Grammar and Spelling on the Net
STella Calvert
>Poor grammar, on the other hand, usually bothers me. There are those
>rare gems that actaully work, like "You're good -- you're awful good."
>or some of the Tom Frye postings, which are clearly dialect (at least I
>hope they are :-)). Unfortunately, poor grammar more often just makes the
>person sound stupid and tends to make me immediately prejudiced against
>any validity their statements might otherwise have. I suppose one of the
>reasons it bothers me is that this is our *language* -- it's what we've
>agreed to use to communicate to one another. If it didn't have some
>structure, some agreed upon forms and rules, we wouldn't even be able to
>come as close as we do (which, admittedly, isn't very) to understanding
>one another. If a person can't take the time to learn their own language,
>to learn about verb agreement or syntax, it just seems damn lazy to me.
>English is a rich, open language; it allows for and adapts to our changing
>needs, but abusing that, letting the language deteriorate into mush,
>seems wasteful and inexcusable.
Non-standard grammar only bothers me when it's impossible to figure
out what the poster actually _meant_. (BTW, Tom Frye _speaks_
standard English....) And in general, unintentionally poor grammar
causes me to devalue the entire posting.
However, Usenet is a conversational medium in written form. As such,
it invites us to write in conversational mode. When I _write_ for
publication or evaluation by strangers, I attempt to conform to those
standards. When I'm discussing something with friends, I may
deliberately torture the language until it carries the right set of
meta-statements.
Compare
"You haven't seen anything yet!" to
"You ain't seen nuthin' yet!"
I probably would choose the former in a job-application cover letter;
I can't imagine _saying_ anything but the inelegantly emphatic latter
in conversation.
Perhaps we are evolving toward an intermediate form, neither formal
written language nor conversational. Any comments?
(If this line of discussion diverges from net.nlang's interests,
PLEASE edit the newsgroup line to leave them out.)
STella Calvert
Every man and every woman is a star.
Guest on: ...!decvax!frog!wjr
Life: Baltimore!AnnArbor!Smyrna!<LotsOfHitchhikingAndShortVisits>
!SantaCruz!Berkeley!AnnArbor!Taxachusetts
Future: ... (!L5!TheBelt!InterstellarSpace)
Anthony &
>>Poor grammar, on the other hand, usually bothers me. There are those
>>rare gems that actaully work, like "You're good -- you're awful good."
>>or some of the Tom Frye postings, which are clearly dialect (at least I
>>hope they are :-)). Unfortunately, poor grammar more often just makes the
>>person sound stupid and tends to make me immediately prejudiced against
>>any validity their statements might otherwise have. I suppose one of the
>>reasons it bothers me is that this is our *language* -- it's what we've
>>agreed to use to communicate to one another. If it didn't have some
>>structure, some agreed upon forms and rules, we wouldn't even be able to
>>come as close as we do (which, admittedly, isn't very) to understanding
>>one another. If a person can't take the time to learn their own language,
>>to learn about verb agreement or syntax, it just seems damn lazy to me.
>>English is a rich, open language; it allows for and adapts to our changing
>>needs, but abusing that, letting the language deteriorate into mush,
>>seems wasteful and inexcusable.
I am reminded of a parable which mentions stones and glass houses.
Anthony Albert
..!ucbvax!kim!albert
alb...@kim.berkeley.edu
Dana S. Nau
>In article <11...@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, alb...@kim.berkeley.edu.BERKELEY.EDU (Anthony &) writes:
>> >In article <3310...@ISM780.UUCP> dia...@ISM780.UUCP writes:
>> >>any validity their statements might otherwise have. I suppose one of the
>> ^^^^^ ?!?
>> ^^^^^
>> Anthony Albert
>
>preferred "they're" [they are] or "there" [where?] ...
The basic problem is that although English has a non-gendered plural
possessive ("their"), it doesn't have a non-gendered singular possessive.
The use of "their" for singular as well as plural is becoming more and more
common--but strictly speaking, it's not correct.
Correct usage would have been "If a person can't take the time to learn
his/her own language ..."
--
Dana S. Nau, Comp Sci Dept, U of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742
dsn@maryland seismo!umcp-cs!dsn (301) 454-7932
Jear Bear
> this, you win a pink leisure suit and two weeks at the men's bathhouse
> of your choice.
>
> -michael
Why don't you take your homophobic bullsh*t off the net. I really thought
that people on the net were mature enough to be accepting of other
people's life-styles but apparently at least one person is insecure
enough about his own sexuality to use "homo" as an insult (in a later
posting). Grow up. And *excuse* my grammer and spelling, I'm just an
uneducated grunt. You may misinterpret my .signature any way you wish.
--
Jerry Natowitz
ihnp4!houxm!hropus!jin
The Master Baker
Caleb J. Howard
> ^^^^^ ?!?
> ^^^^^
>
I'm in math, so I don't count, but is this not correct? (I.E. 'their'
showing plural ownership).)
.
Chap Flack
> ^^^^^ ?!?
> ^^^^^
I am reminded of the words in the netiquette guide concerning
spelling flames. But (no flame anymore, this is a serious question) is
there any consensus on the use of "their" as a genderless third-person
singular? I have to admit that I also find it painful, but I often can't
think of anything better (that doesn't involve making my sentence
incredibly complex and stilted-sounding). I find "his/her" even more
painful. I notice that this use of "their" is *recommended* by the
`sexist' tool in the Writers' Workbench. Hmm.
While I'm at it, is there anyone out there who has a decent genderless
salutation for a formal business letter? I really can't bring myself
to write "Dear Sir or Madam:" (bletch!).
--
---------------------
Chap Flack ihnp4!stolaf!agnes!flackc
Carleton College ihnp4!stolaf!flackc
Northfield, MN 55057
Geoff Kimbrough
>> If a person can't take the time to learn their own language,
and Dana Nau sez:
> Correct usage would have been "If a person can't take the time to learn
>his/her own language ..."
^^^^^^^
Dana, YOU'VE *GOT* TO BE KIDDING. Tell you what, show both versions of
the sentence to the head of your English department. You're a CS major,
and (I happen to know) Diane has a degree in English, go argue about
computer languages if you must, but leave english grammer to the
experts.
su...@uwmacc.uucp
>> his/her own language ..."
>
>Ed Nather
You can add the word "his/her" to your dictionary by typing
the WWB command dictadd. ;*)
Susie
Keith Dancey
>>In article <3310...@ISM780.UUCP> dia...@ISM780.UUCP writes:
>>>Poor grammar, on the other hand, usually bothers me. There are those
>>>any validity their statements might otherwise have. I suppose one of the
> ^^^^^ ?!?
>>>one another. If a person can't take the time to learn their own language,
> ^^^^^
>
>
>
>I am reminded of a parable which mentions stones and glass houses.
> Anthony Albert
reminds you of this parable?
--
Keith Dancey, UUCP: ..!mcvax!ukc!rlvd!kgd
Rutherford Appleton Laboratory,
Chilton, Didcot, Oxon OX11 0QX
JANET: K.DA...@uk.ac.rl
Tel: (0235) 21900 ext 5716
michael maxwell
>In article <11...@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, alb...@kim.berkeley.edu.BERKELEY.EDU (Anthony &) writes:
>> >>any validity their statements might otherwise have. I suppose one of the
>> ^^^^^ ?!?
>> ^^^^^
>
>preferred "they're" [they are] or "there" [where?] ...
>
--
Mike Maxwell
Boeing Artificial Intelligence Center
...uw-beaver!uw-june!bcsaic!michaelm
G A Moffett
history and status of the use of "they" in reference
to a singular person. (It was excerpts from the book
"American Tongue and Cheek" by Jim Quinn). I did put a long
expiration date on it as I expected this issue would arrise
from time to time, but the expiration date seems to have
arrived, and besides not everyone reads "old" news anyway.
If you are interested in this posting I will mail copies out
upon request. If the demand becomes "big" (more than 10)
I will repost it, again, with a 12-month expiration date.
Please MAIL your requests for the "he/she/they" article.
Convienient paths to reach me are implied below.
--
Gordon A. Moffett ...!{ihnp4,seismo,hplabs}!amdahl!gam
Her name was McGill, and she called herself Lil, but everyone
knew her as Nancy...
James E. Wilson
>>> = dianeh@ISM780
>> = Anthony Albert
>
>>>Unfortunately, poor grammar more often just makes the
>>>person sound stupid and tends to make me immediately prejudiced against
>>>any validity their statements might otherwise have.
>>> If a person can't take the time to learn their own language,
>> ^^^^^
>
> in cases where the gender is unknown, as has been the natural
> tendency of english for at least ~300 years.
>-michael
...among the illiterate, perhaps. Sorry, my vote is with Anthony.
JW
Geoff Kimbrough
...but it would be wrong.
Jeff Bulf
> >> Correct usage would have been "If a person can't take the time to learn
> >> his/her own language ..."
> >
> > I was unable to find the word "his/her" in my dictionary.
>
> You can add the word "his/her" to your dictionary by typing
> the WWB command dictadd. ;*)
All points with truth in them, but I'll stand by the following:
In any society, Correct Usage is the dialect
of the class that has an army.
BTW My memory insists that this is from Heinlein, but gives no help in
verifying that impression. it. Anybody know the source for sure?
--
Dr Memory
...{amd,ihnp4}!qubix!jeff
Chris Moss
>Wrong. The marked words are plaural pronouns. In each sentence, the
>subject is singualar. The correct pronoun is "his," although some would
>argue for "his/her."
>
>Jeff Siegal - MIT EECS
Consult the Oxford English Dictionary for a more authoritative angle on this.
It quotes singular uses of 'their' and even 'they' dating back to the
sixteenth or seventeenth century (I think), and accepts the usage.
If you want to argue right against wrong, use authorities worthy of the name!
I won't comment on Jeff's spelling :-)
Chris Moss, Imperial College, London.
Steven Pemberton
> > Sorry, Anthony. Current usage is tending towards singular `their'
> > in cases where the gender is unknown, as has been the natural
> > tendency of english for at least ~300 years.
>
In another article, Jeff Siegal - MIT EECS says:
> >The marked words are perfectly correct as used. Would you perhaps have
> >preferred "they're" [they are] or "there" [where?] ...
>
> Wrong. The marked words are plaural pronouns. In each sentence, the
> subject is singualar. The correct pronoun is "his," although some would
> argue for "his/her."
Here we go again. Last June I posted an article quoting the Oxford English
Dictionary, and tens of worthy authors through the ages from the 1300's to
the present day, who have used 'they', 'them', 'theirs', etc as SINGULAR
gender-unspecific words. It is CORRECT English. It was only later
grammarians who tried to enforce the rule that they are plural words, and
force us to use 'he', etc. Luckily, most people have not followed their
dictates.
Illiterate? Shakespeare was just one of the many to use the form. Let
history be the judge.
Steven Pemberton, CWI, Amsterdam; ste...@mcvax.uucp
--------------------------------------------------------
Here are the quotes from the OED again, for the doubters:
THEY
2. Often used in reference to a singular noun made universal by every, any,
no, etc., or applicable to one of either sex (= `he or she'). See Jespersen
Progress in Language 24.
1526 Pilgr. Perf. (W. de W. 1531) 163b, Yf,.a psalm scape ony persone, or a
lesson, or else yt they omyt one verse or twayne.
1535 FISHER Ways perf. Relig. ix. Wks. (1876) 383 He neuer forsaketh any
creature vnlesse they before haue forsaken them selues.
1749 FIELDING Tom Jones viii. xi, Every Body fell a laughing, as how could
they help it.
1759 CHESTERF. Lett. IV. ccclv. 170 If a person is born of a gloomy temper
..they cannot help it.
1835 WHEWELL in Life (1881) 173 Nobody can deprive us of the Church if they
would.
1858 BAGEHOT Lit.Stud. (1879) II.206 Nobody fancies for a moment that they
are reading about anything beyond the pale of ordinary propriety.
1866 RUSKIN Crown Wild Olives 38 (1873) 44 Now, nobody does anything well
that they cannot help doing.
THEM
2. Often used for `him or her', referring to a singular person whose sex is
not stated, or to anybody, nobody, somebody, whoever, etc.
1742 RICHARDSON Pamela III. 127 Little did I think..to make a..complaint
against a Person very dear to you,..but dont let them be so proud..as to
make them not care how they affront everybody else.
1853 Miss YONGE Heir of Redclyffe xxliv, Nobody else..has so little to
plague them.
1874 DASENT Half a life II. 198 Whenever anyone was ill, she brewed them a
drink.
THEMSELVES
5. In concord with a singular pronoun or sb. denoting a person, in cases
where the meaning implies more than one, as when the sb. is qualified by a
distributive, or refers to either sex: = himself or herself.
a. 1464 Rolls of Parlt. V. 513/2 Inheritements, of which any of the seid
persones..was seised by theym self, or joyntly with other.
c 1489 CAXTON Sonnes of Aymon i. 39 Eche of theym..make theymselfe redy.
1533 MORE Apol. 55b, Neyther Tyndale there nor thys precher..hath by theyr
maner of expounyng..wonne them self mych wurshyp.
y. 1600 SHAKS. Lucr. 125 Eury one to rest themselues [ ed. 1594 himselfe]
betake.
1654-66 EARL ORRERY Parthen. (1676) 147 All that happened, which every one
assured themselves, would render him a large sharer in the general joy.
1874 DASENT Half a life 3 Every one likes to keep it to themselves as long
as they can.
THEIR
3. Often used in relation to a singular sb. or pronoun denoting a person,
after each, every, either, neither, no one, every one, etc. Also so used
instead of `his or her', when the gender is inclusive or uncertain. (Not
favoured by grammarians.)
13.. Cursor M. 389 (Cott.) Bath ware made sun and mon, Aither wit ther ouen
light.
c 1420 Sir Amadace (Camden) 1, Iche mon in thayre degre.
14.. Arth. & Merl. 2440 (Kolbing) Many a Sarazen lost their life.
1545 ABP. PARKER Let. to Bp. Gardiner 8 May, Thus was it agreed among us
that every president should assemble their companies.
1563 WYNGET Four Scoir Thre Quest. liv, A man or woman being lang absent fra
thair party.
1643 TRAPP Comm. Gen. xxiv. 22 Each Countrey bath their fashions, and
garnishes.
1749 FIELDING Tom Jones vii, xiv Every one in the House were in their beds.
1771 GOLDSM. Hist. Eng III. 241 Every person..now recovered their liberty.
1845 SYD. SMITH Wks. (1850) 175 Every human being must do something with
their existence.
1848 THAKERAY Van. Fair xli A person can't help their birth.
1858 BAGEHOT Lit. Studies (1879) II. 206 Nobody in their senses would
describe Gray's `Elegy' as [etc.].
1898 G.B SHAW Plays II Candida 86 It's enough to drive anyone out of their
senses.
Other quotes (Not OED)
SHAKESPEARE God send everyone their heart's desire.
THAKERAY No one prevents you, do they?
GEORGE ELIOT I shouldn't like to punish anyone, even if they'd done me
wrong.
WALT WHITMAN ..everyone shall delight us, and we them.
ELIZABETH BOWEN He did not believe it rested anybody to lie with their head
high...
LAWRENCE DURREL You do not have to understand someone in order to love them.
DORIS LESSING And how easy the way a man or woman would come in here, glance
around, find smiles and pleasant looks waiting for them, then wave and sit
down by themselves.
G A Moffett
such as:
"Each person does as they think best."
This is not ungrammatical, wrong, in error, mistaken, illiterate,
or otherwise stupid. Those of you who believe otherwise should
read my previous posting (a quote of respectable texts on
the English language, including the OED).
Those of you reading net.singles are at a disadvantange, as the
aritcle was posted to net.nlang and net.women only. Sorry, but
that was the best choice for the subject matter, in my opinion.
The article's title is:
"he or she" -- a grammatical problem solved
I suggest you read it before you continue your criticisms of
statements that use "they" with singular pronouns.
andrew riggsby
>Here we go again. Last June I posted an article quoting the Oxford English
>Dictionary, and tens of worthy authors through the ages from the 1300's to
>the present day, who have used 'they', 'them', 'theirs', etc as SINGULAR
>gender-unspecific words. It is CORRECT English. It was only later
>grammarians who tried to enforce the rule that they are plural words, and
>force us to use 'he', etc. Luckily, most people have not followed their
>dictates.
>
>Illiterate? Shakespeare was just one of the many to use the form. Let
>history be the judge.
>
>Steven Pemberton, CWI, Amsterdam; ste...@mcvax.uucp
>
>--------------------------------------------------------
>
>Here are the quotes from the OED again, for the doubters:
There is, I think, a flaw in the way this point is argued here. In several
years of Latin and Greek prose composition I have observed two problems, which Ithink are relevant here, with using such citations to support various usages.
The first is that even if a given word is acceptable among the poets (for ins-
tance, Shakespeare), it may not be so in prose. E'en and e'er (for even and
ever) are such words as are many concrete verbs used in metaphorical senses.
Similarly, some constructions may be allowed in poetry but not in prose (This
is generally not so much of a problem in English, but it does happen.) The
second problem is that, of course, languages vary over time. Note that in
addition to supporting Mr. Pemberton's position on the he/she/they issue, the
quotations he cites also contain the forms "persone","twayne","forsaketh",
"fell a laughing", and "Iche mon in thayre degre." These were all well and
good in their time (the quotations range from the fourteenth century to
1898, only one is from the last 100 years), but I would question their impor-
tance to the question at hand. It might be argued that since the OED was
published early in this century, it is necessariy restricted to the 1800's and
before. This is true, but I think that it merely shows that not the OED, but
a more modern work, say Strunk and White's _Elements of Style_, should be con-
sulted. A work such a Strunk and White's offers the additional advantage that
it is not a general historical work (like the OED), but a guide to (proper?)
prose. I do not mean to argue that Mr. Pemberton is wrong about this partic-
ular problem, but I do question his reasoning in this article.
Andrew Riggsby
riggsby@harvunxu
Paul O`Shaughnessy
out grammatical shortcomings for all of us. We (or most of us) are quite
familiar with the language and its grammatical rules yet find it within
ourselves to pass over the occasional error and move on. Please consider
the possibility that your constant badgering on this subject is tiresome
and infantile. The 'n' on my keyboard will thank you.
Stop it. Now.
Lee Hagerty
>I am shocked and appalled by the objections raised to sentences
>such as:
>
> "Each person does as they think best."
>
>This is not ungrammatical, wrong, in error, mistaken, illiterate,
>or otherwise stupid. Those of you who believe otherwise should
>read my previous posting (a quote of respectable texts on
>the English language, including the OED).
I didn't see your previous postings. If I had, I would still consider
your example sentence to be wrong. I am one of those who believes that
pronouns must agree with their antecedents, or that a pronoun agrees with
its antecedent. I understand that "they" has been accepted in some
circles when referring to an indefinite third-person singular antecedent.
However, this can lead to unclear writing. "Each person does as they
think (collectively) best" or "each person does as they think
(individually) best"--which one is meant in your example?
Lee
ag...@ccvaxa.uucp
Andrew Riggsby says that "e'en" and "e'er" are words that are appropriate
in poetry but not in speech. He has obviously never been to the village
of Great Easton, near Market Harborough, Leicestershire.
andrew riggsby
for variations in local dialect.
Andrew Riggsby
riggsby@harvunxu
Laura Creighton
I was going to write this up, but then this article comes along. The problem
which I have with the lnaguage changers is that they have a non-falsifiable
hypothesis. And some of them present their opinions as scientific fact.
In article <12...@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> asi...@degas.berkeley.edu.UUCP (Daniel Asimov) writes:
>It has been suggested that examining cultures in whch the language
>is neuter can show that it may be of little value to try to
>"neuterize" the English language.
>
>I would like to comment that this idea ignores the effect of
>*change* itself. The process of changing our language from one
>which routinely uses ambiguous words ("man" for either all humans
>or a male) or highly assymetrical ones (as "mailman" for mail carrier)
>to a hypothetical English which doesn't do this, will (I conjecture)
>have the effect of raising a lot of consciousnesses. No?
>--Dan Asimov
Now Dan Asimov has presented this nicely. He has a conjecture -- a hypothesis,
an OPINION. He may be right. I happen to think that he is wrong, but
that is okay. What is *not* okay is that a lot of people who share this
opinion are forcing it down the throats of the rest of us.
There are few things as frustrating as to have a paper or article which
you have written mangled by some editor determined to get the ``sexism''
out. It is bad enough that they replace the elegent sentences that you
have laboured over with stilted and ugly prose -- but sometimes they
get in there and change teh whole meaning of what you wrote. To add to
the frustration, if you talk to these same editors you discover that they
have a very vague idea of what linguistics is, and that they are unaware
of what the Sapir Whorf hypothesis is -- let alone any of the relevant
research.
So what do they have -- an opinion. A belief. Something they thinks
*sounds* good or perhaps *feels* good.
And because feminism is a politically active issue, feminists get to
impose their beliefs and feelings on me. And I resent this a great
deal.
--
Laura Creighton
ihnp4!hoptoad!laura utzoo!hoptoad!laura sun!hoptoad!laura
to...@lll-crg.arpa