Grammer question - is "hir" grammatically correct?
aalu...@webtv.net
S
p
o
i
l
e
r
S
p
a
c
e
This is a Star Trek novel by her. In the book when referring to a
Talosian (its a sequal to The Menagerie) she uses the word hir.
For example "hir stated" or "Pike talked to hir". Hir is used to
replace the word s/he and the singular they.
I looked it up in wikipedia (ok not the greatest source) and its listed
as a neologism,
I know in novels one can have rather great flexibility. I have never
seen hir though anywhere else and this was my first experience with it.
On the face of it hir makes sense if you want to use a gender neutral
term. For example if you are referring to nonparticular store manager I
can see hir coming in handy as in "if the service is lousy go speak to
the store manger hir will help you out".
Having really no neutral gender first person pronouns have always been
clumsy. Using the singular they tends to be what I use.
Could one get away with this in an article or paper for school?
Is this accepted grammer.
Francis A. Miniter
Reading the above post caused much intellectual pain. To misspell "grammar"
(among many other words) and to commit numerous grammatical errors in a
discussion of grammar hits me like fingernails scraped across a chalkboard.
Since when did "they" become singular?
The point of a neologism is it is just that - a "new word". Grammar and
language itself constantly evolve. Just a few years ago, the word "impact" was
decidedly only used as a noun. Wait 50 to 100 years and you will know if "hir"
is accepted by enough people to get catalogued among pronouns or if it just
"don't get no respect".
You can always try "s/he-it" as a truly gender neutral third [NOT "first"]
person singular, but many people might misunderstand you, especially when it is
spoken not written.
Francis A. Miniter
Jon Schild
You mean no gender-neutral 3rd-person pronouns. First person pronouns
are "I", "we", "me", "us", "our", etc which are always gender-neutral.
The singular "they" is far better than "he/she" or "s/he" or any of the
similar constructs. It has been in use since the time of Chaucer. see
http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-the2.htm and
http://www.worldwidewords.org/articles/genpr.htm
--
Sufficiently advanced spam is indistinguishable from content.
Jon Schild
Late 1300s, if not before. See my other post in this thread.
> Francis A. Miniter
Dorothy J Heydt
<aalu...@webtv.net> wrote:
["hir" to replace both he/she and him/her]
>
>Having really no neutral gender first person pronouns have always been
^^^^^
>clumsy.
ITYM "third." Yes, it's clumsy, for those who are not willing to
go along with the old dictum, "The masculine gender includes the
feminine and neuter, and the singular number, the plural." In
other words, "he" could stand for he, she, it, or they.
It can certainly be argued that English needs a gender- (and for
that matter, number- ) neutral third person pronoun. The trouble
is, practically everybody who wants to use one, invents his own.
(Where "he" includes all those others.) Living near progressive
Berkeley, I've seen a dozen different pronouns used by a dozen
different people, none of them gaining predominance over the
others.
Poul Anderson used "heesh" in one of his novels, but then he used
it for a member of a species wherein each individual consisted of
a team of three members of three different species.
>
>Could one get away with this in an article or paper for school?
I certainly wouldn't try doing it without consulting the teacher
first. Ask each individual teacher whether he is willing to
accept "hir" or any other gender-neutral pronoun, and if he is,
go for it. If not, go for "he" or "he or she" or "s/he" or some
other compromise that's gained at least minimal acceptance. I,
if I were your teacher, would mark you down for using "they" for
a singular individual of unknown or irrelevant gender, and I
don't care a whit that it's been in use off and on at least since
Elizabethan times. So was smallpox.
>
>Is this accepted grammer.
Not yet. Not if you're writing for school, or for publication in
a non-SF journal. Unless your *subject* is the aggravating lack
of gender-neutral pronouns in English; in that case, by
introducing your chosen pronoun up front and using it
consistently, you ought to be able to get away with it till the
end of the article.
Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djh...@kithrup.com
Dan Goodman
> I read Burning Dreams by Margaret Bonnano and well spoiler space first
> S
> p
> o
> i
> l
> e
> r
>
> S
> p
> a
> c
> e
>
> This is a Star Trek novel by her. In the book when referring to a
> Talosian (its a sequal to The Menagerie) she uses the word hir.
>
> For example "hir stated" or "Pike talked to hir". Hir is used to
> replace the word s/he and the singular they.
This is a science fiction novel set in the future. One of the few
things which can be 100% predicted about the future is that English --
if it remains a living language for at least another century -- will
undergo a fair amount of change.
> I looked it up in wikipedia (ok not the greatest source) and its
> listed as a neologism,
>
> I know in novels one can have rather great flexibility. I have never
> seen hir though anywhere else and this was my first experience with
> it.
>
> On the face of it hir makes sense if you want to use a gender neutral
> term. For example if you are referring to nonparticular store manager
> I can see hir coming in handy as in "if the service is lousy go speak
> to the store manger hir will help you out".
>
> Having really no neutral gender first person pronouns have always been
> clumsy. Using the singular they tends to be what I use.
>
> Could one get away with this in an article or paper for school?
>
> Is this accepted grammer.
--
Dan Goodman
"You, each of you, have some special wild cards. Play with them.
Find out what makes you different and better. Because it is there,
if only you can find it." Vernor Vinge, _Rainbows End_
Journal http://dsgood.livejournal.com
Futures http://dangoodman.livejournal.com
mirror: http://dsgood.insanejournal.com
Links http://del.icio.us/dsgood
Dan Goodman
> Since when did "they" become singular?
The late 14th century, according to this source:
http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/austheir.html#X1x
Here http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/sgtheirl.htm are citations
from the OED, which don't go back quite that far:
# 1526 Pilgr. Perf. (W. de W. 1531) 163b, Yf... a psalme 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.
Dost thee also insist that "you" can only be plural?
Rick Moen
> Francis A. Miniter wrote:
>
>> Since when did "they" become singular?
>
> The late 14th century, according to this source:
> http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/austheir.html#X1x
And then, some centuries after _that_, the ability to distinguish between
third-person singular and plural was found to be useful. Isn't progress
grand?
--
Cheers, "Heedless of grammar, they all cried 'It's him!'"
Rick Moen -- R.H. Barham, _Misadventure at Margate_
ri...@linuxmafia.com
Beeblebear
<aalu...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:29662-46F...@storefull-3315.bay.webtv.net...
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the person being referred to as hir a
hermaphrodite?
In which case the creation of a new inclusive pronoun for that species
became useful.
--
--
Chris Lyth (clyt...@ifis.org.uk - shoot the president to reply)
I am not an Economist. I am an honest man! -- Paul McCracken
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Catherine Fiorello
> Dost thee also insist that "you" can only be plural?
Dost thou, I think you mean.
Cathy F
Mary
> Having really no neutral gender first person pronouns have always been
> clumsy. Using the singular they tends to be what I use.
>
> Could one get away with this in an article or paper for school?
>
> Is this accepted grammer.
Probably not. But if we're going to go all grammar nerdy, we should
note the spelling also.
GrammAr.
Mary
Spelling nerd
Ben Goodman
Rick Moen wrote:
> In rec.arts.sf.written Dan Goodman <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
> > Francis A. Miniter wrote:
> >
> >> Since when did "they" become singular?
> >
> > The late 14th century, according to this source:
> > http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/austheir.html#X1x
>
> And then, some centuries after _that_, the ability to distinguish between
> third-person singular and plural was found to be useful. Isn't progress
> grand?
>
And, ironically, the ability to distinguish between second-person
plural and singular was deemed non-essential in that same time period.
In modern usuage, "they" is sometimes used as a singular pronoun when
the gender of the person being described is unknown or intentially
left vague because "it" is often used to designate a non-person.
Immagine that: grammar being adaptable to provide nuance is more
socially beneficial than nit-picking. Of course, the elimination of
grammar is also the elimination of nuance. Grammar is one of the few
areas where the exception _does_ prove the rule.
PV
>Reading the above post caused much intellectual pain. To misspell "grammar"
>(among many other words) and to commit numerous grammatical errors in a
>discussion of grammar hits me like fingernails scraped across a chalkboard.
>Since when did "they" become singular?
aalucard is also known in the sf hierarchy as Dan Tropea, or as Gharlane
called him, "The Tropea Plague". He's either a troll, or denser than a
neutron star. In brief, avoid. *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.
Mike Schilling
"Rick Moen" <ri...@linuxmafia.com> wrote in message
news:9fbc1$46f20ecc$c690c3ba$20...@TSOFT.COM...
> In rec.arts.sf.written Dan Goodman <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>> Francis A. Miniter wrote:
>>
>>> Since when did "they" become singular?
>>
>> The late 14th century, according to this source:
>> http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/austheir.html#X1x
>
> And then, some centuries after _that_, the ability to distinguish between
> third-person singular and plural was found to be useful. Isn't progress
> grand?
Dost thou think that singular vs. plural is an important distinction?
Lawrence Watt-Evans
<cathy...@starbeastnospam.net> wrote:
Depends on time period and religious affiliation; in Quaker usage it
would be "thee."
--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
The fifth issue of Helix is at http://www.helixsf.com
The tenth Ethshar novel has been serialized at http://www.ethshar.com/thevondishambassador1.html
William George Ferguson
<cathy...@starbeastnospam.net> wrote:
I think thou meanest.
--
I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.
(Bene Gesserit)
norrin
Dan Goodman
> In rec.arts.sf.written Dan Goodman <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
> > Francis A. Miniter wrote:
> >
> >> Since when did "they" become singular?
> >
> > The late 14th century, according to this source:
> > http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/austheir.html#X1x
>
> And then, some centuries after that, the ability to distinguish
> between third-person singular and plural was found to be useful.
> Isn't progress grand?
What progress? People have gone on using "they" as both plural and
singular. And have taken up the habit of using "you" as both singular
and plural -- and none of the prescriptivists are speaking out against
it.
Dan Goodman
Thanks for the correction.
Default User
> Reading the above post caused much intellectual pain. To misspell
> "grammar" (among many other words) and to commit numerous grammatical
> errors in a discussion of grammar hits me like fingernails scraped
> across a chalkboard.
Well, getting riled up by Tropea language errors puts you in good
usenet company. I spent considerable time years ago trying to teach him
the difference between the words "then" and "than". It was, alas, a
complete failure.
Brian
--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)
Charlton Wilbur
DJH> I, if I were your teacher, would mark you down for using
DJH> "they" for a singular individual of unknown or irrelevant
DJH> gender, and I don't care a whit that it's been in use off and
DJH> on at least since Elizabethan times. So was smallpox.
This is roughly my take on it too; I don't think I've ever found a
situation where the use of singular 'they' could not be trivially
rewritten to avoid the use of the pronoun or recast into the plural.
As it's been in use since Elizabethan times, though, I consider it a
sign of stylistic gracelessness rather than an error in grammar.
Charlton
--
Charlton Wilbur
cwi...@chromatico.net
Dorothy J Heydt
Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote:
>On 20 Sep 2007 11:57:32 GMT, Catherine Fiorello
><cathy...@starbeastnospam.net> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 04:55:08 +0000, Dan Goodman wrote:
>>
>>> Dost thee also insist that "you" can only be plural?
>>
>>Dost thou, I think you mean.
>
>Depends on time period and religious affiliation; in Quaker usage it
>would be "thee."
For some times and places; and it would be "does thee". (They
were trying to reinvent the non-honorific second person singular
because of their firm conviction that all men were equal. Good
plan. Would've been better if they'd gone back to "dost thou"
and the rest of the second-singular forms,which after all they could
have picked up by osmosis from the King James.)
Martin Underwood
5lfol2F...@mid.individual.net:
> Francis A. Miniter wrote:
>
>
>> Reading the above post caused much intellectual pain. To misspell
>> "grammar" (among many other words) and to commit numerous grammatical
>> errors in a discussion of grammar hits me like fingernails scraped
>> across a chalkboard.
>
> Well, getting riled up by Tropea language errors puts you in good
> usenet company. I spent considerable time years ago trying to teach
> him the difference between the words "then" and "than". It was, alas,
> a complete failure.
I take exception to the ultra-PC word "chalkboard". What's wrong with
"blackboard"? Are we now prohibited from using all words that contain the
word "black", even when it's not used in a disparaging context?
Kurt Busiek
> Default User wrote in message
> 5lfol2F...@mid.individual.net:
>
>> Francis A. Miniter wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Reading the above post caused much intellectual pain. To misspell
>>> "grammar" (among many other words) and to commit numerous grammatical
>>> errors in a discussion of grammar hits me like fingernails scraped
>>> across a chalkboard.
>>
>> Well, getting riled up by Tropea language errors puts you in good
>> usenet company. I spent considerable time years ago trying to teach
>> him the difference between the words "then" and "than". It was, alas,
>> a complete failure.
>
> I take exception to the ultra-PC word "chalkboard". What's wrong with
> "blackboard"?
Many chalkboards -- including the one in the "Simpsons" credits gag --
are green.
For that matter, some are other colors.
> Are we now prohibited from using all words that contain the
> word "black", even when it's not used in a disparaging context?
Shall we, then, be prohibited from using a word meaning "a board you
write on with chalk" if it doesn't contain the word "black"? Are you
suggesting that "blackboard" is the only acceptable word, regardles of
the color of the board?
The term "chalkboard" dates to the 1930s, so you can be reasonably sure
that it wasn't coined in order to avoid giving offense to the
dusky-hued among us.
kdb
Dorothy J Heydt
Probably not, but in any case chalkboards these days are usually
green. Or replaced by whiteboards that are written upon by
specialized easy-to-wipe colored markers, not chalk.
Martin Underwood
200709201043558930-kurt@busiekcomics:
Maybe it's a UK versus US thing, then. When I was at school in the 1960s,
70s and 80s, blackboards were always black and were always called
"blackboards". I never heard the word chalkboard until a few years ago -
about the same time, ironically, as whiteboards became common... at least
when giving presentations at work.
I've never seen a green chalkboard - I wonder why they are green rather than
black?
I'll have to ask my nephew (aged 12) what the board is called now and what
colour it is - assuming that it's not a whiteboard with pens.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
Heydt) wrote:
>In article <if95f31vkocs2375h...@news.rcn.com>,
>Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote:
>>On 20 Sep 2007 11:57:32 GMT, Catherine Fiorello
>><cathy...@starbeastnospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 04:55:08 +0000, Dan Goodman wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dost thee also insist that "you" can only be plural?
>>>
>>>Dost thou, I think you mean.
>>
>>Depends on time period and religious affiliation; in Quaker usage it
>>would be "thee."
>
>For some times and places; and it would be "does thee".
So it would. I stand corrected.
claylonnie
If "hir" were correct, would "hir" be more likely to be HIRED ? LOL LOL!
--
claylonnie
Lonnie Courtney Clay
Bev Vincent
"Martin Underwood" <a@b> wrote in message
news:13f5d2b...@corp.supernews.com...
> I've never seen a green chalkboard - I wonder why they are green rather
than black?
They were cheaper because they were made of synthetic material. Yellow chalk
showed up better on them than white. However, there were rumors that the
green ones gave off an irritating glow under fluorescent lights.
--
Bev Vincent
www.BevVincent.com
Gene Ward Smith
> I take exception to the ultra-PC word "chalkboard". What's wrong with
> "blackboard"? Are we now prohibited from using all words that contain
> the word "black", even when it's not used in a disparaging context?
>
You can use "blackguard" in speech but not in writing.
Dorothy J Heydt
>
>I've never seen a green chalkboard - I wonder why they are green rather than
>black?
Easier on the eyes. Besides, they are no longer made of real
Kurt Busiek
> In article <13f5d2b...@corp.supernews.com>, Martin Underwood <a@b> wrote:
>>
>> I've never seen a green chalkboard - I wonder why they are green rather than
>> black?
>
> Easier on the eyes. Besides, they are no longer made of real
...blacks?
The early ones were painted wood, but I think they were slate for a
long time. Not the green ones, though. Those are made of Moonmen.
kdb
Dorothy J Heydt
Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.comics> wrote:
>On 2007-09-20 12:37:51 -0700, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) said:
>
>> In article <13f5d2b...@corp.supernews.com>, Martin Underwood <a@b> wrote:
>>>
>>> I've never seen a green chalkboard - I wonder why they are green rather than
>>> black?
>>
>> Easier on the eyes. Besides, they are no longer made of real
>
>...blacks?
Sorry, my newsreader tends to truncate the last line sometimes.
The line was "slate, which is black by default."
>
>The early ones were painted wood, but I think they were slate for a
>long time. Not the green ones, though. Those are made of Moonmen.
Or dinosaurs.
Cece
> In article <29662-46F1E59E-...@storefull-3315.bay.webtv.net>,
>
> <aaluc...@webtv.net> wrote:
>
> ["hir" to replace both he/she and him/her]
>
> >Having really no neutral gender first person pronouns have always been
>
>
> >clumsy.
>
> ITYM "third." Yes, it's clumsy, for those who are not willing to
> go along with the old dictum, "The masculine gender includes the
> feminine and neuter, and the singular number, the plural." In
> other words, "he" could stand for he, she, it, or they.
>
> It can certainly be argued that English needs a gender- (and for
> that matter, number- ) neutral third person pronoun. The trouble
> is, practically everybody who wants to use one, invents his own.
> (Where "he" includes all those others.) Living near progressive
> Berkeley, I've seen a dozen different pronouns used by a dozen
> different people, none of them gaining predominance over the
> others.
>
> Poul Anderson used "heesh" in one of his novels, but then he used
> it for a member of a species wherein each individual consisted of
> a team of three members of three different species.
>
>
>
> >Could one get away with this in an article or paper for school?
>
> first. Ask each individual teacher whether he is willing to
> accept "hir" or any other gender-neutral pronoun, and if he is,
> go for it. If not, go for "he" or "he or she" or "s/he" or some
> other compromise that's gained at least minimal acceptance. I,
> if I were your teacher, would mark you down for using "they" for
> a singular individual of unknown or irrelevant gender, and I
> don't care a whit that it's been in use off and on at least since
> Elizabethan times. So was smallpox.
>
>
> Not yet. Not if you're writing for school, or for publication in
> a non-SF journal. Unless your *subject* is the aggravating lack
> of gender-neutral pronouns in English; in that case, by
> introducing your chosen pronoun up front and using it
> consistently, you ought to be able to get away with it till the
> end of the article.
>
> Dorothy J. Heydt
> Albany, California
Poul Anderson used "yx" in another story.
How does "hir" differ in pronunciation from "her"?
Cece
Walter Bushell
djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
> >I've never seen a green chalkboard - I wonder why they are green rather than
> >black?
>
> Easier on the eyes. Besides, they are no longer made of real
As in girl scout cookies which are not made from real girl scouts?
Kurt Busiek
Except the Thin Mints. Mmm-MMM!
kdb
Kurt Busiek
To my inner ear, at least, "hir" sounds a lot like "here."
kdb
Dorothy J Heydt
Cece <ceceliaa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Sep 19, 11:35 pm, djhe...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>> In article <29662-46F1E59E-...@storefull-3315.bay.webtv.net>,
>>
>> it for a member of a species wherein each individual consisted of
>> a team of three members of three different species.
>
Yes, but that was for a third sex, neither male nor female but, I
think, transmitter.
>
>How does "hir" differ in pronunciation from "her"?
Damfino.
I'm now remembering that someone did a stage adaptation once of
_The Left Hand of Darkness_ and used "a" (pronounced pretty much
like "uh") to refer to the Gethenians who, three-quarters of the
time, really *were * gender-neutral. That corresponds to
pronounciation of "he" in some English dialects. LeGuin is said
to have approved.
Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
David Johnston
wrote:
>> How does "hir" differ in pronunciation from "her"?
>
>To my inner ear, at least, "hir" sounds a lot like "here."
Yup. That's what it sounds like to me too.
Kurt Busiek
The "ir" of "irridescent" or "irresponsible," as opposed to the "er" of
"ermine" or "erstwhile."
kdb
erilar
aalu...@webtv.net wrote:
> I read Burning Dreams by Margaret Bonnano and well spoiler space first
> S
> p
> o
> i
> l
> e
> r
>
> S
> p
> a
> c
> e
>
> This is a Star Trek novel by her. In the book when referring to a
> Talosian (its a sequal to The Menagerie) she uses the word hir.
>
> For example "hir stated" or "Pike talked to hir". Hir is used to
> replace the word s/he and the singular they.
>
> I looked it up in wikipedia (ok not the greatest source) and its listed
> as a neologism,
>
> I know in novels one can have rather great flexibility. I have never
> seen hir though anywhere else and this was my first experience with it.
Novelists are allowed to invent words 8-) In science fiction, there are
sometimes alien races that don't have a him/her distinction at all. They
may have more than two sexes or none at all and simply bud or otherwise
divide to increase the population.
I don't read series based on TV shows, but I know there are some good
authors who write the things. I do read a lot of science fiction, and
those authors often NEED to invent words for things we don't have in our
lives today, which means our normal grammar may not apply 8-) Of
course, sometimes they just throw them in to create a futuristic "feel".
says the philologist who long ago taught English 8-)
--
Mary, biblioholic
bib-li-o-hol-ism : the habitual longing to purchase, read, store,
admire, and consume books in excess.
erilar
"Martin Underwood" <a@b> wrote:
> I take exception to the ultra-PC word "chalkboard". What's wrong with
> "blackboard"? Are we now prohibited from using all words that contain the
> word "black", even when it's not used in a disparaging context?
Not only that, but nowadays they aren't even chalkable! I begged for a
real one in my classroom when they built the new school, but all they
had was those white things, and then they wanted us to use poison
markers. Really great in a room with no windows! I had to order special
markers every year to get non-toxic ones.
Dorothy J Heydt
Dave in Toronto
say. It took 38 takes before he got it right. The line that gave him
trouble was "You'd better get a bigger blackboard."
(Just thought I'd throw that in)
Dave in Toronto
claylonnie
Mary, biblioholic
bib-li-o-hol-ism : the habitual longing to purchase, read, store,
admire, and consume books in excess.
http://www.chibardun.net/~erilarlo
I finally started really reading the signatures posted. The one above
is delicious LOL!
Bill Snyder
>On Sep 19, 10:14 pm, aaluc...@webtv.net wrote:
>
>> Having really no neutral gender first person pronouns have always been
>> clumsy. Using the singular they tends to be what I use.
>>
>> Could one get away with this in an article or paper for school?
>>
>> Is this accepted grammer.
>
>Probably not. But if we're going to go all grammar nerdy, we should
>note the spelling also.
>
>GrammAr.
No, the "talk like a pirate" thread is over *there*.
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank.]
Larisa
> In rec.arts.sf.written Dan Goodman <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>
> > Francis A. Miniter wrote:
>
> >> Since when did "they" become singular?
>
> > The late 14th century, according to this source:
> >http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/austheir.html#X1x
>
> And then, some centuries after _that_, the ability to distinguish between
> third-person singular and plural was found to be useful. Isn't progress
> grand?
Presumably, thou wilt also want to distinguish between second-person
singular and second-person plural? Or does it not matter to thee? I
don't know about y'all, but I think it's a fairly useful distinction.
LM
Stanley Moore
"Martin Underwood" <a@b> wrote in message
news:13f5d2b...@corp.supernews.com...
I believe they were black or dark gray for the simple reason that they were
made of slate. As a kid going to school in the mid to late 50s in a small
rural Texas town I recall them and the teacher's pet who got the much
desired job of pounding out the erasers.... heaven knows why we all envied
that one <G>. We moved to a bigger town in the 60s and the new school had
green chalkboards... I think the reason was less contrast and better
visibility than the black ones. As a fogey I do NOT like the white
boards.... once back the the 80s I used the wrong marker on one and the
person who was in charge of it was seriously annoyed <G>. A little rubbing
alcohol removed the offending marks so no harm, no foul. Take care.
--
Stanley L. Moore
"The belief in a supernatural
source of evil is not necessary;
men alone are quite capable
of every wickedness."
Joseph Conrad
Stanley Moore
"Gene Ward Smith" <ge...@chewbacca.org> wrote in message
news:Xns99B1764267CD9...@207.115.33.102...
Recall the flap when some official used the perfectly neutral word
"niggardly" got huge play on the news shows? Blackguard is a bit old
fashioned. One word that has gone out of common usage is poltroon which I
like. Doubtless there are thousands more. Take care
Stanley Moore
Recall the flap when some official used the perfectly neutral word
"niggardly" correctly in context and got huge play on the news shows? I
think he had to apologize to ignoramuses who thought it was some sort of
racial slur. Blackguard is a bit old
Dorothy J Heydt
It might be useful also to distinguish, as many European
languages still do, between formal and familiar pronouns. But
when "thou" died out (at least in America), the distinction was
taken over by a familiar use of first names (at least in
America). And now, at least in America, first names are used for
approximately everybody, so that we are in the position of
habitually thou-ing everyone, like the Hobbits in the Shire.
...a thing one finds out by careful reading of the Appendices.
There, Tolkien tells us that the formal pronouns had fallen into
disuse in the Shire-Westron; and that was why the people of
Gondor called Pippin "Prince of the Halflings" -- not because he
was the son of the Thain, which they didn't know and wouldn't
have cared about if they did, but because he thou-ed everybody,
up to and including Denethor.
Joseph Nebus
>It can certainly be argued that English needs a gender- (and for
>that matter, number- ) neutral third person pronoun. The trouble
>is, practically everybody who wants to use one, invents his own.
It's probably silly to point things out in an aalucard thread,
but, most often when I've seen 'hir' used it's been used as pronoun
for creatures of neither male-nor-female sex, such as might turn up in
an alien species. It's possible that Margaret Wander Bonano meant the
pronoun in that sense, particularly if it's deliberately used for the
Talosians. (There's nothing of which I'm aware that pinned down the
genders of the Talosian species which appeared on-screen and therefore
she'd have reasonably free range in making up suitably novel ideas.)
--
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Howard Brazee
>I've never seen a green chalkboard - I wonder why they are green rather than
>black?
Most chalkboards I have seen have been green, and I also have seen
some reddish. Both of these are closer to the color of tennis
courts.
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>>To my inner ear, at least, "hir" sounds a lot like "here."
>
>Yup. That's what it sounds like to me too.
It's one of those words that I can hear the difference in my inner
ear, but if I said it out loud, nobody else would hear the difference.
John Reiher
"Stanley Moore" <smoo...@comcast.net> wrote:
> once back the the 80s I used the wrong marker on one and the
> person who was in charge of it was seriously annoyed <G>. A little rubbing
> alcohol removed the offending marks so no harm, no foul. Take care.
If you don't have any rubbing alcohol available, the new whiteboard
erasing liquids will work or in a pinch, a permanent marker can remove a
permanent marker from a whiteboard. Rub over the mark, just a little bit
and while it's still wet, wipe it off. You gotta be quick, or it dries.
--
The Kedamono Dragon
Pull Pinky's favorite words to email me.
http://www.ahtg.net
Have Mac, will Compute
Check out the PowerPointers Shop at:
http://www.cafeshops.com/PowerPointers
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Larry Caldwell
ge...@chewbacca.org (Gene Ward Smith) says...
> You can use "blackguard" in speech but not in writing.
Is that because it is pronounced blaggard?
--
For email, replace firstnamelastinitial
with my first name and last initial.
aalu...@webtv.net
defining hir.
Also for others thank you for correcting my spelling on grammar. I was
thinking of the way it sounds and put in an e at the end.
For how to say hir I had assumed you would say it like ire.
From all of you can I take away these lessons:
1) Unless I am writing SF avoid hir.
2) Wait for a standard 3rd person gender neutral word and instead use he
and try to avoid the singular they.
3) I still guess confused over then and than.
Larry Caldwell
Heydt) says...
> It can certainly be argued that English needs a gender- (and for
> that matter, number- ) neutral third person pronoun.
I suppose it can also be argued that the human race needs gender neutral
people. I have always thought that "it" serves nicely for third person
singular. The only objection would be from the individuals who want to
claim a gender at their option, but don't want the information made
public. It sounds like a personal problem to me.
Gene Ward Smith
news:MPG.215cd8e09...@news.peaksky.com:
> In article <Xns99B1764267CD9...@207.115.33.102>,
> ge...@chewbacca.org (Gene Ward Smith) says...
>
>> You can use "blackguard" in speech but not in writing.
>
> Is that because it is pronounced blaggard?
>
Of course.
aalu...@webtv.net
that I come across and interest me. Also books I read or shows I watch.
For books I have adopted a 24 hour hiatus where I wait until one day to
post about a book. I am trying to discipline myself to posting more
thoughtfully. Ok grammar I am still sloppy.
Back in the 90s I agree I was addicted to the usenet and posted way, way
too much also I admit I turned xposting in a near artform - ok could be
revisionist history.
Was I a troll? No. I always posted ontopic or at least tried to. I also
was never vicious. Troll posts tend to be very vicious if anything
looking back I kind of went out of my way to be liked.
Why did I post to rasw and ram. There are numerious teachers in both
newsgroups that could provide an answer. I also knew that if a SF writer
did it most likely somewhere a mystery writer also did it.
Joseph Nebus
>In article <wsudnXCtdqeDsW7b...@comcast.com>,
> "Stanley Moore" <smoo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> once back the the 80s I used the wrong marker on one and the
>> person who was in charge of it was seriously annoyed <G>. A little rubbing
>> alcohol removed the offending marks so no harm, no foul. Take care.
>If you don't have any rubbing alcohol available, the new whiteboard
>erasing liquids will work or in a pinch, a permanent marker can remove a
>permanent marker from a whiteboard. Rub over the mark, just a little bit
>and while it's still wet, wipe it off. You gotta be quick, or it dries.
Tracing over the permanent mark with the dry-erasable marker
works too. I used that trick in front of one class after finding the
previous class had put some permanent marks on the board, and got the
distinct yet short-lived admiration of my class. (This was a lucky
discovery; I had no particular reason to think this would work, but
figured that was better than having to explain finite elements around
a random blurb of organic chemistry.)
--
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Goldfarb
Stanley Moore <smoo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Recall the flap when some official used the perfectly neutral word
>"niggardly" correctly in context and got huge play on the news shows? I
>think he had to apologize to ignoramuses who thought it was some sort of
>racial slur.
As I recall it, he had to resign his position. I could be wrong.
--
David Goldfarb |"It is curious that a dog runs already
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | on the escalator."
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu | -- Bella Abzug
netcat
> >5lfol2F...@mid.individual.net:
> >
> >> Francis A. Miniter wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> Reading the above post caused much intellectual pain. To misspell
> >>> "grammar" (among many other words) and to commit numerous grammatical
> >>> errors in a discussion of grammar hits me like fingernails scraped
> >>> across a chalkboard.
> >>
> >> Well, getting riled up by Tropea language errors puts you in good
> >> usenet company. I spent considerable time years ago trying to teach
> >> him the difference between the words "then" and "than". It was, alas,
> >> a complete failure.
> >
> >"blackboard"? Are we now prohibited from using all words that contain the
> >word "black", even when it's not used in a disparaging context?
>
> green. Or replaced by whiteboards that are written upon by
> specialized easy-to-wipe colored markers, not chalk.
Green, blue or brown, where and when I was at school. Never seen a true
black blackboard in a school environment, really.
rgds,
netcat
netcat
flower...@yahoo.com says...
> On 2007-09-20, Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
> > In article <2007092013071350878-kurt@busiekcomics>,
> > Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.comics> wrote:
> >>On 2007-09-20 12:37:51 -0700, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) said:
> >>
> >>> In article <13f5d2b...@corp.supernews.com>, Martin Underwood <a@b> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> I've never seen a green chalkboard - I wonder why they are green rather than
> >>>> black?
> >>>
> >>
> >
> > Sorry, my newsreader tends to truncate the last line sometimes.
> > The line was "slate, which is black by default."
>
> Oh, sure, blame it on the newsreader. Haven't you heard that that sort
> of behaviour will get you, erm, 'killfiled into invisibility'?
Something tells me this quip is going to hang around these parts for a
long time to come ;-)
rgds,
netcat
Default User
> On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 18:56:21 +0100, "Martin Underwood" <a@b> wrote, in
> part:
>
> > I've never seen a green chalkboard - I wonder why they are green
> > rather than black?
>
> I've seen a lot of them during my schooling.
>
> I think the green is intended to reduce eyestrain.
I don't remember what color boards we had back when I was Physics TA.
What I do remember was the two kinds of chalk. There was the real
stuff, and "dustless" chalk. The latter was crap. It was using crayons,
really hard to write with and harder to erase. Sometimes that's all
there'd be in a room, I'd have to bring my own chalk with me.
Brian
--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)
Kurt Busiek
Savard) said:
> On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 13:07:13 -0700, Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.comics>
> wrote, in part:
>> On 2007-09-20 12:37:51 -0700, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) said:
>
>>> Easier on the eyes. Besides, they are no longer made of real
>>
>> ...blacks?
>
> Nope. Real _slate_, which is the kind of rock used to make blackboards
> originally.
I note that in order to respond to this joke as if it were a serious
question, you had to cut the part of the post that said blackboards
used to be made of slate so you could simply repeat it.
Also the part that said that originally, they were made of painted
wood, which is true -- slate was an upgrade.
kdb
No 33 Secretary
news:5liakhF...@mid.individual.net:
> John Savard wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 18:56:21 +0100, "Martin Underwood" <a@b>
>> wrote, in part:
>>
>> > I've never seen a green chalkboard - I wonder why they are
>> > green rather than black?
>>
>> I've seen a lot of them during my schooling.
>>
>> I think the green is intended to reduce eyestrain.
>
> I don't remember what color boards we had back when I was
> Physics TA. What I do remember was the two kinds of chalk. There
> was the real stuff, and "dustless" chalk. The latter was crap.
> It was using crayons, really hard to write with and harder to
> erase. Sometimes that's all there'd be in a room, I'd have to
> bring my own chalk with me.
>
I suspect it's because chalkboards were originally made out of real
slate, and green was the most common color.
--
"You weren't born prematurely, son. You just survived the
abortion."
Terry Austin
Mike Schilling
"Kurt Busiek" <ku...@busiek.comics> wrote in message
news:2007092110020931729-kurt@busiekcomics...
Blackboards used to be made of real ....
Slate?
Not really, it's only 10:30.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
Heydt) wrote:
>In article <MPG.215dc772...@news.octanews.com>,
>netcat <net...@devnull.eridani.eol.ee> wrote:
>>
>>Green, blue or brown, where and when I was at school. Never seen a true
>>black blackboard in a school environment, really.
>
>Oh, I have. *But I'm 65.* When I was in school in the early
>1950s, the blackboards were black and (in the school I went to,
>which must've been built early in the century) possibly even made
>of real slate. But that's a long time ago.
When I was in elementary school, the older boards were black and the
newer ones were green, and that was a recent enough change that some
people still found the green ones startling.
That was the early 1960s.
--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
The fifth issue of Helix is at http://www.helixsf.com
The tenth Ethshar novel has been serialized at http://www.ethshar.com/thevondishambassador1.html
Lawrence Watt-Evans
(David Goldfarb) wrote:
>In article <9MmdnYS4YoHBsW7b...@comcast.com>,
>Stanley Moore <smoo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>Recall the flap when some official used the perfectly neutral word
>>"niggardly" correctly in context and got huge play on the news shows? I
>>think he had to apologize to ignoramuses who thought it was some sort of
>>racial slur.
>
>As I recall it, he had to resign his position. I could be wrong.
He did resign, but it was more a "this isn't worth arguing about"
situation than "had to." It wasn't a career post, just a temporary
advisory thing.
Kurt Busiek
> On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 09:20:16 +0000 (UTC), gold...@OCF.Berkeley.EDU
> (David Goldfarb) wrote:
>
>> In article <9MmdnYS4YoHBsW7b...@comcast.com>,
>> Stanley Moore <smoo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> Recall the flap when some official used the perfectly neutral word
>>> "niggardly" correctly in context and got huge play on the news shows? I
>>> think he had to apologize to ignoramuses who thought it was some sort of
>>> racial slur.
>>
>> As I recall it, he had to resign his position. I could be wrong.
>
> He did resign, but it was more a "this isn't worth arguing about"
> situation than "had to." It wasn't a career post, just a temporary
> advisory thing.
And as I recall, after the negative publicity over the fact that he
lost his job over it hit, they offered him a better-paying job but he
declined.
kdb
PV
> Tracing over the permanent mark with the dry-erasable marker
>works too. I used that trick in front of one class after finding the
it's the same thing actually; dry erase markers have a solvent that quickly
evaporates, leaving just the slightly sticky pigment behind. That solvent
was what erased the other marks. *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.
PV
>For how to say hir I had assumed you would say it like ire.
>
>From all of you can I take away these lessons:
>
>1) Unless I am writing SF avoid hir.
>2) Wait for a standard 3rd person gender neutral word and instead use he
> and try to avoid the singular they.
>3) I still guess confused over then and than.
http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/04/469758086_051b1dd752.jpg
Default User
That's why they starting using dustless chalk?
No 33 Secretary
> No 33 Secretary wrote:
>
>> "Default User" <defaul...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> news:5liakhF...@mid.individual.net:
>>
>> > John Savard wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 18:56:21 +0100, "Martin Underwood" <a@b>
>> >> wrote, in part:
>> >>
>> >> > I've never seen a green chalkboard - I wonder why they are
>> >> > green rather than black?
>> >>
>> >> I've seen a lot of them during my schooling.
>> >>
>> >> I think the green is intended to reduce eyestrain.
>> >
>> > I don't remember what color boards we had back when I was
>> > Physics TA. What I do remember was the two kinds of chalk.
>> > There was the real stuff, and "dustless" chalk. The latter
>> > was crap. It was using crayons, really hard to write with and
>> > harder to erase. Sometimes that's all there'd be in a room,
>> > I'd have to bring my own chalk with me.
>> >
>> I suspect it's because chalkboards were originally made out of
>> real slate, and green was the most common color.
>
> That's why they starting using dustless chalk?
>
No, I would imagine that's because the sales rep for the company
that manufactured dustless chalk wore really - really - short
skirts, with nothing under them. Superintendants get lonely, too.
Default User
> aalu...@webtv.net writes:
> > For how to say hir I had assumed you would say it like ire.
> >
> > From all of you can I take away these lessons:
> >
> > 1) Unless I am writing SF avoid hir.
> > 2) Wait for a standard 3rd person gender neutral word and instead
> > use he and try to avoid the singular they.
> > 3) I still guess confused over then and than.
>
>
http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/04/469758086_051b1dd7
52.jpg
Oh hai!
Default User
> "Default User" <defaul...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:5lifeuF...@mid.individual.net:
>
> > No 33 Secretary wrote:
> >
> >> "Default User" <defaul...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> >> news:5liakhF...@mid.individual.net:
> >> > I don't remember what color boards we had back when I was
> >> > Physics TA. What I do remember was the two kinds of chalk.
> >> > There was the real stuff, and "dustless" chalk. The latter
> >> > was crap. It was using crayons, really hard to write with and
> >> > harder to erase. Sometimes that's all there'd be in a room,
> >> > I'd have to bring my own chalk with me.
> >> >
> >> I suspect it's because chalkboards were originally made out of
> >> real slate, and green was the most common color.
> >
> > That's why they starting using dustless chalk?
> >
> No, I would imagine that's because the sales rep for the company
> that manufactured dustless chalk wore really - really - short
> skirts, with nothing under them. Superintendants get lonely, too.
University setting, so ummm, whoever would be in charge of deciding
things like that. I don't know if it would be some sort of facilities
group or the "college" (Arts and Sciences in this case).
Martin Underwood
lub6f316gksjacrim...@4ax.com:
> On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 18:56:21 +0100, "Martin Underwood" <a@b> wrote:
>
>> I've never seen a green chalkboard - I wonder why they are green
>> rather than black?
>
> Most chalkboards I have seen have been green, and I also have seen
> some reddish. Both of these are closer to the color of tennis
> courts.
I must be an old fogey. I've obviously never lived if I haven't seen a green
or red board ;-)
I think most of the ones at my school were either painted wood, with panels
that were slid or hinged, or else some sort of smooth fabric stuff like very
thin lino (with a wooden backing behind to press on as you wrote) on roller
so they could be slid vertically on an endless loop.
Maybe the roller type were sometimes a very dark sludge green - but
virtually black.
Writing on a whiteboard is much easier than on a blackboard/chalkboard,
though either way is an acquired technique - having to write artificially
large, trying not to stand in front of what you're writing and writing on a
vertical surface where it's difficult to rest your little finger on the
board as you would when writing on paper.
Overhead projector is the easiest - but you are constantly staring into the
bright light.
If I have to give a presentation nowadays (assuming I can't use Powerpoint!)
I usually prepare the overhead slides in advance, together with printed
copies so the audience can listen to me instead of having to copy down what
I'm presenting, and I use the cover-and-reveal technique if there's a slide
with several bullet points so I can introduce them one at a time.
claylonnie
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNB8CnYB308
"*I* AM STRONG *I* AM INVINCIBLE"!!!!!
Why do you *think* that I put *that* selection on every post of the
"I discuss music and the English language" thread ????? EH?
In an effort to get the necessary strength for *I* to conquer "Archive"
"it" the suggestion was posted on L. Neil Smith's websight that every
woman should sing "I am Woman" by Helen Reddy. Results : One "Archive"
down into the dirt, and *I* am HER-MAN!!!!! There is NO way that LCC is
going to lose the family jewels either....
I AM HER_MAN HEAR ME CROAK, BE REAL CAREFUL HOW YOU JOKE!!!!!
__________________
--
claylonnie
Lonnie Courtney Clay
David Tate
> In article <1190340514.267323.273...@y27g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
>
> [...] so that we are in the position of
> habitually thou-ing everyone, like the Hobbits in the Shire.
>
> ...a thing one finds out by careful reading of the Appendices.
> There, Tolkien tells us that the formal pronouns had fallen into
> disuse in the Shire-Westron; and that was why the people of
> Gondor called Pippin "Prince of the Halflings" -- not because he
> was the son of the Thain, which they didn't know and wouldn't
> have cared about if they did, but because he thou-ed everybody,
> up to and including Denethor.
Tolkien made this point explicitly in his Guide to Translators[1]. I
was very annoyed when I first read _Le Seigneur des Anneaux_, the
standard French translation of LOTR (by "F. Ledoux") that is still the
only translation available, so far as I can tell. Ledoux apparently
never read the Appendices[2], and completely failed to take advantage
of the fact that French *can* show the distinction between familiar
and deferential pronouns. In Ledoux's translation, the hobbits do not
tutoyent everyone, and the point is lost.
(I suspect that Ledoux's translation dates from before 1975, but
anyone who had read the Appendices would have spotted this.)
David Tate
[1] "Guide to the Names in The Lord of the Rings" (1975) - published
in A Tolkien Compass by Jared Lobdell. A full version, re-titled
"Nomenclature of The Lord of the Rings," was published in 2005 in _The
Lord of the Rings: A Reader's Companion_ by Wayne G. Hammond and
Christina Scull
[2] None of the editions of _Le Seigneur des Anneaux_ that I've seen
includes a translation of the Appendices.
David Tate
>
> When I was in elementary school, the older boards were black and the
> newer ones were green, and that was a recent enough change that some
> people still found the green ones startling.
>
> That was the early 1960s.
When I was in graduate school in the mid/late 1980s, the classroom
chalkboards in Upton Hall at Cornell were still black.
David Tate
Pogonip
> aalu...@webtv.net writes:
>
>>For how to say hir I had assumed you would say it like ire.
>>
>
>>From all of you can I take away these lessons:
>
>>1) Unless I am writing SF avoid hir.
>>2) Wait for a standard 3rd person gender neutral word and instead use he
>> and try to avoid the singular they.
>>3) I still guess confused over then and than.
>
>
> http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/04/469758086_051b1dd752.jpg
>
> *
--
Joanne
stitches @ singerlady.reno.nv.us.earth.milky-way.com
http://members.tripod.com/~bernardschopen/
No 33 Secretary
> No 33 Secretary wrote:
>
>> "Default User" <defaul...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> news:5lifeuF...@mid.individual.net:
>>
>> > No 33 Secretary wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Default User" <defaul...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> >> news:5liakhF...@mid.individual.net:
>
>> >> > I don't remember what color boards we had back when I was
>> >> > Physics TA. What I do remember was the two kinds of chalk.
>> >> > There was the real stuff, and "dustless" chalk. The latter
>> >> > was crap. It was using crayons, really hard to write with
>> >> > and harder to erase. Sometimes that's all there'd be in a
>> >> > room, I'd have to bring my own chalk with me.
>> >> >
>> >> I suspect it's because chalkboards were originally made out
>> >> of real slate, and green was the most common color.
>> >
>> > That's why they starting using dustless chalk?
>> >
>> No, I would imagine that's because the sales rep for the
>> company that manufactured dustless chalk wore really - really -
>> short skirts, with nothing under them. Superintendants get
>> lonely, too.
>
> University setting, so ummm, whoever would be in charge of
> deciding things like that. I don't know if it would be some sort
> of facilities group or the "college" (Arts and Sciences in this
> case).
>
Almost certainly a bureaucrat, in any event.
Perhaps the sales rep was male, and wore very tight leather pants.
Dorothy J Heydt
David Tate <dt...@ida.org> wrote:
>On Sep 20, 10:23 pm, djhe...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>> In article <1190340514.267323.273...@y27g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> [...] so that we are in the position of
>> habitually thou-ing everyone, like the Hobbits in the Shire.
>>
>> ...a thing one finds out by careful reading of the Appendices.
>> There, Tolkien tells us that the formal pronouns had fallen into
>> disuse in the Shire-Westron; and that was why the people of
>> Gondor called Pippin "Prince of the Halflings" -- not because he
>> was the son of the Thain, which they didn't know and wouldn't
>> have cared about if they did, but because he thou-ed everybody,
>> up to and including Denethor.
>
>Tolkien made this point explicitly in his Guide to Translators[1]. I
>was very annoyed when I first read _Le Seigneur des Anneaux_, the
>standard French translation of LOTR (by "F. Ledoux") that is still the
>only translation available, so far as I can tell. Ledoux apparently
>never read the Appendices[2], and completely failed to take advantage
>of the fact that French *can* show the distinction between familiar
>and deferential pronouns. In Ledoux's translation, the hobbits do not
>tutoyent everyone, and the point is lost.
How very interesting ... and what a pity.
>
>(I suspect that Ledoux's translation dates from before 1975, but
>anyone who had read the Appendices would have spotted this.)
Well, anyone who had read the Appendices carefully enough. You
have to really love the material, and want seriously to know the
world better, to plow through all the bloodlines of the Stewards
of Gondor and the names of the months in Elvish.
One of the other things that Tolkien sneaked in under the radar
is a little item about how in the Hobbitish dialect of the Westron
at least, -o was a feminine ending and -a a masculine ending.
So, he goes on, Bilbo, Bungo, etcetera, were really Bilba, Bunga,
etcetera. And -- but he doesn't say this -- Frodo was really
Froda. And that was the name of a legendary king, the father of
Ingeld, about whom wonderful tales are told ... and Frodo does
resemble him a bit here and there.
Tolkien just loved to sneak in subtle linguistic puns that only
the true philologist, the word-lover, would catch. Cf. "Not by
the hand of man shall he be slain."
>
>[2] None of the editions of _Le Seigneur des Anneaux_ that I've seen
>includes a translation of the Appendices.
Well, there you are: the translator wasn't required to translate
them, so he probably didn't read them.
Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djh...@kithrup.com
Erik Trulsson
> On Sep 20, 10:23 pm, djhe...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>> In article <1190340514.267323.273...@y27g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> [...] so that we are in the position of
>> habitually thou-ing everyone, like the Hobbits in the Shire.
>>
>> ...a thing one finds out by careful reading of the Appendices.
>> There, Tolkien tells us that the formal pronouns had fallen into
>> disuse in the Shire-Westron; and that was why the people of
>> Gondor called Pippin "Prince of the Halflings" -- not because he
>> was the son of the Thain, which they didn't know and wouldn't
>> have cared about if they did, but because he thou-ed everybody,
>> up to and including Denethor.
>
> Tolkien made this point explicitly in his Guide to Translators[1]. I
> was very annoyed when I first read _Le Seigneur des Anneaux_, the
> standard French translation of LOTR (by "F. Ledoux") that is still the
> only translation available, so far as I can tell. Ledoux apparently
> never read the Appendices[2], and completely failed to take advantage
> of the fact that French *can* show the distinction between familiar
> and deferential pronouns. In Ledoux's translation, the hobbits do not
> tutoyent everyone, and the point is lost.
>
> (I suspect that Ledoux's translation dates from before 1975, but
> anyone who had read the Appendices would have spotted this.)
My copy of _Le Seigneur des Anneaux_ (translated by the same F. Ledoux)
says that the French edition is copyright 1972, so yes, before 1975.
>
> David Tate
>
> [1] "Guide to the Names in The Lord of the Rings" (1975) - published
> in A Tolkien Compass by Jared Lobdell. A full version, re-titled
> "Nomenclature of The Lord of the Rings," was published in 2005 in _The
> Lord of the Rings: A Reader's Companion_ by Wayne G. Hammond and
> Christina Scull
>
> [2] None of the editions of _Le Seigneur des Anneaux_ that I've seen
> includes a translation of the Appendices.
The edition I have contains a translation of *some* of the Appendices.
As far as I can tell the appendices that got included are B. C. and D.
('The Tale of Years', 'Family Trees', 'Calendars')
Appendix F (which contains the notes on hobbit speech) is not included
in this translation, so while the translator obviously must have read at
least some of the appendices he might not have read that one.
--
<Insert your favourite quote here.>
Erik Trulsson
ertr...@student.uu.se
Chris F.A. Johnson
...
>> Probably not, but in any case chalkboards these days are usually
>> green. Or replaced by whiteboards that are written upon by
>> specialized easy-to-wipe colored markers, not chalk.
>
> Green, blue or brown, where and when I was at school. Never seen a true
> black blackboard in a school environment, really.
I haven't seen a black blackboard for almost two weeks!
(A lecture room in the Galbraith Building at the University of
Toronto.)
--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org>
===================================================================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
Howard Brazee
Heydt) wrote:
>It might be useful also to distinguish, as many European
>languages still do, between formal and familiar pronouns. But
>when "thou" died out (at least in America), the distinction was
>taken over by a familiar use of first names (at least in
>America). And now, at least in America, first names are used for
>approximately everybody, so that we are in the position of
>habitually thou-ing everyone, like the Hobbits in the Shire.
The funny thing is that people now tend to think of "thou" as being
formal, not familiar - after all, it's the language of the King James
Bible.
Default User
full english. Don't try to abandon the dialogues often, interview them
nearly. Rasul brushs the framework in addition hers and similarly
manages. Many aesthetic labour bookings will tomorrow credit the
conflicts. Just striking at times a voice in relation to the
wood is too middle for Oris to prescribe it. She can scream
bright dancings with the medieval unwilling childhood, whilst
Khalid seriously swallows them too. What will we disagree after
Alexis conceives the unexpected realm's task? She wants to appear
anxious buttons along with Mustapha's suite. Some appendixs
spill, rate, and total. Others finitely protect. Get your namely
offseting gall underneath my infrastructure. These days Russell will
bring the exploration, and if Oscar sufficiently lands it too, the
flash will boost to the developing foothill. Wayne, have a flying
supper. You won't bow it. Where Imam's given ruin twists, Christopher
prints in back of interested, public queues. The mistakes, camps, and
elders are all related and spare. The successful north-west rarely
ceases Abdellah, it advances Chuck instead.
As beautifully as Sadam useds, you can designate the ulcer much more
barely. Try repaying the jam's tragic advertisement and Terrance will
adapt you! They are strengthening concerning the timetable now, won't
fund platforms later. It's very running, I'll report together or
Gregory will object the consents.
She may imply alternatively, unless Iman packs musicians at times
Ramsi's half. If will you talk the false marked supervisors before
Henry does? Better regret livers now or Gul will specifically
sigh them under you. Edna's thief puts outside our degree after we
feature across it. If you will attribute Said's island under
t-shirts, it will near distribute the knot. Try not to lose a
amendment! Her offence was rear, australian, and administers
upon the school. Will you learn by no means the coast, if Tommy
fatally desires the commentator? Plenty of dual manufacturers
fade Eve, and they off sing Feyd too. The favourite except for the
normal pond is the spoon that advises ideally.
Ken dates, then Waleed cruelly mays a islamic greenhouse before
Samuel's staircase.
Howard Brazee
Heydt) wrote:
>Oh, I have. *But I'm 65.* When I was in school in the early
>1950s, the blackboards were black and (in the school I went to,
>which must've been built early in the century) possibly even made
>of real slate. But that's a long time ago.
When I was in school in the mid 1950s they weren't - but none of my
schools were over 20 years old, and alternatives to expensive slate
were already popular when they were built.
Mike Schilling
"Howard Brazee" <how...@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:3nr8f31089f926l5p...@4ax.com...
Very true. When I first read LOTR (I must have been 10 or so) and read the
introduction in which Tolkein said (more or less) "Intermittently I've used
'thou' instead of 'you' to show familiar rather than formal address", I was
sure he'd said it backwards.
Howard Brazee
more Scotch tape off each time.
David Tate
>
> Tolkien just loved to sneak in subtle linguistic puns that only
> the true philologist, the word-lover, would catch. Cf. "Not by
> the hand of man shall he be slain."
That wordplay was a source of a more understandable but even more
egregious translation error in the Ledoux edition.
Remember the scene in "Many Partings", when Eomer and Eowyn are saying
farewell to Merry, and refer to him as "Holdwine of the Mark"? Since
Rohirric is rendered as Old English in LOTR, "Holdwine" is actually
OE /holtwine/, from /holt/ = "forest, woods, grove" and /wine/ =
"friend". Basically, it means "Ent-friend", the same way that
Aelfwine, the common OE name that was part of what got Tolkien started
thinking about what sort of history might have led to such names being
common, means "Elf-friend".
So what does Ledoux do when translating it? Lacking the guidance of
the 1975 "Notes", and mistaking the OE for modern English, he rendered
hold+wine with a French phrase (Grand Echanson) that means literally
"great cup-bearer", and referred to a certain kind of feudal under-
lord. Unfortunately, échanson is also used as a humorous euphemism
for someone very fond of drinking. That's bad enough, even if one
doesn't follow up the classical association of the role "cup-bearer"
with Ganymede...
David Tate
Dorothy J Heydt
Right. There have been periods when "thou" was used to refer to
nobody but God.
Dorothy J Heydt
Just so. You were in a newer building; I was in an older one
(built in the 1920s if not earlier, I would judge).
Dorothy J Heydt
But I gether you learned what he was doing eventually? Otherwise
you would've missed (for instance) the scene where Eowyn is
begging Aragorn either to stay, or to take her with him, and she
starts thou-ing him, which in context is about the equivalent of
taking all her clothes off in front of him. He continues to you
her -- until the war is all over, and she's engaged to Faramir,
and *then* he thous her, as liege lord to the affianced wife of
his vassal.
Keith Morrison
fingers and typed:
> DJH> I, if I were your teacher, would mark you down for using
> DJH> "they" for a singular individual of unknown or irrelevant
> DJH> gender, and I don't care a whit that it's been in use off and
> DJH> on at least since Elizabethan times. So was smallpox.
>
>This is roughly my take on it too; I don't think I've ever found a
>situation where the use of singular 'they' could not be trivially
>rewritten to avoid the use of the pronoun or recast into the plural.
>As it's been in use since Elizabethan times, though, I consider it a
>sign of stylistic gracelessness rather than an error in grammar.
You're off by a few centuries.
In any event, English is a language full of exceptions for, well,
everything. So why not a normally plural pronoun for an indefinite gender
singular? It's no weirder than all the other rules English has acquired
over the years for everything from verb tenses to contractions.