot be interpreted as the woman excusing herself.

> If you say
> 'she', you mean a woman.

Or a boat. Or a house. Or a gun. Or a female non-human animal.

[Guy Barry]

"Donna Richoux" wrote in message
news:1kth26n.zaoj1f1my1qrtN%tr...@euronet.nl...

> Well, what amazes me is how many people on this newsgroup say they can
> understand and tolerate "they" used for any combination of male, female,
> unknown, singular, and plural constructions -- *except* in the rare
> extreme cases (involving, for example, penises, breastfeeding, and
> all-women activities) where the gender is known. Then suddenly the new,
> general, all-encompassing rule has to have exceptions, and these
> participants demand that others use him, her, he, she.

That's a good point. I suppose it's the same reason as a lot of speakers
take exception to thing like "more people are breastfeeding nowadays" - it's
not actually wrong, it just carries the odd connotation that men might be
breastfeeding as well as women. "People" tends to suggest a group of mixed
gender, even though it clearly doesn't have to be used that way.

> These changes do not arise, spread, or continue because of linguistic
> fascism.

Quite. There have been various attempt to invent gender-neutral pronouns or
impose other artificial conventions which one might consider to be
"linguistic fascism", but as far as I'm concerned the use of singular "they"
isn't like that. It's just part of the language which prescriptivists have
conventionally frowned upon, for no particularly good reason except that
it's also used as a plural. Insisting that "they" has to be plural strikes
me as like insisting that "whose" can only be used with an inanimate
antecedent - it's an artificial constraint put on the language that makes it
harder to express things naturally.

--
Guy Barry

[Guy Barry]

"Eric Walker" wrote in message news:k7s5re$ua6$7...@dont-email.me...

What did you mean, though, when you wrote "quite a number of similar
nonsense are regularly reported"? As pointed out, "nonsense" isn't normally
used as a count noun. Did you mean to write "nonsenses"? I'd have written
"quite a number of similar pieces of nonsense are regularly reported", or
"quite an amount of similar nonsense is regularly reported".

--
Guy Barry

[Peter Brooks]

On Nov 13, 4:32 am, "Guy Barry" <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> "Peter Brooks"  wrote in message
>
> news:1969672f-32d0-4e0f...@c20g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Nov 12, 4:11 pm, "Guy Barry" <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > But in the latter case it sounds as though you're restricting yourself
> > > to
> > > male politicians and celebrities.  "His" sounds very artificial to me in
> > > such contexts.  Would you really say "his" if the discussion were about,
> > > say, Nadine Dorries?  (I leave you to judge whether she counts as a
> > > politician or a celebrity.)
>
> > In English, 'he' or 'his', is used to refer to either sex.
>
> Not in my native dialect.  "He" and "his" only refer to men.  When I was
> younger some prescriptivists insisted that they should be used to apply to
> people of indeterminate gender as well, but I never really bought it - it
> sounded completely unnatural to me.  I wouldn't go so far as to call it
> "linguistic fascism", but it comes across to me as insisting on an outdated
> usage for the sake of being "anti-politically-correct".
>

Have you read any English novels?

To claim that you're unaware of the standard English convention that
'he' refers to either sex, unless explicitly referring to a particular
chap, is to suggest that you haven't.

At least not very many.

People, by the way, don't have gender. People have sex. Words have
gender. There is a jocular misusage of 'gender' to mean 'sex', but it
is best avoided because some feminazis back in the '60s tried to make
a case (based on a misunderstanding of biology) that behaviour was not
linked to genetics.

[Peter Brooks]

What?? If by 'generally', you mean that this is a linguistic
peculiarity of military generals, I couldn't disagree, as I don't know
any. If you meant it in its normal sense, I can't possibly agree,
what's wrong with 'authoresses'??

[Peter Brooks]

On Nov 13, 4:53 am, Lewis <g.kr...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> In message <51d27296-27ac-47c3-bee1-9e94f834e...@u9g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>

>   Peter Brooks <peter.h.m.bro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 13, 1:12 am, Mike L <n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 20:49:37 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
>
> >> <acorn...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
> >> >On 2012-11-12 19:43:52 +0000, Peter Brooks said:
>
> >> >> On Nov 12, 4:11 pm, "Guy Barry" <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >>>>>But in the latter case it sounds as though you're restricting
> >>>>>yourself to male politicians and celebrities. "His" sounds very
> >>>>>artificial to me in such contexts. Would you really say "his" if
> >>>>>the discussion were about, say, Nadine Dorries? (I leave you to
> >>>>>judge whether she counts as a politician or a celebrity.)
> >>>>In English, 'he' or 'his', is used to refer to either sex.
> >>>That's what I was taught WIWAL, but the world has moved on since then.
> >>Quite so. I actually had to unlearn the older principle fairly
> >>recently, though I don't think I ever used to put it into practice
> >>very often. I usually try to write my way round the problem.
> >>In one of these discussions, I mentioned that the 1920s-1930s
> >>missionary travellers in China, Mildred Cable and Francesca French,
> >>had the disconcerting habit of using impersonal "he" even when only a
> >>woman could have been meant.
> > What's disconcerting about that? It's standard English.
>

> It may have *been* standard English; I do not believe it is anymore.
> That is to say, a student turning in a paper with a neuter use of he/him
> will be marked down for it and told to rewrite it.

>
> > What pisses me off is the authors who use something to alternate
> > between 'he' and 'she' throughout the text. Every time they say 'she',
> > I have to have a mental hunt for the woman being referred to - I only
> > persist in reading such books if I really have to. If somebody has to
> > play games like that because he's afraid of fascists, then it's highly
> > unlikely that anything he says is worth reading
>

> I used to like to use s/he/it (or shit for short), but that was when I
> was younger and more contrarian.
>
As a joke, it's fair enough, like that book written without the letter
'e' - but a curiosity, not something a normal person would have any
truck with.

>
> > It's nearly always authors, too, for some reason, authoresses tend to
> > be more sensible.
>

> Because they can get away with it, while if a man does it it is proof he
> hates women.
>
Ah, yes, of course, the old double-standard, were would hypocrites be
without it.

[Peter Brooks]

On Nov 13, 3:53 am, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> In article
> <1969672f-32d0-4e0f-b0b8-f92d6cb50...@c20g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>,

>  Peter Brooks <peter.h.m.bro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 12, 4:11 pm, "Guy Barry" <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > But in the latter case it sounds as though you're restricting yourself to
> > > male politicians and celebrities.  "His" sounds very artificial to me in
> > > such contexts.  Would you really say "his" if the discussion were about,
> > > say, Nadine Dorries?  (I leave you to judge whether she counts as a
> > > politician or a celebrity.)
>
> > In English, 'he' or 'his', is used to refer to either sex.
>
> Not in my English, in which "the woman told the man that he had to
> leave" cannot be interpreted as the woman excusing herself.
>

It wouldn't in anybody's language - as I said, in another post, it
refers to either sex, unless specified by context, as this one is.

Thank you for adding the clarification, though!

Actually, though, as a point of fact... If a woman had, say, farted,
and noticed that it was unusually vexatious, she might well tell the
man that he had to leave - as a means of excusing herself. Not that
that interpretation affects your point, of course.

>
> > If you say
> > 'she', you mean a woman.
>
> Or a boat.  Or a house.  Or a gun.  Or a female non-human animal.
>

Indeed, quite right! I hadn't made my construction nit-picker proof.

[Peter Brooks]

On Nov 13, 5:29 am, "Guy Barry" <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> "Donna Richoux"  wrote in message
>
> news:1kth26n.zaoj1f1my1qrtN%tr...@euronet.nl...
>
> > Well, what amazes me is how many people on this newsgroup say they can
> > understand and tolerate "they" used for any combination of male, female,
> > unknown, singular, and plural constructions -- *except* in the rare
> > extreme cases (involving, for example, penises, breastfeeding, and
> > all-women activities) where the gender is known. Then suddenly the new,
> > general, all-encompassing rule has to have exceptions, and these
> > participants demand that others use him, her, he, she.
>
> That's a good point.  I suppose it's the same reason as a lot of speakers
> take exception to thing like "more people are breastfeeding nowadays" - it's
> not actually wrong, it just carries the odd connotation that men might be
> breastfeeding as well as women.  "People" tends to suggest a group of mixed
> gender, even though it clearly doesn't have to be used that way.
>

Men can, in fact, breastfeed. It would require a course of hormone
injections, but it's possible. Not popular, mind.

>
> > These changes do not arise, spread, or continue because of linguistic
> > fascism.
>
> Quite.  There have been various attempt to invent gender-neutral pronouns or
> impose other artificial conventions which one might consider to be
> "linguistic fascism", but as far as I'm concerned the use of singular "they"
> isn't like that.
>

At least this makes it appear that you're familiar with linguistic
fascism, even if you seek to exclude this construction from its
armoury.

[Guy Barry]

"Guy Barry" wrote in message news:W8jos.486589$Ak.4...@fx24.am4...

> Insisting that "they" has to be plural strikes me as like insisting that
> "whose" can only be used with an inanimate antecedent

"Animate", of course, not "inanimate". (Why is it so easy to say the
opposite of what one means sometimes?)

--
Guy Barry

[Guy Barry]

"Peter Brooks" wrote in message

news:d034e0b4-3aea-42cf...@j19g2000vba.googlegroups.com...

> On Nov 13, 4:32 am, "Guy Barry" <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> > Peter Brooks wrote:

> > > In English, 'he' or 'his', is used to refer to either sex.
>

> > Not in my native dialect. "He" and "his" only refer to men. [...]

> Have you read any English novels?

Of what period? I don't doubt that "he" and "his" were used like that in
the 19th century, but I haven't noticed it in my recent reading.

> To claim that you're unaware of the standard English convention that
> 'he' refers to either sex, unless explicitly referring to a particular
> chap, is to suggest that you haven't.

I don't think it is standard any more. If I see "he" used that way now it's
jarring; either I wonder who the author is talking about, or I assume that
they're trying to make some sort of political point. (Note my use of "they"
in that sentence, by the way. Would you really have substituted "he"
there?)

> People, by the way, don't have gender. People have sex. Words have
> gender. There is a jocular misusage of 'gender' to mean 'sex', but it
> is best avoided because some feminazis back in the '60s tried to make
> a case (based on a misunderstanding of biology) that behaviour was not
> linked to genetics.

I tend to use "gender" now because "sex" is taken to mean sexual intercourse
or other sexual activity. Your statement "people have sex" is just begging
to be misinterpreted.

While I accept that "gender" is originally a term from grammar (and I still
use it that way of course), I think the danger of confusion between the two
senses is minimal. Perhaps it would be better if there were a separate word
that could be used, but I think "gender" is widely accepted in this sense
now.

--
Guy Barry

[Peter Moylan]

On 12/11/12 23:41, Guy Barry wrote:
>
>
> "Peter Brooks" wrote in message

> news:992545db-cc3e-4a39...@l7g2000vbj.googlegroups.com...
>
>> On Nov 12, 1:09 pm, Eric Walker <em...@owlcroft.com> wrote:
>> > On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 08:42:07 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> > > "I really don�t give a damn where some politician or celebrity is

>> > > putting their penis" (P. Z. Myers today at Pharyngula).
>>
>> > > It seems to me it would be safe to put "his" there.
>>

>> > Quite a number of similar nonsense are regularly reported, from remarks
>> > about the inmates of an all-woman prison to comments on major-league
>> > baseball players.
>>
>> Where does this madness come from? More importantly, how does it

>> remain current? I'm sure there were some people who really cared about

>> this sort of thing half a century ago, but, surely, nobody is trying
>> to enforce this linguistic fascism now - are they?
>

> How is this "linguistic fascism"? In speech and informal writing, I've
> always used "they" as a generic third-person singular pronoun. It
> wasn't political correctness - that's just how I grew up speaking.
> "They" has been used in English in that fashion for centuries, though
> some prescriptivists still disapprove of it. I imagine that the speaker
> in that particular example was simply using "they" because it was the
> pronoun that came naturally, and didn't really think about the context.
>
Hear, hear.

There seems to be a widespread belief that singular "they" is only for
use when one wants to avoid using a sex-specific pronoun. For those who
grew up using singular "they" that is not the motivation. They use it
because, as Guy says, it's the word that comes naturally.

--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

[R H Draney]

Athel Cornish-Bowden filted:

>
>On 2012-11-12 19:43:52 +0000, Peter Brooks said:
>

>> In English, 'he' or 'his', is used to refer to either sex.
>

>That's what I was taught WIWAL, but the world has moved on since then.

"Man is a mammal; i.e., he has breasts with which he nurses his offspring"....

Yeesh....r


--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.

[Guy Barry]

"Peter Moylan" wrote in message
news:Z-SdnRwrr_5HUzzN...@westnet.com.au...

> There seems to be a widespread belief that singular "they" is only for
> use when one wants to avoid using a sex-specific pronoun.

I'm sure there are some people who *do* deliberately and self-consciously
use it in such a fashion, but I'm not one of them.

> For those who
> grew up using singular "they" that is not the motivation. They use it
> because, as Guy says, it's the word that comes naturally.

I think there's a certain amount of snobbery, as it's generally seen as an
uneducated usage. If it were generally accepted, then no one would have
deemed it necessary to use circumlocutions like "he or she" or invent
artificial substitutes like "zie" (which was commonly used on one group I
used to subscribe to). Even I tend to avoid singular "they" in formal
writing, and try to circumvent it in some way. Life would be a lot easier
if it were generally accepted.

There are a couple of things that perplex me about the usage, though. Why,
if it's a genuinely singular pronoun, does it take a plural verb? We don't
say "every politician thinks that they is infallible", for instance.

Also, what's the correct reflexive form? I would naturally say "every
politician is in it for themselves", but I sometimes see "themself", which I
concede is a more logical form. I distinguish "yourself" (singular) from
"yourselves" (plural), even though "you" isn't distinguished for number in
any other way; but somehow "themself" doesn't come naturally to me.

--
Guy Barry

[Peter Brooks]

On Nov 13, 8:43 am, "Guy Barry" <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> "Peter Moylan"  wrote in message
>
>

> Also, what's the correct reflexive form?  I would naturally say "every
> politician is in it for themselves", but I sometimes see "themself", which I
> concede is a more logical form.  I distinguish "yourself" (singular) from
> "yourselves" (plural), even though "you" isn't distinguished for number in
> any other way; but somehow "themself" doesn't come naturally to me.
>

I do understand your point about it being a usage you're familiar
with, and that seems quite reasonable.

In this example, though, isn't it simply more natural to say
'himself', since, as you say, 'themself' doesn't come naturally?

[Guy Barry]

"Peter Brooks" wrote in message

news:96fb03fa-6bd8-47ae...@s14g2000vba.googlegroups.com...

No, it's not. For me the reflexive of "they" (singular or plural) is
"themselves", and I certainly wouldn't substitute "himself". Otherwise I'd
end up saying "every politician looks as though they're pleased with
himself".

But I have this vague feeling that I shouldn't really be saying "themselves"
in the singular.

--
Guy Barry

[Dr Nick]

Eric Walker <em...@owlcroft.com> writes:

> On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 19:29:07 +0000, Dr Nick wrote:
>
>> Athel Cornish-Bowden <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> writes:
>>
>>> "I really don’t give a damn where some politician or celebrity is
>>> putting their penis" (P. Z. Myers today at Pharyngula).
>>> It seems to me it would be safe to put "his" there.
>> As a vigorous proponent of singular they, I can nevertheless only
>> agree.
>
> Well, here we go on this whole thing again.

I know them, respect them, but disagree with them.

[Dr Nick]

"Guy Barry" <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> writes:

> "Peter Brooks" wrote in message
> news:d034e0b4-3aea-42cf...@j19g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
>
>> On Nov 13, 4:32 am, "Guy Barry" <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> > Peter Brooks wrote:
>
>> > > In English, 'he' or 'his', is used to refer to either sex.
>>
>> > Not in my native dialect. "He" and "his" only refer to men.
>> > [...]
>
>> Have you read any English novels?
>
> Of what period? I don't doubt that "he" and "his" were used like that
> in the 19th century, but I haven't noticed it in my recent reading.

It doesn't come up much in novels. It does come up in non-fiction, and
in that case it's pretty well impossible to sort out the grammar from
the social conditions of the time ("When a miner goes down the pit, he
will need to take a pickaxe with him" for example).

>> To claim that you're unaware of the standard English convention that
>> he' refers to either sex, unless explicitly referring to a
>> particular chap, is to suggest that you haven't.
>
> I don't think it is standard any more. If I see "he" used that way
> now it's jarring; either I wonder who the author is talking about, or
> I assume that they're trying to make some sort of political point.
> (Note my use of "they" in that sentence, by the way. Would you really
> have substituted "he" there?)

Just this once I think I'm in complete agreement with Guy. I know that
we are much the same age (mid-to-late 40s) and the same nationality
(Uk/English) and I wonder if that's significant.

>> People, by the way, don't have gender. People have sex. Words have
>> gender. There is a jocular misusage of 'gender' to mean 'sex', but
>> it is best avoided because some feminazis back in the '60s tried to
>> make a case (based on a misunderstanding of biology) that behaviour
>> was not linked to genetics.
>
> I tend to use "gender" now because "sex" is taken to mean sexual
> intercourse or other sexual activity. Your statement "people have
> sex" is just begging to be misinterpreted.
>
> While I accept that "gender" is originally a term from grammar (and I
> still use it that way of course), I think the danger of confusion
> between the two senses is minimal. Perhaps it would be better if
> there were a separate word that could be used, but I think "gender" is
> widely accepted in this sense now.

I do try to fight this battle, but I accept that it's lost.

[Peter Brooks]

Lol! Well, it's not that wrong, at least in fact... 'Every politician
looks as though he's pleased with himself' works for me, and applies
perfectly well to Maggie Thatcher... maybe she's not the best example
to use for this particular case though.

[Eric Walker]

On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 19:46:53 -0800, Peter Brooks wrote:

[...]

> . . . I can't possibly agree, what's wrong with 'authoresses'??

The modern trend, which some are vociferous about, is to eliminate
feminine versions of nouns and use a single form for both. That would
eliminate, for example:

aviatrix
poetess
executrix
authoress (can't recall ever even seeing that one)
Negress
Jewess

Most such forms can evaporate easily with no loss. A few are more
resistant:

waitress
chairlady/chairwoman
stewardess

But, except for the problematic forms ending in "-man", they could all be
dropped with no loss and some gain.

--
Cordially,
Eric Walker

[Eric Walker]

On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 04:05:20 +0000, Guy Barry wrote:

> "Peter Brooks" wrote in message
>
news:d034e0b4-3aea-42cf...@j19g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
>
>> On Nov 13, 4:32 am, "Guy Barry" <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

[...]

> I tend to use "gender" now because "sex" is taken to mean sexual
> intercourse or other sexual activity. Your statement "people have sex"
> is just begging to be misinterpreted.
>
> While I accept that "gender" is originally a term from grammar (and I
> still use it that way of course), I think the danger of confusion
> between the two senses is minimal. Perhaps it would be better if there
> were a separate word that could be used, but I think "gender" is widely
> accepted in this sense now.

It is, but so are lots of other more or less outrageous abuses of the
tongue. To avoid the simple word "sex" where it is wanted is simply
tugging the forelock and bowing to Victorian habits. It is the dreadful
"have sex", in the sense of "have sexual intercourse", which folk ought
to be pursuing with cudgels and flails.


--
Cordially,
Eric Walker

[Eric Walker]

On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 21:53:55 -0400, Nathan Sanders wrote:

[...]

> Not in my English, in which "the woman told the man that he had to
> leave" cannot be interpreted as the woman excusing herself.

That is not at all relevant. The question at issue is the form to be
used when the sex of the person referred to is indeterminate:

What is the author to do? Is he to use some invented pronoun?

"The author", no particular specified person, could be of either sex.
For long, custom was to use "he" in all such cases. That is no longer
considered acceptable in most circles.

There are quite a few ways to work around that, the most common, and
simplest, being to recast in the plural:

What are authors to do? Are they to use some invented pronoun?

When naught else avails, one simply resorts to "he or she" (or "him or
her" as applies) and--oh horrors!--expends a couple of extra syllables.

--
Cordially,
Eric Walker

[Eric Walker]

On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 06:43:27 +0000, Guy Barry wrote:

[...]

> There are a couple of things that perplex me about the usage, though.
> Why, if it's a genuinely singular pronoun, does it take a plural verb?
> We don't say "every politician thinks that they is infallible", for
> instance.
>
> Also, what's the correct reflexive form? I would naturally say "every
> politician is in it for themselves", but I sometimes see "themself",
> which I concede is a more logical form. I distinguish "yourself"
> (singular) from "yourselves" (plural), even though "you" isn't
> distinguished for number in any other way; but somehow "themself"
> doesn't come naturally to me.

Those are Nature's way of telling you that the form is dreadfully,
horribly wrong.

Singular = one person; plural = more than one person. That is neither
rocket surgery nor brain science.


--
Cordially,
Eric Walker

[Eric Walker]

On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 03:29:58 +0000, Guy Barry wrote:

[...]

> . . . the use of singular "they" isn't like that. It's just part of

> the language which prescriptivists have conventionally frowned upon,
> for no particularly good reason except that it's also used as a
> plural.

My goodness. "No particularly good reason"? Oh, wow.

"Also used as"? Like, whoa, who thought of adding plural to its
meanings? Whatta clever idea! Like who first thought of making *red*
Zinfandel?


--
Cordially,
Eric Walker

[Eric Walker]

On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 03:42:54 +0000, Guy Barry wrote:

[...]

> What did you mean, though, when you wrote "quite a number of similar
> nonsense are regularly reported"? As pointed out, "nonsense" isn't
> normally used as a count noun. Did you mean to write "nonsenses"? I'd
> have written "quite a number of similar pieces of nonsense are regularly
> reported", or "quite an amount of similar nonsense is regularly
> reported".

"Nonsense" as a noun can be a count noun and reliably take "nonsenses" as
a plural. It is, I think, the scarcity of the form "a nonsense" whence
the confusion. As the OED observes, it signifies "a piece of nonsense".
The form is now not often encountered, but--so far as I know--is neither
obsolescent nor archaic.


--
Cordially,
Eric Walker

[Eric Walker]

On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 21:50:55 -0400, Nathan Sanders wrote:

[...]

> It contravenes sanity even more to use "you" in the singular, since we
> already had "thou/thee". And yet we do it anyway (and thankfully, don't
> get any backtalk from grammar mavens; I am fascinated by which battles
> they pick and which they ignore).

That is arguing that two wrongs make a right, which is a nonsense. The
loss of the distinctive second-person-singular has a curious and
contorted history in which folly abounded; to say that we today should
take that development as a model of ideal linguistic evolution is
madness. And that lack is felt, and attempts to rectify it continue, to
this hour, with things like "you all" and "youse". Moreover, in the
second person, we had a near-complete loss of one form, necessitating the
awkward use of one for two functions; in the third person, no one is
suggesting that "he" and "she" be erased from use, something that would
lead to the same pining after a full form that we see now in the second
person.

> Our language didn't even lack a true second-person singular pronoun, and
> yet we allowed our plural to supplant it anyway. (See also "you" and
> "ye".)

No one "allowed" that to happen: it was a byproduct of idiotic concerns
over what we would today call "political correctness"; look it up.

> It doesn't matter how many ways there are; speakers will use whichever
> ones they end up using. Logic is irrelevant.

So, apparently, is sanity, logic, and grammar. Speakers have been using
forms analogous to "Hand me them there pliers" for many centuries, but
they remain nonstandard. Ignorance and disdain for established form ye
will have with ye always.


--
Cordially,
Eric Walker

[Guy Barry]

"Eric Walker" wrote in message news:k7t4in$g25$8...@dont-email.me...

> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 03:29:58 +0000, Guy Barry wrote:

[...]

> > . . . the use of singular "they" isn't like that. It's just part of
> > the language which prescriptivists have conventionally frowned upon,
> > for no particularly good reason except that it's also used as a
> > plural.

> My goodness. "No particularly good reason"? Oh, wow.

Given that "you" is routinely used as a singular, and "we" is so used in
certain contexts (royal, editorial, authorial), why should "they" be the odd
one out?

--
Guy Barry

[Guy Barry]

"Eric Walker" wrote in message news:k7t3sd$g25$5...@dont-email.me...

I don't know how long "have sex" has been around, but it was the standard
expression forty years ago, well before the disputed use of "gender" came on
the scene - in fact probably the first expression for sexual intercourse
that I learned as a child. Even if you think you might halt the tide of
"gender", you haven't a hope in hell of stopping that one. What term do you
use if you don't want to resort to Anglo-Saxon obscenities, colloquialisms
or medical terms?

--
Guy Barry

[Guy Barry]

"Eric Walker" wrote in message news:k7t5eg$g25$1...@dont-email.me...

> Ignorance and disdain for established form ye
> will have with ye always.

Shouldn't that be "ye will have with you"?

--
Guy Barry

[fabzorba]

Was a little surprised that your list did not include the one that is
the best known - "actress". This still continues to be used, most
famously in the Best Actor and Best Actress Academy Awards.

Perhaps we could permit such distinctions in professions where the sex
(or gender) of the person plays a critical part in the fulfilment of
his or her occupation, as it most certainly does with actors and
actresses. Cate Blanchett and Hugh Jackman play female and male roles
respectively, and do so time and time again. That makes the
relationship of their own gender to the attainment of the tasks they
have set them different from that of stewards and waitresses, where
there either sex could be equally proficient in doing what needs to be
done.

And yes, I too have accepted "gender" for "sex". "Sex" is now a common
abbreviation for "sexual intercourse" and in fact has virtually
replaced the latter. We need a word that can signify "lady" or
"gentleman" without pointing at their genitalia quite so animatedly.

(I notice too that hero and heroine have remained gender specific. Not
sure why. A female in Australia at least in just as likely to save
someone in a housefire or rescue a drowning swimmer as any man. But
he's a hero, and she's a heroine.)

[Tom P]

On 11/13/2012 07:43 AM, Guy Barry wrote:
>
>
> "Peter Moylan" wrote in message
> news:Z-SdnRwrr_5HUzzN...@westnet.com.au...
>
>> There seems to be a widespread belief that singular "they" is only for
>> use when one wants to avoid using a sex-specific pronoun.
>
> I'm sure there are some people who *do* deliberately and
> self-consciously use it in such a fashion, but I'm not one of them.
>
>> For those who
>> grew up using singular "they" that is not the motivation. They use it
>> because, as Guy says, it's the word that comes naturally.
>
> I think there's a certain amount of snobbery, as it's generally seen as
> an uneducated usage. If it were generally accepted, then no one would
> have deemed it necessary to use circumlocutions like "he or she" or
> invent artificial substitutes like "zie" (which was commonly used on one
> group I used to subscribe to). Even I tend to avoid singular "they" in
> formal writing, and try to circumvent it in some way. Life would be a
> lot easier if it were generally accepted.
>
> There are a couple of things that perplex me about the usage, though.
> Why, if it's a genuinely singular pronoun, does it take a plural verb?
> We don't say "every politician thinks that they is infallible", for
> instance.

If you want to use that argument, then why do you use the plural form of
a verb with the pronoun "you" when only one person is being addressed?
The simple fact is that is that we have the rules-
1st singular I am
2nd singular you are
3rd singular he is, she is, it is, they are
1st plural we are
2nd plural you are
3rd plural they are

>
> Also, what's the correct reflexive form? I would naturally say "every
> politician is in it for themselves", but I sometimes see "themself",
> which I concede is a more logical form. I distinguish "yourself"
> (singular) from "yourselves" (plural), even though "you" isn't
> distinguished for number in any other way; but somehow "themself"
> doesn't come naturally to me.
>

I thought maybe you wanted to address another deficiency of the
language. In a sentence like "he read her book" it is clear that the
owner of the book is not the same person as the subject of the verb.
However, in the sentence "he read his book" it is impossible to make
clear whose book is being read without adding more information.

[tony cooper]

On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 16:47:15 +0000 (UTC), Lewis
<g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

>In message <k7t3l1$g25$4...@dont-email.me>
> Eric Walker <em...@owlcroft.com> wrote:
>> waitress
>
>Yeah, that one is sticking around.
>
>> chairlady/chairwoman
>
>Simply "Chair" works just fine.
>
>> stewardess
>
>They haven't been called that in years though. "Flight Crew" or "Flight
>Attendants."

They haven't *wanted* to be called that for years, maybe, but they are
stilled called that routinely. You can't really say a word isn't in
general use because some group decides they don't want it in general
use.





--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

[Guy Barry]

"Tom P" wrote in message news:agf7fs...@mid.individual.net...

> On 11/13/2012 07:43 AM, Guy Barry wrote:

> > I think there's a certain amount of snobbery, as it's generally seen as
> > an uneducated usage. If it were generally accepted, then no one would
> > have deemed it necessary to use circumlocutions like "he or she" or
> > invent artificial substitutes like "zie" (which was commonly used on one
> > group I used to subscribe to). Even I tend to avoid singular "they" in
> > formal writing, and try to circumvent it in some way. Life would be a
> > lot easier if it were generally accepted.
>
> > There are a couple of things that perplex me about the usage, though.
> > Why, if it's a genuinely singular pronoun, does it take a plural verb?
> > We don't say "every politician thinks that they is infallible", for
> > instance.

> If you want to use that argument, then why do you use the plural form of a
> verb with the pronoun "you" when only one person is being addressed?

Why do you think I'd argue against myself? Indeed, we do.

> The simple fact is that is that we have the rules-
> 1st singular I am
> 2nd singular you are
> 3rd singular he is, she is, it is, they are
> 1st plural we are
> 2nd plural you are
> 3rd plural they are

Indeed, we do. Thanks for supporting my argument.

--
Guy Barry

[Nathan Sanders]

In article <k7t5eg$g25$1...@dont-email.me>,

Eric Walker <em...@owlcroft.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 21:50:55 -0400, Nathan Sanders wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > It contravenes sanity even more to use "you" in the singular, since we
> > already had "thou/thee". And yet we do it anyway (and thankfully, don't
> > get any backtalk from grammar mavens; I am fascinated by which battles
> > they pick and which they ignore).
>
> That is arguing that two wrongs make a right, which is a nonsense. The
> loss of the distinctive second-person-singular has a curious and
> contorted history in which folly abounded; to say that we today should
> take that development as a model of ideal linguistic evolution is
> madness.

There is no "ideal" linguistic evolution. There is simply linguistic
evolution. It happens whether we like it or not, whether it's logical
or not.

> > It doesn't matter how many ways there are; speakers will use whichever
> > ones they end up using. Logic is irrelevant.
>
> So, apparently, is sanity, logic, and grammar. Speakers have been using
> forms analogous to "Hand me them there pliers" for many centuries, but
> they remain nonstandard. Ignorance and disdain for established form ye
> will have with ye always.

Nonstandard is not the same as ignorant. It's merely an accident of
history, not some inherent property of logic or sanity, that makes one
dialect standard and another nonstandard.

Nathan

--
Department of Linguistics
Swarthmore College
http://sanders.phonologist.org/

[Robin Bignall]

It probably is. I'm almost 30 years older than either of you* and the
use of 'he' when the sex is unknown is standard to me.

* I nearly said "the pair of you", which might cause someone whom I will
not name to add 45 + 45 + 30 and make me 120. It's not true. I just
feel 120.

>>> People, by the way, don't have gender. People have sex. Words have
>>> gender. There is a jocular misusage of 'gender' to mean 'sex', but
>>> it is best avoided because some feminazis back in the '60s tried to
>>> make a case (based on a misunderstanding of biology) that behaviour
>>> was not linked to genetics.
>>
>> I tend to use "gender" now because "sex" is taken to mean sexual
>> intercourse or other sexual activity. Your statement "people have
>> sex" is just begging to be misinterpreted.
>>
>> While I accept that "gender" is originally a term from grammar (and I
>> still use it that way of course), I think the danger of confusion
>> between the two senses is minimal. Perhaps it would be better if
>> there were a separate word that could be used, but I think "gender" is
>> widely accepted in this sense now.
>
>I do try to fight this battle, but I accept that it's lost.

Sadly, yes.
--
Robin Bignall
(BrE)
Herts, England

[Peter Brooks]

On Nov 13, 11:24 am, Eric Walker <em...@owlcroft.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 19:46:53 -0800, Peter Brooks wrote:
>
>    aviatrix
>    poetess
>    executrix
>    authoress (can't recall ever even seeing that one)
>    Negress
>    Jewess

>    waitress
>    chairlady/chairwoman
>    stewardess
>
Rich though English is, I don't see any point in losing words. I've
certainly seen authoresses, and read them...

I'm more used to 'Air Hostess' than 'Stewardess', though both are
common.

[Peter Brooks]

It's a bit pathetic, I agree, to be prudish about this when people
seem quite happy to say 'fuck'.

[Peter Brooks]

On Nov 13, 4:00 pm, fabzorba <myles.abzo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11월13일, 오후7시24분, Eric Walker <em...@owlcroft.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 19:46:53 -0800, Peter Brooks wrote:
>
> > [...]
>
> > > . . . I can't possibly agree, what's wrong with 'authoresses'??
>
> > The modern trend, which some are vociferous about, is to eliminate
> > feminine versions of nouns and use a single form for both.  That would
> > eliminate, for example:
>
> >    aviatrix
> >    poetess
> >    executrix
> >    authoress (can't recall ever even seeing that one)
> >    Negress
> >    Jewess
>
> > Most such forms can evaporate easily with no loss.  A few are more
> > resistant:
>
> >    waitress
> >    chairlady/chairwoman
> >    stewardess
>
> > But, except for the problematic forms ending in "-man", they could all be
> > dropped with no loss and some gain.
>
> Was a little surprised that your list did not include the one that is
> the best known - "actress". This still continues to be used, most
> famously in the Best Actor and Best Actress Academy Awards.
>

One hopes that actresses are still involved in conversations with
Bishops from time to time - even if they're sometimes lady bishops, or
bishopesses.

[Peter Brooks]

On Nov 13, 6:58 pm, tony cooper <tony.cooper...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 16:47:15 +0000 (UTC), Lewis
>

> <g.kr...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> >In message <k7t3l1$g2...@dont-email.me>

> >  Eric Walker <em...@owlcroft.com> wrote:
> >>    waitress
>
> >Yeah, that one is sticking around.
>
> >>    chairlady/chairwoman
>
> >Simply "Chair" works just fine.
>
> >>    stewardess
>
> >They haven't been called that in years though. "Flight Crew" or "Flight
> >Attendants."
>
> They haven't *wanted* to be called that for years, maybe, but they are
> stilled called that routinely.  You can't really say a word isn't in
> general use because some group decides they don't want it in general
> use.
>

Indeed, we still have bog cleaners, of both sexes, though their job
description is probably something horribly mangled that suggests that
they're involved in some sort of engineering.

[Nathan Sanders]

In article <k7t46d$g25$6...@dont-email.me>,

Eric Walker <em...@owlcroft.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 21:53:55 -0400, Nathan Sanders wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > Not in my English, in which "the woman told the man that he had to
> > leave" cannot be interpreted as the woman excusing herself.
>
> That is not at all relevant.

Sure it is. It shows that "he" is not in fact truly epicene, because
it has an inherent gender that makes it incompatible with a female
referent.

It just seems perverse to me to insist upon a breaking an existing
category boundary (gendered vs. epicene or singular vs. plural), but
doing so in a way that *isn't* supported by general use among native
speakers. If you're going to break a category boundary, why not break
it the way native speakers tend to do (and have done for more than 500
years), rather than in a completely different, and artificial, way?
(To the best of my knowledge, epicene "he" was never based on actual
native speaker usage, but was consciously constructed and introduced
as a prescriptive rule.)

> The question at issue is the form to be
> used when the sex of the person referred to is indeterminate:
>
> What is the author to do? Is he to use some invented pronoun?

In ordinary conversation, I would interpret this as the utterer
knowing the sex of the author.

> "The author", no particular specified person, could be of either sex.

Not for me for that sentence, since "he" was used, and my "he" does
not cross over from gendered to epicene.

> For long, custom was to use "he" in all such cases.

Linguistic customs are often unnatural and not reflective of what
ordinary native speakers actually do.

> That is no longer
> considered acceptable in most circles.
>
> There are quite a few ways to work around that, the most common, and
> simplest, being to recast in the plural:
>
> What are authors to do? Are they to use some invented pronoun?

Many times when speaking spontaneously (as is the case for most
examples of human speech), you have already begun to cast the sentence
in the singular, and it's too late to recast it without significant
backtracking.

(And there's yet another boundary-breaking "you": the generic
third-person!)

> When naught else avails, one simply resorts to "he or she" (or "him or
> her" as applies) and--oh horrors!--expends a couple of extra syllables.

Or one uses the tool already available in the language, that has been
in use for centuries: epicene "they".

[Cheryl]

But 'fuck' now seems to mean something like "mild expression of
disapproval or, sometimes, approval" and to be rapidly replacing 'darn',
so a lot of the people using it don't seem to be talking about sex.

--
Cheryl

[Nathan Sanders]

In article <k7t4cc$g25$7...@dont-email.me>,

How many people is "no one" and "none"?

No one is going to the party.
*No one are going to the party.

*None is going to the party.
None are going to the party.

How many people is "everyone" and "all humans"?

Everyone has a belly button.
*Everyone have a belly button.

*All humans has a belly button.
All humans have a belly button.

How many people is "anyone"?

Anyone who leaves is going to be in trouble.
*Anyone who leaves are going to be in trouble.

How many people is "a few"?

A few of us are going.
*Some few of us are going.

How many people is "three people"?

*Three people is going to the party.
Three people are going to the party.

Three people is all my car can hold.
*Three people are all my car can hold.

How many people is "neither John nor the girls" and "neither the girls
nor John"?

*Neither John nor the girls is going to the party.
Neither John nor the girls are going to the party.

Neither the girls nor John is going to the party.
?Neither the girls nor John are going to the party.

How many people is "many a man" and "many men"?

Many a man has had a broken heart.
*Many a man have had a broken heart.

*Many men has had a broken heart.
Many men have had a broken heart.

How many people is "John along with Mary"?

John along with Mary is going to the party.
*John along with Mary are going to the party.

Singular and plural are sometimes just purely syntactic notions that
are not necessarily linked to the semantics. So while it may not be
rocket science, it's certainly not trivial, either.

[Adam Funk]

On 2012-11-13, Nathan Sanders wrote:

> Eric Walker <em...@owlcroft.com> wrote:

>> Singular = one person; plural = more than one person. That is neither
>> rocket surgery nor brain science.
>
> How many people is "no one" and "none"?
>
> No one is going to the party.
> *No one are going to the party.
>
> *None is going to the party.
> None are going to the party.

But both:
None of us/them is going to the party.
None of us/them are going to the party.

> How many people is "everyone" and "all humans"?
>
> Everyone has a belly button.
> *Everyone have a belly button.
>
> *All humans has a belly button.
> All humans have a belly button.

Cf. French "tout le monde" (grammatically singular) vs "tous"
(plural). I think German "jeder" & "alle" work the same way.

> How many people is "anyone"?
>
> Anyone who leaves is going to be in trouble.
> *Anyone who leaves are going to be in trouble.

It's the "one" that sets the number: "no-one/anyone/someone/everyone is...".

> How many people is "a few"?
>
> A few of us are going.
> *Some few of us are going.

I wouldn't star that --- it sounds OK to me.



--
...the reason why so many professional artists drink a lot is not
necessarily very much to do with the artistic temperament, etc. It is
simply that they can afford to, because they can normally take a large
part of a day off to deal with the ravages. [Amis _On Drink_]

[Mike L]

On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 21:48:04 +0000, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>
wrote:

>On 2012-11-13, Nathan Sanders wrote:
>

[...]

>> How many people is "a few"?
>>
>> A few of us are going.
>> *Some few of us are going.
>
>I wouldn't star that --- it sounds OK to me.

Me too; but it's a different "some".

--
Mike.

[Nathan Sanders]

In article <kpran9x...@news.ducksburg.com>,

Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:

> On 2012-11-13, Nathan Sanders wrote:
>
> > Eric Walker <em...@owlcroft.com> wrote:
>
> >> Singular = one person; plural = more than one person. That is neither
> >> rocket surgery nor brain science.
> >
> > How many people is "no one" and "none"?
> >
> > No one is going to the party.
> > *No one are going to the party.
> >
> > *None is going to the party.
> > None are going to the party.
>
> But both:
> None of us/them is going to the party.
> None of us/them are going to the party.

Right. Expressions of zero number can be singular, plural, or both!

> > How many people is "anyone"?
> >
> > Anyone who leaves is going to be in trouble.
> > *Anyone who leaves are going to be in trouble.
>
> It's the "one" that sets the number: "no-one/anyone/someone/everyone is...".

Which again shows that this is syntactic and not semantic, since "no
one" and "everyone" certainly don't refer to just one person.

> > How many people is "a few"?
> >
> > A few of us are going.
> > *Some few of us are going.
>
> I wouldn't star that --- it sounds OK to me.

Wow, really? I hadn't encountered this before. Do you also have:

Some lot of us are going.
Some couple of us are going.
Some bunch of us are going.
Some ton of us are going.
Some great many of us are going.

I can't get "some" for any of these; I can only have "a".

The point I was trying to make with this example originally is that,
although "a few" triggers plural verb agreement, it incongruously
takes the singular article "a".

[Jerry Friedman]

On Nov 13, 3:16 pm, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> In article <kpran9x16u....@news.ducksburg.com>,

>  Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 2012-11-13, Nathan Sanders wrote:

...

> > >      A few of us are going.
> > >      *Some few of us are going.
>
> > I wouldn't star that --- it sounds OK to me.
>
> Wow, really?  I hadn't encountered this before.  Do you also have:
>
>      Some lot of us are going.
>      Some couple of us are going.
>      Some bunch of us are going.
>      Some ton of us are going.
>      Some great many of us are going.
>
> I can't get "some" for any of these; I can only have "a".

"Some few" sounds old-fashioned to me, especially when it's not before
a number such as "thousands". At COHA, "some few" rises sharply to a
peak at 132 hits in the 1840s and declines gradually to 16 hits in the
2000s (if that's what you call the decade before this one).

--
Jerry Friedman

[Robin Bignall]

Hasn't it been reported that an examination of black boxes after
aircraft crashes reveals that the last words of aircrew were "Oh, fuck".

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

I'm not familiar with that use of "some few", but it seems similar to
"quite a few" which means more than a few.

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

[Reinhold {Rey} Aman]

Robin Bignall wrote:
>
> Hasn't it been reported that an examination of black boxes after
> aircraft crashes reveals that the last words of aircrew were
> "Oh, fuck".
>

No, "Oh, shit!" Really.

--
~~~ Reinhold {Rey} Aman ~~~
Rey's my name,
Lashon HaRa's my game.

[Robert Bannister]

Notably by Grace Darling in England and Grace Bussell in Western
Australia. A coincidence that two Graces were involved in rescuing
shipwrecked people.

--
Robert Bannister

[Robert Bannister]

On 14/11/12 12:47 AM, Lewis wrote:
> In message <k7t3l1$g25$4...@dont-email.me>

> Eric Walker <em...@owlcroft.com> wrote:
>> waitress
>
> Yeah, that one is sticking around.
>
>> chairlady/chairwoman
>
> Simply "Chair" works just fine.
>
>> stewardess
>
> They haven't been called that in years though. "Flight Crew" or "Flight
> Attendants."
>
>

I thought that was modern English for "hostie" (usually "hostess"
outside Australia). I think the collective noun for "Flight Attendant"
is "Cabin Crew". I don't remember "stewardess" being used much except
perhaps on ships. Of course, I have met a few right bar stewards in my time.

--
Robert Bannister

[Robin Bignall]

On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 16:52:11 -0800, Reinhold {Rey} Aman <am...@sonic.net>
wrote:

>Robin Bignall wrote:
>>
>> Hasn't it been reported that an examination of black boxes after
>> aircraft crashes reveals that the last words of aircrew were
>> "Oh, fuck".
>>
>No, "Oh, shit!" Really.

Thanks, Rey. I knew it was something short and sweet.

[Robert Bannister]

On 13/11/12 10:32 AM, Guy Barry wrote:
>
>
> "Peter Brooks" wrote in message

> news:1969672f-32d0-4e0f...@c20g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...
>
>> On Nov 12, 4:11 pm, "Guy Barry" <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>> > But in the latter case it sounds as though you're restricting
>> yourself > to
>> > male politicians and celebrities. "His" sounds very artificial to
>> me in
>> > such contexts. Would you really say "his" if the discussion were
>> about,
>> > say, Nadine Dorries? (I leave you to judge whether she counts as a
>> > politician or a celebrity.)

>>
>> In English, 'he' or 'his', is used to refer to either sex.
>

> Not in my native dialect. "He" and "his" only refer to men. When I was
> younger some prescriptivists insisted that they should be used to apply
> to people of indeterminate gender as well, but I never really bought it
> - it sounded completely unnatural to me. I wouldn't go so far as to
> call it "linguistic fascism", but it comes across to me as insisting on
> an outdated usage for the sake of being "anti-politically-correct".

Moreover, even back then I was convinced this idea was espoused by those
who thought that the only people worth considering were men.

As Eric says, it is usually (not always) relatively easy to recast one's
sentences to use a plural and thus avoid a singular "they", but I'm
afraid in speech or even in rapid writing (as on Usenet), such niceties
tend to be forgotten.
--
Robert Bannister

[Robert Bannister]

On 13/11/12 11:45 AM, Peter Brooks wrote:

> On Nov 13, 4:32 am, "Guy Barry" <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> "Peter Brooks" wrote in message
>>
>> news:1969672f-32d0-4e0f...@c20g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> On Nov 12, 4:11 pm, "Guy Barry" <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>> But in the latter case it sounds as though you're restricting yourself
>>>> to
>>>> male politicians and celebrities. "His" sounds very artificial to me in
>>>> such contexts. Would you really say "his" if the discussion were about,
>>>> say, Nadine Dorries? (I leave you to judge whether she counts as a
>>>> politician or a celebrity.)
>>
>>> In English, 'he' or 'his', is used to refer to either sex.
>>
>> Not in my native dialect. "He" and "his" only refer to men. When I was
>> younger some prescriptivists insisted that they should be used to apply to
>> people of indeterminate gender as well, but I never really bought it - it
>> sounded completely unnatural to me. I wouldn't go so far as to call it
>> "linguistic fascism", but it comes across to me as insisting on an outdated
>> usage for the sake of being "anti-politically-correct".
>>

> Have you read any English novels?
>

> To claim that you're unaware of the standard English convention that
> 'he' refers to either sex, unless explicitly referring to a particular
> chap, is to suggest that you haven't.

Because it is not a standard English convention. It one that was
conveniently dreamt up by 19th century writers to excuse the fact that
they consistently omitted to mention women when talking about the human
race. I didn't believe it when I was young and I don't now.

>
> At least not very many.

>
> People, by the way, don't have gender. People have sex. Words have
> gender. There is a jocular misusage of 'gender' to mean 'sex', but it
> is best avoided because some feminazis back in the '60s tried to make
> a case (based on a misunderstanding of biology) that behaviour was not
> linked to genetics.
>

--
Robert Bannister

[Robert Bannister]

Except that most often, the word is used with a somewhat different
meaning. I came across "slept with" recently and couldn't help thinking
"How quaintly old-fashioned". Still, "made love to" does not always
describe quite what goes on - gives me quite a start when I meet that
phrase in a Victorian novel.

--
Robert Bannister

[Robert Bannister]

On 14/11/12 4:21 AM, Nathan Sanders wrote:

> Three people is all my car can hold.
> *Three people are all my car can hold.

Despite the logic, the second sentence is what I would normally say. The
"three" automatically produces a plural, just as "Not one of the three
men are reliable" usually has a plural in my lect.

>
> How many people is "John along with Mary"?
>
> John along with Mary is going to the party.
> *John along with Mary are going to the party.

This sounds like a Russian sentence (Djon so Marii). I could never say
either of those. My English can only cope with "John's going to the
party (along) with Mary".

>
> Singular and plural are sometimes just purely syntactic notions that
> are not necessarily linked to the semantics. So while it may not be
> rocket science, it's certainly not trivial, either.

I, of course, concur with all the rest of your post. Just these two
particular examples struck me as odd.


--
Robert Bannister

[Robert Bannister]

On 13/11/12 5:40 PM, Eric Walker wrote:

> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 03:29:58 +0000, Guy Barry wrote:
>
> [...]
>

>> . . . the use of singular "they" isn't like that. It's just part of
>> the language which prescriptivists have conventionally frowned upon,
>> for no particularly good reason except that it's also used as a
>> plural.
>
> My goodness. "No particularly good reason"? Oh, wow.
>
> "Also used as"? Like, whoa, who thought of adding plural to its
> meanings? Whatta clever idea! Like who first thought of making *red*
> Zinfandel?
>
>

Not something I have seen for a very long time, but I've only seen white
Zinfandel.

--
Robert Bannister

[Robert Bannister]

On 13/11/12 9:50 AM, Nathan Sanders wrote:
> In article <k7s69c$ua6$8...@dont-email.me>,
> Eric Walker <em...@owlcroft.com> wrote:
>
>> In short form, it blatantly contravenes sanity to use "they" in the
>> singular.

>
> It contravenes sanity even more to use "you" in the singular, since we
> already had "thou/thee". And yet we do it anyway (and thankfully,
> don't get any backtalk from grammar mavens; I am fascinated by which
> battles they pick and which they ignore).
>

>> Yes, our language lacks a true neuter or generic third-person-
>> plural pronoun: so?
>
> Our language didn't even lack a true second-person singular pronoun,
> and yet we allowed our plural to supplant it anyway. (See also "you"
> and "ye".)
>
> Language changes, sometimes to fill a gap (epicene use of "they"), and
> sometimes for no particular reason whatsoever (plural second-person
> object "you" unnecessarily replacing singular "thou/thee" and subject
> "ye", despite a nearly consistent distinction between singular and
> plural and subject and object for almost all of the other personal
> pronouns).
>
>> The fact is that there are numerous ways of avoiding the issue in the
>> first place;

>
> It doesn't matter how many ways there are; speakers will use whichever
> ones they end up using. Logic is irrelevant.

Moreover, there are numerous examples of "good" writers using singular
they including, I believe, Shakespeare.


--
Robert Bannister

[Nathan Sanders]

In article <aggaga...@mid.individual.net>,

Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:

> On 14/11/12 4:21 AM, Nathan Sanders wrote:
>
> > Three people is all my car can hold.
> > *Three people are all my car can hold.
>
> Despite the logic, the second sentence is what I would normally say. The
> "three" automatically produces a plural, just as "Not one of the three
> men are reliable" usually has a plural in my lect.

I think I can do both. There are other, better examples where the
singular is preferred despite the plurality, along the lines of "eight
is enough", "three's a crowd", etc.

> > How many people is "John along with Mary"?
> >
> > John along with Mary is going to the party.
> > *John along with Mary are going to the party.
>
> This sounds like a Russian sentence (Djon so Marii). I could never say
> either of those. My English can only cope with "John's going to the
> party (along) with Mary".

How about "John, as well as Mary"?

> > Singular and plural are sometimes just purely syntactic notions that
> > are not necessarily linked to the semantics. So while it may not be
> > rocket science, it's certainly not trivial, either.
>
> I, of course, concur with all the rest of your post. Just these two
> particular examples struck me as odd.

Which is why I generally give multiple different types of examples,
because if I just choose one, you can be that that'll be the one that
people disagree on!

[Nathan Sanders]

In article <aggauc...@mid.individual.net>,

Right, good point. Epicene "they" is not just a property of the
speech of the unwashed masses; it's been in the formal prose of many
prominent authors, including Chaucer, Spenser, Shakespeare, Fielding,
Austen, Defoe, Eliot, Thackeray, Scott, Wilde, Swift, Fitzgerald,
Whitman, Dickens, Wharton, Byron, Kipling, Shaw, Carroll, Stevenson,
Milton, Orwell, Woolf, and Wells. (Sorry, I didn't try to put them in
chronological order!)

[Richard Bollard]

On 12 Nov 2012 20:59:23 -0800, R H Draney <dado...@spamcop.net>
wrote:

>Athel Cornish-Bowden filted:

>>
>>On 2012-11-12 19:43:52 +0000, Peter Brooks said:
>>
>>> In English, 'he' or 'his', is used to refer to either sex.
>>

>>That's what I was taught WIWAL, but the world has moved on since then.
>
>"Man is a mammal; i.e., he has breasts with which he nurses his offspring"....
>
>Yeesh....r

How about "Man is a mammal and has/with breasts for nursing
offspring"?
--
Richard Bollard
Canberra Australia

To email, I'm at AMT not spAMT.

[Guy Barry]

"Peter Brooks" wrote in message

news:de69d840-9c22-45ed...@p11g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...

> Rich though English is, I don't see any point in losing words. I've
> certainly seen authoresses, and read them...

> I'm more used to 'Air Hostess' than 'Stewardess', though both are
> common.

The one I have difficulty with is "actor" used of women. There's a
difference between actors and actresses. Actors play male roles and
actresses play female ones.

--
Guy Barry

[Jerry Friedman]

On Nov 13, 10:09 am, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> In article <k7t5eg$g25...@dont-email.me>,
>  Eric Walker <em...@owlcroft.com> wrote:

>
> > On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 21:50:55 -0400, Nathan Sanders wrote:
>
> > [...]
>

> > > It contravenes sanity even more to use "you" in the singular, since we
> > > already had "thou/thee".  And yet we do it anyway (and thankfully, don't
> > > get any backtalk from grammar mavens; I am fascinated by which battles
> > > they pick and which they ignore).
>

> > That is arguing that two wrongs make a right, which is a nonsense.  The
> > loss of the distinctive second-person-singular has a curious and
> > contorted history in which folly abounded; to say that we today should
> > take that development as a model of ideal linguistic evolution is
> > madness.
>
> There is no "ideal" linguistic evolution.  There is simply linguistic
> evolution.  It happens whether we like it or not, whether it's logical
> or not.

But one can have one's opinions on what is ideal and do one's tiny bit
to influence linguistic evolution that way.

> > > It doesn't matter how many ways there are; speakers will use whichever
> > > ones they end up using.  Logic is irrelevant.
>

> > So, apparently, is sanity, logic, and grammar.  Speakers have been using
> > forms analogous to "Hand me them there pliers" for many centuries, but
> > they remain nonstandard.

Although the consistency you call "sanity" and "logic" would suggest
that as phrases of the forms "us Americans" and "you Brits" are
universally accepted, "them pliers" should be too.

> > Ignorance and disdain for established form ye
> > will have with ye always.

That was probably the wrong spot to make a grammatical error in King
James English. "For ye haue the poore with you alwayes..."

http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611-Bible/book.php?book=Mark&chapter=14&verse=7

> Nonstandard is not the same as ignorant.  It's merely an accident of
> history, not some inherent property of logic or sanity, that makes one
> dialect standard and another nonstandard.

That's not entirely true. You said epicene "he" was adopted only for
prescriptive reasons, but it became standard and natural for some
people for a long time. I think the story with double negatives was
the same, and there are other examples. Eric goes too far in
referring to sanity and logic (although the prescription that two
negatives make a positive resembles logic), but some parts of standard
English were chosen deliberately for their appealing inherent
qualities.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Peter Brooks]

I'm impressed by your scepticism, but I think that I'm more against
the notion of a 19th century linguistic plot. If there was such a
plot, then where are the ringleaders, what were their methods and how
did you learn about it?

Conspiracies are easily thought up, but not so easily proven to exist.

[Peter Brooks]

Not always. In pantomimes the principal boy is supposed to be a girl
and the dames chaps. For a long time boys played girls generally.

[R H Draney]

Peter Brooks filted:
>
>On Nov 14, 7:04=A0am, "Guy Barry" <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> The one I have difficulty with is "actor" used of women. =A0There's a
>> difference between actors and actresses. =A0Actors play male roles and

>> actresses play female ones.
>>
>Not always. In pantomimes the principal boy is supposed to be a girl
>and the dames chaps. For a long time boys played girls generally.

And then there are Barry Humphries, and Oscar-winner Linda Hunt....r


--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.

[Guy Barry]

"R H Draney" wrote in message news:k7vmr...@drn.newsguy.com...

> Peter Brooks filted:

> >Not always. In pantomimes the principal boy is supposed to be a girl
> >and the dames chaps. For a long time boys played girls generally.

> And then there are Barry Humphries, and Oscar-winner Linda Hunt....r

I wouldn't call Barry Humphries an actor. (And Sir Les Patterson is
definitely male.)

--
Guy Barry

[James Hogg]

Guy Barry wrote:
>
>
> "R H Draney" wrote in message news:k7vmr...@drn.newsguy.com...
>
>> Peter Brooks filted:
>
>> >Not always. In pantomimes the principal boy is supposed to be a girl
>> >and the dames chaps. For a long time boys played girls generally.
>
>> And then there are Barry Humphries, and Oscar-winner Linda Hunt....r
>
> I wouldn't call Barry Humphries an actor.

It's just one of his talents:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Humphries#Film_roles

--
James