"He's older than me." Correct?
John A. Erickson
What about "I'd rather be him."?
And "I'd like to be him."?
What, if anything, is the relationship between
the objective case at the end(s) [which?] of these
sentences and the French "C'est moi."?
Bertel Lund Hansen
>Is "He's older than me." gramatically correct?
You're opening a can of worms.
Once only "He's older than I" was correct. It's a 'hidden'
sentence "... than I am" where the subject of course has to be
nominative.
In modern language many say "... than me" for some reason. The
phenomenon is exactly the same in Danish, where the latter form
must now (also) be called correct. The same change is creeping
into Danish sentences like "Those who are going by train must
stand to the right". We have two words for "those", one is a
nominative form, the other is not (one may call it accusative).
Few people use the nominative form if the "distance" between the
'those' and the verb is "large enough". This is true even of
people who are conscious about language and grammar.
It's probably possible to find examples where the form matters.
But these problems are no worse than many other language problems
and the average person has no trouble at all circumventing them.
>What about "I'd rather be him."?
>And "I'd like to be him."?
Both are okay.
>What, if anything, is the relationship between
>the objective case at the end(s) [which?] of these
>sentences and the French "C'est moi."?
I believe (not *quite* sure, and I have no French grammar) that
"moi" (and the corresponding pronouns) can be any form
(nominative, accusative a.s.o.). It's not possible to use "je" in
many cases, so the 'parallel' pronoun "moi" is used in stead. If
you have any 'French feeling' you'll know that "C'est je!" just
won't do.
Therefore you do not have the same problem in French that exists
in English and Danish.
Bertel
--
Denmark
Please do not send me copies of usenet messages in e-mail.
Jim Dale
in English. In your other two sentences, I suppose that the grammatically
correct usage, though it sounds a bit stilted -- and maybe even pretentious --
should be: "I'd rather be he," and "I'd like to be he." Admittedly, most
speakers would feel most comfortable with "I'd like to be him."
The problem is that the verb "to be" must logically (i.e., grammatically) be
complemented by a subject and not by an object pronoun.
In the old days when we diagrammed sentences, we showed the relationship
between subject and complement in such sentences by a reverse arrow between the
two, indicating that the complement [predicate nominative] and the subject are
one in the same person.
I must admit, however, that if I were identifying someone in a police lineup, I
would surely say, "That's him," even though I know it's not "correct."
And can we imagine Sammy Davis singing, "I Gotta Be I"?
Could you be satisfied just to be "like him"?
As to the French, I cannot say anything. I've never been sure that the
statement is accurately translated as "I am the state." It sounds intuitively
more like "The state is mine."
>Subject: "He's older than me." Correct?
>From: qs...@datasync.com (John A. Erickson)
>Date: Tue, 10 August 1999 04:09 AM EDT
>Message-id: <7oojad$7e3$1...@news.ametro.net>
>
>Is "He's older than me." gramatically correct?
>
>What about "I'd rather be him."?
>
>And "I'd like to be him."?
>
Bertel Lund Hansen
>As to the French, I cannot say anything. I've never been sure that the
>statement is accurately translated as "I am the state." It sounds intuitively
>more like "The state is mine."
Oh no. That would be "L'etat, c'est le mien!" and it would be a
much weaker statement (a bit ridiculous even).
Richard Fontana
> Is "He's older than me." gramatically correct?
Yes. Many will try to avoid this in some situations (particularly more
formal ones) and say "He's older than I", but I think even for these
people "He's older than me" is really more natural. There may be some
situations (e.g., a test of knowledge of formal rules of English grammar)
where "... than I" will be the expected form.
> What about "I'd rather be him."?
> And "I'd like to be him."?
These are grammatically correct. Even those who say "He's older than I"
are quite unlikely to say "I'd rather be he" and "I'd like to be he".
Best regards --
Richard Fontana
Jim McQuiggin
<37baebfb...@news.image.dk>:
>I believe (not *quite* sure, and I have no French grammar) that
>"moi" (and the corresponding pronouns) can be any form
>(nominative, accusative a.s.o.). It's not possible to use "je" in
>many cases, so the 'parallel' pronoun "moi" is used in stead. If
>you have any 'French feeling' you'll know that "C'est je!" just
>won't do.
>
>Therefore you do not have the same problem in French that exists
>in English and Danish.
>
French pronouns come in two forms, conjunctive and disjunctive (les
formes conjointes, les formes disjointes). You are right, Bertel,
that these forms are not the same as "case".
It makes me wonder if English and Danish are on the road to the
development of a similar system. English is certainly inconsistent
about this. "Who? Me? Not I!" is what this speaker of English would
expect to say and hear. "Not me!" is quite acceptable, too, of
course, but I would find "Who? I? Not me!" rather jarring. The
French equivalent, "Qui? Moi? Pas moi!" is consistent. It's the
inconsistency in English that makes the problem.
Jim
SLHinton17
wrote:
[snip]
>I believe (not *quite* sure, and I have no French grammar) that
>"moi" (and the corresponding pronouns) can be any form
>(nominative, accusative a.s.o.). It's not possible to use "je" in
>many cases, so the 'parallel' pronoun "moi" is used in stead. If
>you have any 'French feeling' you'll know that "C'est je!" just
>won't do.
***********************
There's even an ancient joke about this. A man enters a store in which the
sign "ici on parle français" is prominently displayed. He asks who it is that
speaks French here, and the clerk dramatically points to his own chest and says
"Je!"
Sam Hinton
La Jolla, CA
Bertel Lund Hansen
>It makes me wonder if English and Danish are on the road to the
>development of a similar system.
I think so. The conclusion from the last discussion in
dk.kultur.sprog (sprog = language) was that the nominative form
[1] is too weak to be used. If one is really upset, "*jeg*?"
(nominative) is unthinkable, while "*mig*?" would be natural.
I wonder if the sounds are important? "Jeg" is very close to "I",
and "mig" sounds like "my" (a little close to "me").
[1] Now I've called this both "case" and "form". What is the
correct term? Isn't it "casus" in Latin?
Skitt
Bertel Lund Hansen <b...@nospam.dk> wrote in message
news:37c131c0...@news.image.dk...
> Jim McQuiggin skrev:
>
> >It makes me wonder if English and Danish are on the road to the
> >development of a similar system.
>
> I think so. The conclusion from the last discussion in
> dk.kultur.sprog (sprog = language) was that the nominative form
> [1] is too weak to be used. If one is really upset, "*jeg*?"
> (nominative) is unthinkable, while "*mig*?" would be natural.
>
> I wonder if the sounds are important? "Jeg" is very close to "I",
> and "mig" sounds like "my" (a little close to "me").
>
> [1] Now I've called this both "case" and "form". What is the
> correct term? Isn't it "casus" in Latin?
In Latvian, a language having the same declensions as Latin, any doubt as to
which declension applies is unthinkable. Perhaps that is why I have tended
to take a somewhat prescriptive attitude toward English, but as I'm also
quite familiar with its spoken forms, over time I have learned to accept
them without too much heartburn.
--
Skitt (on Florida's Space Coast) http://skitt.i.am/
CAUTION: My veracity is under a limited warranty
Matt Curtin
qs...@datasync.com (John A. Erickson) said:
John> Is "He's older than me." gramatically correct?
It depends on whether you are using "than" as a conjunction (which
requires a verb) or a preposition. Historically, "than" is a
conjunction, which would give you constructions like "He's older than
I". However, most native speakers I know will freely use than as a
preposition, allowing for "He's older than me" to be correct.
Despite being a young whippersnapper, I have the grammar of an old
fart and insist on using "than" as a conjunction, even informally. I
would not correct a native speaker's informal use of "than" as a
preposition. I would correct formal use. I would also correct a
non-native speaker or child using "than" as a preposition informally.
--
Matt Curtin cmcu...@interhack.net http://www.interhack.net/people/cmcurtin/
Jim McQuiggin
<37c131c0...@news.image.dk>:
>
>[1] Now I've called this both "case" and "form". What is the
>correct term? Isn't it "casus" in Latin?
>
I'm afraid any comment I made about Danish was based solely on your
comments. I have a collection of grammar books and dictionaries of
various languages, but Danish isn't one of them. It soon will be.
Now, I have used the word "case" to refer to the function of the
noun/pronoun in the sentence; "form" to refer to the changes in the
word often arising from case. This is shown easier in French than
in English.
Je ne parle pas chinois.
Tu ne parles pas chinois.
Ni toi ni moi ne parlons chinois.
"Je" and "tu" are both in the nominative case, and are examples of
the conjunctive form, since they can be used only when attached to
(conjoined with) an expressed verb.
In the third example, "toi" and "moi" would also be identified as
nominative, subject of the verb "parlons", but are examples of the
disjunctive form of the pronoun which has no necessary direct
attachment to a verb.
So in French I see one case, but two forms with clear rules
governing their use. I regret that I can't give the history behind
this development.
Jim
Robert Lieblich
>
> Interesting post. I have always understood that "than" is simply not a
> preposition and, therefore, "older than me" cannot be correct. Your
> "workaround" is simply to say that in some cases "than" is a preposition.
It's an easy way of explaining why so many native speakers of English
say things like "than me" and "than whom" (as in "than whom there is no
batter English grammarian"). You can, of course, adhere to the
traditional view, which you express quite clearly. But you then have to
attribute errors to huge chunks (probably the majority) of the native
English-speaking population.
Usages change. These days people use "than" with the objective case
probably more than they do with the subjective, especialy if you limit
your analysis to cases in which no verb follows to explicitly create a
clause. You can deny all the evidence, or you can call "than" a
preposition, or you can ignore the labels and simply accept the
existence of constructions in which the objective case follows "than" in
the absence of a verb.
Bob Lieblich
Aaron J. Dinkin
Hansen) wrote:
> Jim McQuiggin skrev:
>
> >It makes me wonder if English and Danish are on the road to the
> >development of a similar system.
>
> I think so. The conclusion from the last discussion in
> dk.kultur.sprog (sprog = language) was that the nominative form
> [1] is too weak to be used. If one is really upset, "*jeg*?"
> (nominative) is unthinkable, while "*mig*?" would be natural.
<snip>
> [1] Now I've called this both "case" and "form". What is the
> correct term? Isn't it "casus" in Latin?
"Form" isn't really accurate, since "I" and "me", or "jeg" and "mig",
aren't really different forms of the same word - they're more like
different words that happen to operate closely together. "Case" probably
makes sense, because the words do play demonstrably different syntactic
roles that fit what's often described in inflecting languages as "case". (I
know nothing of Danish. Is it an inflecting language? Does it have case on
its nouns? In that, er, case, "case" is even more probably right.)
-Aaron J. Dinkin
Dr. Whom
Aaron J. Dinkin
Erickson) wrote:
> Is "He's older than me." gramatically correct?
Yes.
> What about "I'd rather be him."?
Yes.
> And "I'd like to be him."?
Yes.
> What, if anything, is the relationship between
> the objective case at the end(s) [which?] of these
> sentences and the French "C'est moi."?
"Me" and "moi" are etymologically cognate, and they have the same meaning.
Whether there's any relationship or parallelism between the development of
the English and French grammatical structures I'm not in a position to say.
P&D Schultz
> Interesting post. I have always understood that "than" is simply not a
> preposition and, therefore, "older than me" cannot be correct. Your
> "workaround" is simply to say that in some cases "than" is a preposition.
Shakespeare wrote:
A domineering pedant o'er the boy;
Than whom no mortal so magnificent!
This whimpled, whining, purblind, wayward boy;
(Love's Labor Lost)
Edgar Allen Poe wrote:
Mr. Webber, for instance, (than whom no one has a keener relish for that kind of
writing which Mr. Hawthorne has best illustrated,) ...
If respected writers are writing "than whom," then "than" is a preposition.
//P. Schultz
Sean Holland
> Interesting post. I have always understood that "than" is simply not a
> preposition and, therefore, "older than me" cannot be correct. Your
> "workaround" is simply to say that in some cases "than" is a preposition.
I have been a "than me" guy for a long time, and my "workaround" has been to say
that, for me and millions like me, "than" works *as if* it were a preposition in
this case. I don't care whether it is a preposition or not. In the sentence "He
is older than me" it is a preposition-oid.
Fabian
John A. Erickson <qs...@datasync.com> wrote in message
news:7oojad$7e3$1...@news.ametro.net...
> Is "He's older than me." gramatically correct?
In practicality(sp?), it is no better or worse than "...than me".
> What about "I'd rather be him."?
As opposed to who? "I'd rather be her."?
> And "I'd like to be him."?
> What, if anything, is the relationship between
> the objective case at the end(s) [which?] of these
> sentences and the French "C'est moi."?
Basically, if the pronoun at the end is teh stub of an ellided second
sentence, the subject pronoun could be used, but equally teh object pronoun
could be. If it is merely the object of teh first sentence with no
possibility of extending the sentence to make teh pronoun perform double
duty as object and subject, only an onbject pronoun will do.
--
---
Fabian
If a flying horse ye see, mock ye not if it stays up not.
Jim Dale
preposition and, therefore, "older than me" cannot be correct. Your
"workaround" is simply to say that in some cases "than" is a preposition.
>Subject: Re: "He's older than me." Correct?
>From: Matt Curtin cmcu...@interhack.net
>Date: Tue, 10 August 1999 05:22 PM EDT
>Message-id: <xlxemhb...@gold.cis.ohio-state.edu>
Jim Dale
>Date: Tue, 10 August 1999 10:34 PM EDT
>Message-id: <37B0E...@erols.com>
>It's an easy way of explaining why so many native speakers of English
>say things like "than me" and "than whom" (as in "than whom there is no
>batter English grammarian"). You can, of course, adhere to the
>traditional view, which you express quite clearly. But you then have to
>attribute errors to huge chunks (probably the majority) of the native
>English-speaking population.
>
>Usages change. These days people use "than" with the objective case
>probably more than they do with the subjective, especialy if you limit
>your analysis to cases in which no verb follows to explicitly create a
>clause. You can deny all the evidence, or you can call "than" a
>preposition, or you can ignore the labels and simply accept the
>existence of constructions in which the objective case follows "than" in
>the absence of a verb.
>
>Bob Lieblich
I can "accept the fact" that many educated users of English now use the
objective case following "than." In fact, there are a number of usages which I
believe to be "incorrect" but, resigning myself to the fact that "usages
change," I am able to accept. However, I draw the line at the ubiquitous use of
"they" when the antecedent is singular. I've been advised to accept it. But I
can't. In fact, it "drives me up the wall."
Jim Dale
>
>//P. Schultz
Your point is well taken.
From the Funk & Wagnalls Standard College Dictionary: "A minority of
grammarians and writers have accepted 'than' as a preposition, in which case it
is regularly followed by the objective."
Jim Dale
>say
>that, for me and millions like me, "than" works *as if* it were a preposition
>in
>this case. I don't care whether it is a preposition or not. In the sentence
>"He
>is older than me" it is a preposition-oid.
>
Funk & Wagnalls Standard College Dictionary distinguishes two uses:
"You hit him harder than me," meaning "harder than you hit me."
"You hit him harder than I," meaning "harder than I did."
Jim Dale
>Whether there's any relationship or parallelism between the development of
>the English and French grammatical structures I'm not in a position to say.
>
>-Aaron J. Dinkin
>Dr. Whom
I asked a French-speading friend about the quote usually attributed to Louis
IV: "L'etat, c'est moi." She said that it translates as "The state, it is me,"
just as it would be in English. She added that it is also "incorrect," as it is
in English, but it "works." Louis was taking liberties with the language, she
said. It is more akin to poetry than to prose. Furthermore, to express what he
meant, it seems to be the only way to do it. We say in English, "I am the
state" because "The state is me" just doesn't work. Likewise in Spanish, it
would have to be, "Yo soy el estado."
Richard Fontana
> >Subject: Re: "He's older than me." Correct?
> >From: Robert Lieblich lieb...@erols.com
> >Date: Tue, 10 August 1999 10:34 PM EDT
> >Message-id: <37B0E...@erols.com>
>
> >It's an easy way of explaining why so many native speakers of English
> >say things like "than me" and "than whom" (as in "than whom there is no
> >batter English grammarian"). You can, of course, adhere to the
> >traditional view, which you express quite clearly. But you then have to
> >attribute errors to huge chunks (probably the majority) of the native
> >English-speaking population.
> >
> >Usages change. These days people use "than" with the objective case
> >probably more than they do with the subjective, especialy if you limit
> >your analysis to cases in which no verb follows to explicitly create a
> >clause. You can deny all the evidence, or you can call "than" a
> >preposition, or you can ignore the labels and simply accept the
> >existence of constructions in which the objective case follows "than" in
> >the absence of a verb.
> >
> >Bob Lieblich
>
> I can "accept the fact" that many educated users of English now use the
> objective case following "than." In fact, there are a number of usages which I
> believe to be "incorrect" but, resigning myself to the fact that "usages
> change," I am able to accept.
Better late than never. The NSOED starts off its
examples of the use of "than" with the objective form with quotations from
Fielding and Sir Walter Scott.
Best regards --
Richard Fontana
However, I draw the line at the ubiquitous use of
Bertel Lund Hansen
>I'm afraid any comment I made about Danish was based solely on your
>comments. I have a collection of grammar books and dictionaries of
>various languages, but Danish isn't one of them. It soon will be.
No need to be 'afraid'. Your comments were absolutely to the
point. Only your quotation marks made me think that I had not
been precise when I used the word "case".
Bertel Lund Hansen
>roles that fit what's often described in inflecting languages as "case". (I
>know nothing of Danish. Is it an inflecting language?
No, it's not. It has some inflections from the past, but they
mostly survive only in idioms.
>Does it have case on its nouns? In that, er, case, "case" is even more probably right.)
No, it resembles English in that respect.
Sean Holland
> I can "accept the fact" that many educated users of English now use the
> objective case following "than." In fact, there are a number of usages which I
> believe to be "incorrect" but, resigning myself to the fact that "usages
> change," I am able to accept. However, I draw the line at the ubiquitous use of
> "they" when the antecedent is singular. I've been advised to accept it. But I
> can't. In fact, it "drives me up the wall."
Me too. I wonder if it drives you up the wall as much as me.
Matt Curtin
Jim> However, I draw the line at the ubiquitous use of "they" when the
Jim> antecedent is singular.
As do I. I'm pretty rigid about using the correct pronoun when the
gender is unknown. As you might imagine, I find myself explaining
this position quite often...
Matt Curtin
Jim> Funk & Wagnalls Standard College Dictionary distinguishes two
Jim> uses:
Jim> "You hit him harder than me," meaning "harder than you hit me."
Jim> "You hit him harder than I," meaning "harder than I did."
This is exactly why I will recognize that many speakers use "than" as
a preposition but still correct non-native speakers and children who
do so. I am really bothered by statements that mean something very
different from the words that form them.
Here's another example of what I mean. Someone might ask "Aren't you
going?" I reply to the question asked, which turns out to be the
opposite of what many are expecting. Even though they are saying "are
you not going?" they are expecting me to answer the question "are you
going?" I don't think we should not encourage usage that leads to
ambiguity.
Richard Fontana
> Here's another example of what I mean. Someone might ask "Aren't you
> going?" I reply to the question asked, which turns out to be the
> opposite of what many are expecting. Even though they are saying "are
> you not going?" they are expecting me to answer the question "are you
> going?"
No, you're missing something. I'm afraid that the use of a form that
is formally negative to frame certain kinds of questions is a basic
feature of American English, if not English elsewhere, even though this
may defy your sense of logic. "Aren't you going?" does not quite have
the same meaning as "Are you going?". Both are asking the person
whether he is going, but the former suggests that the speaker is
aware of the possibility that the addressee might not be going but
conveys to the addressee that the speaker expects or wants him to be
going. It can communicate disbelief or disappointment in a way which is
not possible with "Are you going?". If you are going, and someone asks
"Aren't you going?", the expected answer is "yes", not "no". If this is
something you don't do or understand, and you are a native speaker of
American English, you must have forced yourself to un-learn it.
>I don't think we should not encourage usage that leads to
> ambiguity.
'Nuff said.
Bertel Lund Hansen
>may defy your sense of logic. "Aren't you going?" does not quite have
>the same meaning as "Are you going?".
In Danish there is the exact same phenomenon.
Sean Holland
> Basically, if the pronoun at the end is teh stub of an ellided second
> sentence, the subject pronoun could be used, but equally teh object pronoun
> could be. If it is merely the object of teh first sentence with no
> possibility of extending the sentence to make teh pronoun perform double
> duty as object and subject, only an onbject pronoun will do.
>
> --
Fabian, you're a fine fellow and you have a great FAQ for poor non-Mac people
who want to read and write Japanese on their computers, and there are many
fine qualities that you possess....but would you PLEASE learn to type "the".
You are driving me crazy!!
Evan Kirshenbaum
> Here's another example of what I mean. Someone might ask "Aren't
> you going?" I reply to the question asked, which turns out to be the
> opposite of what many are expecting. Even though they are saying
> "are you not going?" they are expecting me to answer the question
> "are you going?" I don't think we should not encourage usage that
> leads to ambiguity.
There's no ambiguity here whatsoever. The question being asked is
whether you are going and the form implies that the asker had thought
that the answer was yes but is now not sure. As far as I know, this
is a consistent rule for all questions formed by inverting a negated
auxiliary verb. (For some auxiliaries, the implication is that the
speaker is requesting confirmation that you agree with their
supposition.)
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |People think it must be fun to be a
1501 Page Mill Road, Building 1U |super genius, but they don't
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |realize how hard it is to put up
|with all the idiots in the world.
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com | Calvin
(650)857-7572
Robert Lieblich
>
> Matt Curtin wrote:
>
> > Here's another example of what I mean. Someone might ask "Aren't you
> > going?" I reply to the question asked, which turns out to be the
> > opposite of what many are expecting. Even though they are saying "are
> > you not going?" they are expecting me to answer the question "are you
> > going?"
>
> is formally negative to frame certain kinds of questions is a basic
> feature of American English, if not English elsewhere, even though this
I doubt Matt Curtin missed anything. You, RF, might have missed the
position of his tongue vis-a-vis his cheek.
These negative-in-form-positive-in-meaning questions can really louse up
a judicial transcript. I try very hard not to ask them -- and to
clarify the answer when someone else does.
Bob Lieblich
john
----------
In article <xlxk8r2...@gold.cis.ohio-state.edu>, Matt Curtin
<cmcu...@interhack.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On 11 Aug 1999 08:18:31 GMT, dal...@aol.comnospam (Jim Dale) said:
>
>Jim> Funk & Wagnalls Standard College Dictionary distinguishes two
>Jim> uses:
>
>Jim> "You hit him harder than me," meaning "harder than you hit me."
>Jim> "You hit him harder than I," meaning "harder than I did."
>
>This is exactly why I will recognize that many speakers use "than" as
>a preposition but still correct non-native speakers and children who
>do so. I am really bothered by statements that mean something very
>different from the words that form them.
>
>Here's another example of what I mean. Someone might ask "Aren't you
>going?" I reply to the question asked, which turns out to be the
>opposite of what many are expecting. Even though they are saying "are
>you not going?" they are expecting me to answer the question "are you
>going?" I don't think we should not encourage usage that leads to
>ambiguity.
>
You get today's "awfully silly mission" award. I trust you understand the
correct meaning of the phrase.
Jim McQuiggin
<19990811042447...@ng-cd1.aol.com>:
>I asked a French-speading friend about the quote usually
>attributed to Louis IV: "L'etat, c'est moi."
Louis XIV
>is me" just doesn't work. Likewise in Spanish, it would have to
>be, "Yo soy el estado."
>
>
What about "El estado, lo soy yo"?
There is, of course, a less elegant English construction that
approaches the French: The state, that's me.
Jim
P&D Schultz
> <...> However, I draw the line at the ubiquitous use of
> "they" when the antecedent is singular. I've been advised to accept it. But I
> can't. In fact, it "drives me up the wall."
I admire your conviction and steadfastness. Stick to your guns! There probably were
people just like you 300 years ago who refused to accept singular "you" (replacing
"thou"), stuck to their opinion to their dying day, and had their pet linguistic
objection engraved on their tombstones! Good for all of youse!
//P. Schultz
P&D Schultz
> >>>>> On 11 Aug 1999 08:10:18 GMT, dal...@aol.comnospam (Jim Dale) said:
>
> Jim> However, I draw the line at the ubiquitous use of "they" when the
> Jim> antecedent is singular.
>
> As do I. I'm pretty rigid about using the correct pronoun when the
> gender is unknown. As you might imagine, I find myself explaining
> this position quite often...
And you'll find yourself babbling in your geriatric chair before your
contemporaries are.
Refusing to alter one's language along with one's speech community is like
moving to Portugal and refusing to speak Portuguese. Out of "principle."
//P. Schultz
Robert Lieblich
It may be that, as an American, I am so irony-impaired that I even see
irony where it isn't intended. But surely the statement "I'm pretty
rigid about using the correct pronoun when the gender is unknown" has
gotta be ironic. The whole point is that no matter what pronoun you use
when the gender is unknown, someone (actually, manyones) will insist
that you are wrong. So what is there to be rigid about? No wonder Matt
Curtin finds himself "explaining this position quite often."
Where is Vesa with "se" when we really need him?
Bob Lieblich
Richard Fontana
> P&D Schultz wrote:
> >
> > Matt Curtin wrote:
> >
> > > >>>>> On 11 Aug 1999 08:10:18 GMT, dal...@aol.comnospam (Jim Dale) said:
> > >
> > > Jim> However, I draw the line at the ubiquitous use of "they" when the
> > > Jim> antecedent is singular.
> > >
> > > As do I. I'm pretty rigid about using the correct pronoun when the
> > > gender is unknown. As you might imagine, I find myself explaining
> > > this position quite often...
> >
> > And you'll find yourself babbling in your geriatric chair before your
> > contemporaries are.
> >
> > Refusing to alter one's language along with one's speech community is like
> > moving to Portugal and refusing to speak Portuguese. Out of "principle."
>
> It may be that, as an American, I am so irony-impaired that I even see
> irony where it isn't intended. But surely the statement "I'm pretty
> rigid about using the correct pronoun when the gender is unknown" has
> gotta be ironic.
Not if you accept the rule (which I learned in grammar books) that
"he" should be used when the gender is unknown. I assume that Matt
adheres to this rule too, which is okay; but clearly I am rather
irony-impaired myself.
P&D Schultz
> Robert Lieblich wrote:
> <...>
> But surely the statement "I'm pretty
> > rigid about using the correct pronoun when the gender is unknown" has
> > gotta be ironic.
>
> Not if you accept the rule (which I learned in grammar books) that"he" should be
> used when the gender is unknown. <...>
I learned it too. The reason that no one except the slavishly compliant accepts
this "rule" is that the "rule" is bonkers, and the average intelligent person
realizes it right off. It's like saying "If the type of screw to be tightened is
unknown, use a philips screwdriver." English speakers have generally had better
sense than to follow such an absurd, counterintuitive "rule." That's why it's not
working.
//P. Schultz
NOn_cra...@pacbell.net
> Matt Curtin wrote:
>
> > Here's another example of what I mean. Someone might ask "Aren't you
> > going?" I reply to the question asked, which turns out to be the
> > opposite of what many are expecting. Even though they are saying "are
> > you not going?" they are expecting me to answer the question "are you
> > going?"
>
> "Aren't you going?", the expected answer is "yes", not "no". If this is
> something you don't do or understand, and you are a native speaker of
> American English, you must have forced yourself to un-learn it.
>
in a situation in high school where a friend of hers set off a false fire
alarm. My daughter was asked, "Didn't you know what she was going to do?"
She replied. "Yes", because she DIDN'T know what her friend was going to
do. When I went to the school, I asked the teacher, "Didn't you ask her if
she knew what her friend was going to do?" When he answered, "Yes", I had
him and the charges against her were dropped because she didn't know.
--
Nick, Retired in the San Fernando Valley (*&^)/
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet for the Web
Ed D
> > Matt Curtin wrote:
> >
> > Here's another example of what I mean. Someone might ask "Aren't you
> > going?" I reply to the question asked, which turns out to be the
> > opposite of what many are expecting. Even though they are saying "are
> > you not going?" they are expecting me to answer the question "are you
> > going?"
> >
> [snip]
> My Thai step-daughter, not a native speaker of English, was once involved
> in a situation in high school where a friend of hers set off a false fire
> alarm. My daughter was asked, "Didn't you know what she was going to do?"
> She replied. "Yes", because she DIDN'T know what her friend was going to
> do. When I went to the school, I asked the teacher, "Didn't you ask her if
> she knew what her friend was going to do?" When he answered, "Yes", I had
> him and the charges against her were dropped because she didn't know.
>
> --
> Nick, Retired in the San Fernando Valley (*&^)/
I thought I was the only one with that problem, Nick. My wife is
Oriental, but Oxford educated. She speaks seven languages
fluently--including American English. We had only one car when first
married. Thinking she needed to use the car one morning, I asked,
"Aren't you taking me to work?" The same confusion followed. We now
avoid the "Does that mean 'yes, you are' or 'yes you aren't'?" problems
by answering negative questions with a complete sentence. It saves a
lot of arguements.
Ed, semi-retired, but still learning, in the San Gabriel Valley
Jim Dale
allow that "pretty" may sometimes be an adverb? Or are we perhaps rewriting the
rules to allow adjectives to modify adjectives? Jim
>But surely the statement "I'm pretty rigid about using the correct pronoun
when the gender is unknown" has gotta be ironic.<
Of course, I don't know you, Bob. You may be both pretty and rigid.
Robert Lieblich
In another group I am -- for the moment -- lovely. As for rigid, let's
leave that to Bob Dole.
Bob Lieblich
Simon R. Hughes
> Fabian wrote:
>
> > Basically, if the pronoun at the end is teh stub of an ellided second
> > sentence, the subject pronoun could be used, but equally teh object pronoun
> > could be. If it is merely the object of teh first sentence with no
> > possibility of extending the sentence to make teh pronoun perform double
> > duty as object and subject, only an onbject pronoun will do.
> >
>
> Fabian, you're a fine fellow and you have a great FAQ for poor non-Mac people
> who want to read and write Japanese on their computers, and there are many
> fine qualities that you possess....but would you PLEASE learn to type "the".
> You are driving me crazy!!
Sean, you have missed the point. All of Fabian's postings that have
"the" spelt "teh" are ironic. His postings that contain the correct
spelling are either in earnest, or he does not deem the posting worthy
of the extra care needed to "correct" it (there is no criterion by
which we can tell the difference). Therefore, the safest bet is to
take all his postings with a pinch of salt (he is harmless).
--
Simon R. Hughes -- http://members.xoom.com/srhughes/
Matt Curtin
P&D Schultz <schu...@erols.com> said:
PS> I learned it too. The reason that no one except the slavishly
PS> compliant accepts this "rule" is that the "rule" is bonkers, and
PS> the average intelligent person realizes it right off.
How is the rule "bonkers"?
Michael Cargal
>>>>>> On Thu, 12 Aug 1999 00:34:42 -0400,
> P&D Schultz <schu...@erols.com> said:
>
>PS> I learned it too. The reason that no one except the slavishly
>PS> compliant accepts this "rule" is that the "rule" is bonkers, and
>PS> the average intelligent person realizes it right off.
>
>How is the rule "bonkers"?
The rule is bonkers because it does not describe the way native
speakers use the language. Of course you can make up any rules you
want (as did the 18th century grammarians who tried to force English
into Latin's forms), but no one is obliged to follow them.
Think of the grammar you learned in elementary school as being like
the 10 commandments or all those rules in Deuteronomy. The fact that
someone a long time ago said you have to act this way and that the
rules came directly from God doesn't mean you really have to follow
them today. Some may be relevant to modern life, but most are not.
They may not even have been relevant then.
--
Michael Cargal car...@cts.com
Claus Färber
> Richard Fontana wrote:
>> Not if you accept the rule (which I learned in grammar books)
>> that"he" should be used when the gender is unknown. <...>
>
> average intelligent person realizes it right off.
Well, it's not that rule that is broken. The problem here is that
English (like other languages) only has three genders, none of which can
be applied to someone that is supposed to have a gender (so neuter can't
be used) which is unknown (so you don't know whether to use m. or f.).
So you _have_ to use one gender even if it's unknown.
The German language has a similar problem, but it's even worse here
because you have to use a gender even if you don't use pronouns.
Probably other languages have the same problem too.
--
Claus André Färber <http://www.faerber.muc.de>
PGP: ID=1024/527CADCD FP=12 20 49 F3 E1 04 9E 9E 25 56 69 A5 C6 A0 C9 DC
Claus Färber
> "You hit him harder than me," meaning "harder than you hit me."
Well, obviously "than" can only be used like a preposition if it is used
with an intransitive verb. This rises the question if it is really a
preposition or maybe something more weird.
Maybe it could be said that than is not a preposition here but due to
some strange grammatical rule "I" becomes "me" after these verbs even if
there's a conjunction between the two. (Former) Hypercorrectness because
people think it is a predicative?
Richard Fontana
> Jim Dale <dal...@aol.comnospam> schrieb/wrote:
> > "You hit him harder than me," meaning "harder than you hit me."
> > "You hit him harder than I," meaning "harder than I did."
>
> Well, obviously "than" can only be used like a preposition if it is used
> with an intransitive verb.
I don't think that is obvious.
Richard
Brian J Goggin
Kahn) wrote:
>On Thu, 12 Aug 1999 14:16:20 +0200, shu...@tromso.online.no (Simon R.
>Hughes) wrote:
[...]
>>Sean, you have missed the point. All of Fabian's postings that have
>>"the" spelt "teh" are ironic. His postings that contain the correct
>>spelling are either in earnest, or he does not deem the posting worthy
>>of the extra care needed to "correct" it (there is no criterion by
>>which we can tell the difference). Therefore, the safest bet is to
>>take all his postings with a pinch of salt (he is harmless).
>
>"Harmless"? What a terrible thing to say about anybody!
Let's change it.
"Mostly harmless."
bjg
Matt Curtin
[Discussion of the rule "use the masculine form if you don't know
whether the antecedent is male or female.]
Matt> How is the rule "bonkers"?
Michael> The rule is bonkers because it does not describe the way
Michael> native speakers use the language.
I do not understand this argument. I am a native speaker and that is
exactly how I use the language. I do not put additional effort into
being sure that I'm using the correct form; it is how I think and such
use is natural for me.
Use of "they" is unnatural for me; in my mind, it is plural.
Shakespeare, Austen, and others use it in the singular, so while it is
easy to argue that a singular "they" is well-established (at least in
literary and informal contexts), do not expect to be able "to correct"
my writing if I opt to use masculine personal pronouns without an
argument. It is certainly no more correct than my construction.
Robert Lieblich
"Occasionally dangerous."
Please warn us when it occurs, Fabian.
Bob Lieblich
Skitt
Matt Curtin <cmcu...@interhack.net> wrote in message
news:xlxn1vw...@gold.cis.ohio-state.edu...
I am not a native speaker, but having a keen ear, through many, many years
of close interaction with native speakers, as well as attentively having
read formal writing, there is no way that I would use the singular "they" to
please the PC folk. Not in my lifetime, one that will not affect the future
of English for too many more years.
In a previous post, regarding usage of this "cure-all" word by Shakespeare
and others of that day, it was mentioned as an exception to the common
usage -- not conforming to the standards of the day. I may be wrong, but I
do not believe that we use our language now exactly the way Shakespeare used
it then. If we don't, why is that? Maybe his usage wasn't all that
acceptable to the English speaking population at large in the following
years.
Of course, language gets changed. It is being changed by those straying
from the common usage of their parents -- something that many of us,
parents, are objecting. Is this good? Who is to say? Is it futile to
_teach_ language to native speaker kids? Perhaps. Are we to stifle the
free expression of our offspring and the resulting evolution of futurespeak?
I hope that it is hard to draw the line between my honest observations, my
serious thoughts, and my sarcasm.
--
Skitt (on Florida's Space Coast) http://i.am/skitt/
... and that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped.
Skitt
Richard Fontana <re...@cunix.columbia.edu> wrote in message
news:slrn7r6oj2...@localhost.localdomain...
> its PC-ness), and who uses it all the time in speech as well as in
> Usenet postings, I think that arguments against the impersonal or generic
> "he" have gone a bit too far. The assumption seems to have been made
> that the impersonal "he" is a thoroughly foreign and unnatural element
> in English. I don't think this is so, for literate speakers at least.
> Yes, the singular "they" has been around, in well-written English, for a
very
> long time, but so has the impersonal "he", or "one" (used with "he").
> It is important to combat those who argue against the legitimacy of
> singular "they" with literary evidence, but that does
> not mean we have to expunge the impersonal "he" (or the still widely used,
> though admittedly clumsy, "he or she") from the language.
>
> To me, impersonal "he" is more natural than impersonal singular "they"
> in certain limited situations: viz., in certain kinds of writing, or in
> framing certain kinds of prepared speech. I understand, of course, the
> problem of perceived sexism, and I concede that it has never troubled me
> too much, I think because the impersonal "he" is as genderless to me
> as the impersonal "they". All of these impersonal forms can coexist:
> "one", "he", "he or she", "we", "you", and "they", not to mention the
> contemporary anti-sexist "impersonal she", and they *do* coexist,
> each enjoying its own sphere of use.
>
> It is probably true that singular "they" dominates casual, everyday
> conversational English, but that is not the only kind of English there is.
Richard, I was with you all the way until your last paragraph. I simply do
not believe that the singular "they" _dominates_ casual, everyday
conversational English, at least, not in the environments I have been
exposed to, and I deal mostly with professional people. Your environment
may be different.
P&D Schultz
> <...> The assumption seems to have been made
> that the impersonal "he" is a thoroughly foreign and unnatural element
> in English. I don't think this is so, for literate speakers at least.<...>
If I said that, I take it back. Of course impersonal "he" is part of English. I
use it myself when writing certain things. You gotta. But it feels forced and
artificial to me, and I use it only when the writing assignment demands a staid,
plodding, governmentish tone which is ever so correct.
//P. Schultz
Skitt
P&D Schultz <schu...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:37B371E9...@erols.com...
Or perhaps one that only the PCs will object to.
I'm curious, with what generation do you identify yourself, or better, more
to the point -- what generation are you? Are you between the "rebellious
(born in the late forties to mid fifties), or the flower child (born in the
very late fifties or early sixties) type?
I'd guess that you are the rebellious type, yet somewhat mellowed by the
realization of the reality that rebellion does not succeed, at least not
immediately.
The above concession to reality is the first I've seen you make in the last
two years or so, at least to my recollection. Bravo!
P&D Schultz
> <...>
> The above concession to reality is the first I've seen you make in the last
> two years or so, at least to my recollection. Bravo!
I'm sorry, but you could not have misunderstood me any more thoroughly.My point
was that I am willing to make concessions to *artificiality*. Not to reality.
Sorry.
//P. Schultz
Skitt
You said:
Of course impersonal "he" is part of English. I use it myself when writing
certain things. You gotta. But it feels forced and artificial to me, and I
use it only when the writing assignment demands a staid, plodding,
governmentish tone which is ever so correct.
Is that a concession or not? Reluctant, of course, but a concession
nevertheless. You can't wriggle out of this one.
Sean Holland
(snip)
> To me, impersonal "he" is more natural than impersonal singular "they"
> in certain limited situations: viz., in certain kinds of writing, or in
> framing certain kinds of prepared speech. I understand, of course, the
> problem of perceived sexism, and I concede that it has never troubled me
> too much, I think because the impersonal "he" is as genderless to me
> as the impersonal "they". All of these impersonal forms can coexist:
> "one", "he", "he or she", "we", "you", and "they", not to mention the
> contemporary anti-sexist "impersonal she", and they *do* coexist,
> each enjoying its own sphere of use.
>
> It is probably true that singular "they" dominates casual, everyday
> conversational English, but that is not the only kind of English there is.
>
I have been teaching at girls-only schools for about 14 years, and all of my
children are female, so I have unconsciously ended up using "impersonal she". It
might strike some as self-consciously PC, but it isn't. It just comes naturally.
Richard Fontana
"he" have gone a bit too far. The assumption seems to have been made
that the impersonal "he" is a thoroughly foreign and unnatural element
in English. I don't think this is so, for literate speakers at least.
Yes, the singular "they" has been around, in well-written English, for a very
long time, but so has the impersonal "he", or "one" (used with "he").
It is important to combat those who argue against the legitimacy of
singular "they" with literary evidence, but that does
not mean we have to expunge the impersonal "he" (or the still widely used,
though admittedly clumsy, "he or she") from the language.
To me, impersonal "he" is more natural than impersonal singular "they"
in certain limited situations: viz., in certain kinds of writing, or in
framing certain kinds of prepared speech. I understand, of course, the
problem of perceived sexism, and I concede that it has never troubled me
too much, I think because the impersonal "he" is as genderless to me
as the impersonal "they". All of these impersonal forms can coexist:
"one", "he", "he or she", "we", "you", and "they", not to mention the
contemporary anti-sexist "impersonal she", and they *do* coexist,
each enjoying its own sphere of use.
It is probably true that singular "they" dominates casual, everyday
conversational English, but that is not the only kind of English there is.
RF
Truly Donovan
wrote:
>I am really bothered by statements that mean something very
>different from the words that form them.
>
>Here's another example of what I mean. Someone might ask "Aren't you
>going?" I reply to the question asked, which turns out to be the
>opposite of what many are expecting. Even though they are saying "are
>you not going?" they are expecting me to answer the question "are you
>going?" I don't think we should not encourage usage that leads to
>ambiguity.
What do you think we should not encourage?
--
Truly Donovan
tr...@lunemere.com
*Chandler's Daughter* [Write Way Publishing, Jan 1999]
Truly Donovan
>I can "accept the fact" that many educated users of English now use the
>objective case following "than." In fact, there are a number of usages which I
>believe to be "incorrect" but, resigning myself to the fact that "usages
>change," I am able to accept. However, I draw the line at the ubiquitous use of
>"they" when the antecedent is singular. I've been advised to accept it. But I
>can't. In fact, it "drives me up the wall."
You must spend an awful lot of time hanging around the ceiling.
Now,if you would please just take your fingernails off the blackboard
for a moment so that my nerve endings can settle down and explain why
there are four extraneous sets of quotation marks in that paragraph
alone . . . .
Truly Donovan
>I've already conceded that "than" may sometimes be a preposition. Must I also
>allow that "pretty" may sometimes be an adverb? Or are we perhaps rewriting the
>rules to allow adjectives to modify adjectives?
This is a joke, right? Or do you really think there is some special
concession needed to use "pretty" as an adverb?
Jim Dale
>leave that to Bob Dole.
>
>Bob Lieblich
Is this where the French say, "Bon mot"? Very good.
Jim
Jim Dale
>concession needed to use "pretty" as an adverb?
>
>--
>Truly Donovan
Ouch! Actually, I thought my comment about Bob being both pretty and rigid was
pretty clever.
Jim
Jim Dale
take his or her car keys and send them home in a cab."
Skitt
Jim Dale <dal...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:19990813050722...@ng-fm1.aol.com...
> From a Department of Transportation manual: "If a guest becomes
intoxicated,
> take his or her car keys and send them home in a cab.
That would be fine for the keys, but what about the guest?
--
Skitt (on Florida's Space Coast) http://skitt.i.am/
CAUTION: My veracity is under a limited warranty
Michael Cargal
>>>>>> On Thu, 12 Aug 1999 15:51:47 GMT, car...@cts.com (Michael Cargal) said:
>
>[Discussion of the rule "use the masculine form if you don't know
>whether the antecedent is male or female.]
>
>Matt> How is the rule "bonkers"?
>
>Michael> The rule is bonkers because it does not describe the way
>Michael> native speakers use the language.
>
>I do not understand this argument. I am a native speaker and that is
>exactly how I use the language. I do not put additional effort into
>being sure that I'm using the correct form; it is how I think and such
>use is natural for me.
>
>Use of "they" is unnatural for me; in my mind, it is plural.
>Shakespeare, Austen, and others use it in the singular, so while it is
>easy to argue that a singular "they" is well-established (at least in
>literary and informal contexts), do not expect to be able "to correct"
>my writing if I opt to use masculine personal pronouns without an
>argument. It is certainly no more correct than my construction.
Native speakers vary. Some speak as you do, and some speak as I do.
Either is acceptable English, though some will argue for the singular
"they" on social grounds.
Thus a rule that says either that native speakers use the masculine
for an antecedent of unknown sex or that native speakers use the
singular they is a silly rule because neither accurately describes
_the_ way native speakers use the language because there is no single
way we speak. In short, there ain't no rule.
This presumes you are using "rule" to mean a description of the way
people speak. If you are using "rule" to mean that one must use the
general "he", then the discussion has switched to descriptivism versus
prescriptivism. I come down well on the descriptivist side. I deny
anyone's authority to tell me how I must write or speak.
--
Michael Cargal car...@cts.com
Jim Dale
>people speak. If you are using "rule" to mean that one must use the
>general "he", then the discussion has switched to descriptivism versus
>prescriptivism. I come down well on the descriptivist side. I deny
>anyone's authority to tell me how I must write or speak.
>--
>Michael Cargal car...@cts.com
Would you not concede that there are some usages that are "incorrect," or that
at the very least are shibboleths, marking the speaker as poorly educated?
Double negatives come immediately to mind. The habitual use of "ain't." Etc.
Jim
P&D Schultz
> P&D Schultz <schu...@erols.com> wrote in message
> news:37B385B...@erols.com...
> > Skitt wrote:
> >
> > > <...>
> > > The above concession to reality is the first I've seen you make in the
> last
> > > two years or so, at least to my recollection. Bravo!
> >
> > I'm sorry, but you could not have misunderstood me any more thoroughly.My
> point
> > was that I am willing to make concessions to *artificiality*. Not to
> reality.
> > Sorry.
>
> You said:
> Of course impersonal "he" is part of English. I use it myself when writing
> certain things. You gotta. But it feels forced and artificial to me, and I
> use it only when the writing assignment demands a staid, plodding,
> governmentish tone which is ever so correct.
>
> Is that a concession or not? Reluctant, of course, but a concession
> nevertheless. You can't wriggle out of this one.
I'm not wiggling. I *said* it was a concession. But to artificiality, not to
reality.
Incidentally, the following is written, right now, on the official sign board in
front of Hammond High School in Maryland, USA:
"Ensure you child's future. Have them read every day."
That PROVES singular "they" is ok. The public schools say so, officially.
//P. Schultz
Skitt
>
> Incidentally, the following is written, right now, on the official sign
board in
> front of Hammond High School in Maryland, USA:
>
> "Ensure you child's future. Have them read every day."
>
> That PROVES singular "they" is ok. The public schools say so, officially.
The first time I read it, I took it to be plural and just a careless
mismatch with the first sentence. After looking at it again, one can not be
sure. Why would one want have them read, and by whom? <g>
--
Jim Dale
>From: "Skitt" sk...@i.am
>Date: Fri, 13 August 1999 07:34 PM EDT
>Message-id: <7p2a20$aoh$1...@birch.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
>
>
>P&D Schultz <schu...@erols.com> wrote in message
>news:37B4A76B...@erols.com...
>>
>> Incidentally, the following is written, right now, on the official sign
>board in
>> front of Hammond High School in Maryland, USA:
>>
>> "Ensure you child's future. Have them read every day."
>>
>> That PROVES singular "they" is ok. The public schools say so, officially.
>
>The first time I read it, I took it to be plural and just a careless
>mismatch with the first sentence. After looking at it again, one can not be
>sure. Why would one want have them read, and by whom? <g>
>--
>Skitt (on Florida's Space Coast)
Wouldn't it be "Have him read (by someone) every day"? Jim
Golgo13
> Richard Fontana wrote:
>
> > Robert Lieblich wrote: <...> But surely the statement "I'm pretty >
> > rigid about using the correct pronoun when the gender is unknown" has >
> > gotta be ironic.
> >
> > Not if you accept the rule (which I learned in grammar books) that"he"
> > should be used when the gender is unknown. <...>
>
> I learned it too. The reason that no one except the slavishly compliant
> accepts this "rule" is that the "rule" is bonkers, and the average
> intelligent person realizes it right off. It's like saying "If the type of
> screw to be tightened is unknown, use a philips screwdriver." English
> speakers have generally had better sense than to follow such an absurd,
> counterintuitive "rule." That's why it's not working.
When you say "generally" above, wordsmiths, skilled users of English,
stylists and the like do not come to mind. On the contrary, those who so
notably employ singular "they" are most likely unaware of its literary
heritage. That's why they tend to misuse it so badly. The simpleton who
pens a sign reading, "Each user will turn off their machine after use"
probably hasn't read Chaucer - he's just incompetent.
What I'd like to know, Shultz, is why you feel that the tide has turned,
why you assert that a majority are now endorsing singular "they" when my
own reading suggests that talented writers still sidestep it, that many
authors continue to eschew it, and that "he or she" among other more
palatable strategems still enjoys strong popularity.
Sez,
DLS
--
D. Sosnoski gol...@entercomp.com
"When you say the world is composed of nothing but value,
what are you talking about?" - RMP
John Emery
----------
In article <1dwq7ar.1l9...@dppp-4.entercomp.com>,
gol...@entercomp.com (Golgo13) wrote:
>The simpleton who
>pens a sign reading, "Each user will turn off their machine after use"
>probably hasn't read Chaucer - he's just incompetent
However does this demonstrate any incompetence?
Golgo13
John Emery
----------
In article <1dws1uq.1td...@dppp-10.entercomp.com>,
gol...@entercomp.com (Golgo13) wrote:
>John Emery <ucd...@jfemery.edu> wrote:
>
>> ----------
>> In article <1dwq7ar.1l9...@dppp-4.entercomp.com>,
>> gol...@entercomp.com (Golgo13) wrote:
>>
>>
>> >The simpleton who
>> >pens a sign reading, "Each user will turn off their machine after use"
>> >probably hasn't read Chaucer - he's just incompetent
>>
>> However does this demonstrate any incompetence?
>
>Through failure to edit.
>
Ah, yes, the sign would perhaps be more effective if it read, "Please turn
off your machine after use". But then some smart-ass might claim that it's
not _their_ machine, so why should they turn it off.
Skitt
John Emery <ucd...@jfemery.edu> wrote in message
news:7phifl$iis$1...@mark.ucdavis.edu...
Let's simplify the issue. Let's idiot-proof it.
Please turn off the machine after use.
--
Golgo13
> John Emery <ucd...@jfemery.edu> wrote:
> > gol...@entercomp.com (Golgo13) wrote:
> > >> >The simpleton who
> > >> >pens a sign reading, "Each user will turn off their machine after use"
> > >> >probably hasn't read Chaucer - he's just incompetent
> > >>
> > >> However does this demonstrate any incompetence?
> > >
> > >Through failure to edit.
> > >
> > Ah, yes, the sign would perhaps be more effective if it read, "Please turn
> > off your machine after use". But then some smart-ass might claim that
> it's
> > not _their_ machine, so why should they turn it off.
>
> Let's simplify the issue. Let's idiot-proof it.
>
> Please turn off the machine after use.
Or just "turn off after use." As in this hypothetical example, in most
cases we aren't forced into awkward constructions - we tend to stumble
into them. While some will try to work from there, struggling to resolve
a grammatical mess, it's generally better to take another approach.
Regards,
P&D Schultz
>
> P&D Schultz <schu...@erols.com> wrote:
>
> > Richard Fontana wrote:
> >
> > > Robert Lieblich wrote: <...> But surely the statement "I'm pretty >
> > > rigid about using the correct pronoun when the gender is unknown" has >
> > > gotta be ironic.
> > >
> > > Not if you accept the rule (which I learned in grammar books) that"he"
> > > should be used when the gender is unknown. <...>
> >
> > I learned it too. The reason that no one except the slavishly compliant
> > accepts this "rule" is that the "rule" is bonkers, and the average
> > intelligent person realizes it right off. It's like saying "If the type of
> > screw to be tightened is unknown, use a philips screwdriver." English
> > speakers have generally had better sense than to follow such an absurd,
> > counterintuitive "rule." That's why it's not working.
>
> When you say "generally" above, wordsmiths, skilled users of English,
> stylists and the like do not come to mind. On the contrary, those who so
> notably employ singular "they" are most likely unaware of its literary
> pens a sign reading, "Each user will turn off their machine after use"
>
> What I'd like to know, Shultz, is why you feel that the tide has turned,
> why you assert that a majority are now endorsing singular "they" when my
> own reading suggests that talented writers still sidestep it, that many
> authors continue to eschew it, and that "he or she" among other more
> palatable strategems still enjoys strong popularity.
"The tide has turned" generally means that a trend has stopped and has
begun to move in the other direction. I don't think that is the case
with singlular "they." I think that the trend remains in the direction
that it has always been.
What I think is that singular "they" is, and has been for centuries
(maybe always), a part of the genuine English grammar which exists in
the heads of the owners of the language, and there is no concrete reason
to consider it substandard. It just IS considered substandard, in much
the same way that black is considered the color of mourning. It is just
a convention. It's a cultural prejudice.
It just happens to be a historical fact that influential
prescriptivists, apparently because of an imperfect grasp of real
English grammar, have perverted the natural grammar of the language on
this issue (as on so many others) and have decided (in the face of
reality) that "they" must not be singular.
So now people (including me) desiring to speak or write in a manner
which will meet with the approval of those who hold that "they" must not
be singular will avoid employing it thusly. It's pragmatic. It's also
interesting. It's also phoney. It's also fun.
//P. Schultz
P&D Schultz
>
> When you say "generally" above, wordsmiths, skilled users of English,
> stylists and the like do not come to mind. On the contrary, those who so
> notably employ singular "they" are most likely unaware of its literary
> heritage. That's why they tend to misuse it so badly. The simpleton who
> pens a sign reading, "Each user will turn off their machine after use"
> probably hasn't read Chaucer - he's just incompetent.
What does the awareness of past usage have to do with it? You seem to be
saying that if an acknowledged talented wordsmith of the past uses his
natural English grammar in writing, it is ok. But if an ordinary modern
person does the same thing, it isn't. I don't get the distinction.
//P. Schultz
Golgo13
Singular "they" (their, them) isn't used willy-nilly by the few authors
of distinction who can be cited as having made use of it. According to
WDEU's examples, it seems that "notional agreement" was occasionally
ruling the day. Another of their quotes, "...everyone will have to
decide for himself whether or not to have an abortion," demonstrates a
poor use of the masculine pronoun. WDEU remarks later, "But remember...
you can use the plural pronouns when they seem natural and you can use
the singular pronouns when they seem natural." I would contend that a
good writer has a keen sense of what is "natural," while an
inexperienced one probably doesn't. One often sees a writer who, in
developing a personal style or voice, begins to take risks, engaging in
experimentation and rule bending. But this occurs down the road
somewhat, and not at the outset of the journey. The distinction I drew
above could be restated as: learn to paint inside the lines before
daring to venture outside of them.
John Emery
----------
In article <1dx18o7.qxh...@dppp-24.entercomp.com>,
gol...@entercomp.com (Golgo13) wrote:
>P&D Schultz <schu...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>> Golgo13 wrote:
>> >
>> > When you say "generally" above, wordsmiths, skilled users of English,
>> > stylists and the like do not come to mind. On the contrary, those who so
>> > notably employ singular "they" are most likely unaware of its literary
>> > heritage. That's why they tend to misuse it so badly. The simpleton who
>> > pens a sign reading, "Each user will turn off their machine after use"
>> > probably hasn't read Chaucer - he's just incompetent.
>>
>> What does the awareness of past usage have to do with it? You seem to be
>> saying that if an acknowledged talented wordsmith of the past uses his
>> natural English grammar in writing, it is ok. But if an ordinary modern
>> person does the same thing, it isn't. I don't get the distinction.
>
>-snip- I would contend that a
>good writer has a keen sense of what is "natural," while an
>inexperienced one probably doesn't. One often sees a writer who, in
>developing a personal style or voice, begins to take risks, engaging in
>experimentation and rule bending. But this occurs down the road
>somewhat, and not at the outset of the journey. The distinction I drew
>above could be restated as: learn to paint inside the lines before
>daring to venture outside of them.
>
What you're saying, especially as it regards a hand-written sign, is more
like "learn to jump hurdles before you start walking".
John Emery
>P&D Schultz <schu...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>> Golgo13 wrote:
>> >
>> > When you say "generally" above, wordsmiths, skilled users of English,
>> > stylists and the like do not come to mind. On the contrary, those who so
>> > notably employ singular "they" are most likely unaware of its literary
>> > heritage. That's why they tend to misuse it so badly. The simpleton who
>> > pens a sign reading, "Each user will turn off their machine after use"
>> > probably hasn't read Chaucer - he's just incompetent.
>>
>> What does the awareness of past usage have to do with it? You seem to be
>> saying that if an acknowledged talented wordsmith of the past uses his
>> natural English grammar in writing, it is ok. But if an ordinary modern
>> person does the same thing, it isn't. I don't get the distinction.
>
>Singular "they" (their, them) isn't used willy-nilly by the few authors
>of distinction who can be cited as having made use of it. According to
>WDEU's examples, it seems that "notional agreement" was occasionally
>ruling the day. Another of their quotes, "...everyone will have to
>decide for himself whether or not to have an abortion," demonstrates a
>poor use of the masculine pronoun. WDEU remarks later, "But remember...
>you can use the plural pronouns when they seem natural and you can use
>the singular pronouns when they seem natural." I would contend that a
>good writer has a keen sense of what is "natural," while an
>inexperienced one probably doesn't. One often sees a writer who, in
>developing a personal style or voice, begins to take risks, engaging in
>experimentation and rule bending. But this occurs down the road
>somewhat, and not at the outset of the journey. The distinction I drew
>above could be restated as: learn to paint inside the lines before
>daring to venture outside of them.
>
What you're saying is really more like "Learn to jump hurdles before you
start walking". Your "incompetent simpleton" was merely making a
handwritten sign, not penning his masterpiece. If you saw such a sign, how
could you possibly know who had written it? For all you know it could have
been Chaucer himself.
P&D Schultz
> Singular "they" (their, them) isn't used willy-nilly by the few authors
> of distinction who can be cited as having made use of it.
How many is a few? It was used by Geoffrey Chaucer, Edmund Spenser, William
Shakespeare, the King James Bible, _The Spectator_, Jonathan Swift, Daniel
Defoe, Frances Sheridan, Oliver Goldsmith, Henry Fielding, Maria Edgeworth,
Percy Shelley, Lord Byron, Jane Austen, William Makepeace Thackeray, Sir Walter
Scott, George Eliot [Mary Anne Evans], Charles Dickens, Mrs. Gaskell, Anthony
Trollope, John Ruskin, Robert Louis Stevenson, Walt Whitman, George Bernard
Shaw, Lewis Carroll, Oscar Wilde, Rudyard Kipling, H. G. Wells, F. Scott
Fitzgerald, Edith Wharton, W. H. Auden, Lord Dunsany, George Orwell, and
C. S. Lewis. It THAT the few you meant?
> According to
> WDEU's examples, it seems that "notional agreement" was occasionally
> ruling the day. Another of their quotes, "...everyone will have to
> decide for himself whether or not to have an abortion," demonstrates a
> poor use of the masculine pronoun. WDEU remarks later, "But remember...
> you can use the plural pronouns when they seem natural and you can use
> the singular pronouns when they seem natural." I would contend that a
> good writer has a keen sense of what is "natural," while an
> inexperienced one probably doesn't.
I disagree. A good writer has a keen sense of what is good writing. It is
the unschooled but eloquent peasant who can distinguish what is "natural."
> One often sees a writer who, in
> developing a personal style or voice, begins to take risks, engaging in
> experimentation and rule bending. But this occurs down the road
> somewhat, and not at the outset of the journey. The distinction I drew
> above could be restated as: learn to paint inside the lines before
> daring to venture outside of them.
I think that you want *so badly* for there to be a distinction between
Chaucer's use of it and Mrs. Kowalski's, next door, that you are concocting
distinctions.
You seem to say that it is ok for Jane Austen to say something, but that it
is not ok for an ordinary person to come up with precisely the same thing.
What's the name for that sort of thinking? It is as if you distinguish good
wine from bad by examining the label instead of by tasting it.
I'm sorry, but if "let each esteem other better than themselves" is allowed
(it's in the King James Bible), then so is "let each choose someone taller
than themselves." If you have to ask to see the writer's writing license in
order to tell good from bad, then you seem to be admitting that you can't
tell good from bad.
//P. Schultz
Polar
wrote:
[...]
>I disagree. A good writer has a keen sense of what is good writing. It is
>the unschooled but eloquent peasant who can distinguish what is "natural."
Now let's see -- into which category should I fit myself...
--
Polar
Golgo13
> Golgo13 wrote:
>
> > Singular "they" (their, them) isn't used willy-nilly by the few authors
> > of distinction who can be cited as having made use of it.
>
> How many is a few? It was used by Geoffrey Chaucer, Edmund Spenser,
> William Shakespeare, the King James Bible, _The Spectator_, Jonathan
> Swift, Daniel Defoe, Frances Sheridan, Oliver Goldsmith, Henry Fielding,
> Maria Edgeworth, Percy Shelley, Lord Byron, Jane Austen, William Makepeace
> Thackeray, Sir Walter Scott, George Eliot [Mary Anne Evans], Charles
> Dickens, Mrs. Gaskell, Anthony Trollope, John Ruskin, Robert Louis
> Stevenson, Walt Whitman, George Bernard Shaw, Lewis Carroll, Oscar Wilde,
> Rudyard Kipling, H. G. Wells, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Edith Wharton, W. H.
> Auden, Lord Dunsany, George Orwell, and C. S. Lewis. It THAT the few you
> meant?
That's the few I meant. Note that they do not use singular "they"
willy-nilly. In riposte, it's going to be very difficult to list all the
authors who don't use the form, as Churchyard doesn't provide one.
> > According to WDEU's examples, it seems that "notional agreement" was
> > occasionally ruling the day. Another of their quotes, "...everyone will
> > have to decide for himself whether or not to have an abortion,"
> > demonstrates a poor use of the masculine pronoun. WDEU remarks later,
> > "But remember... you can use the plural pronouns when they seem natural
> > and you can use the singular pronouns when they seem natural." I would
> > contend that a good writer has a keen sense of what is "natural," while
> > an inexperienced one probably doesn't.
>
> I disagree. A good writer has a keen sense of what is good writing. It is
> the unschooled but eloquent peasant who can distinguish what is "natural."
Perhaps we are discussing different meanings of "natural," here. I'm
referring to the sense of what is "the usual thing" in a particular
instance and, unfortunately, no matter how eloquent our unschooled
peasant is, without some measure of study backing his efforts I
sincerely doubt that he'll know what that is. Look over a stack of
college freshmen English essays to get a better idea of how this applies
in practice. I don't dispute that there might be an idiot savant
out there who doesn't conform to these observations, but I wouldn't bet
on finding one easily, either.
> > One often sees a writer who, in developing a personal style or voice,
> > begins to take risks, engaging in experimentation and rule bending. But
> > this occurs down the road somewhat, and not at the outset of the
> > journey. The distinction I drew above could be restated as: learn to
> > paint inside the lines before daring to venture outside of them.
>
> I think that you want *so badly* for there to be a distinction between
> Chaucer's use of it and Mrs. Kowalski's, next door, that you are
> concocting distinctions.
I appreciate the passion you bring to the table. But from this point on
there isn't anything else to say. If you care to take issue with a
specific idea I've presented, I'll be happy to discuss that with you.
P&D Schultz
> <...>
> I appreciate the passion you bring to the table. But from this point on
> there isn't anything else to say. If you care to take issue with a
> specific idea I've presented, I'll be happy to discuss that with you.
Oh. Too tough for you, eh? Maybe you're better at reading for passion
than reading for content.
//P. Schultz
Golgo13
No. But from that point onward you ascribed to me things I did not say
and opinions I did not hold. I'm just not in the mood for one of those,
"no, I didn't say that, I said..." sort of exchanges. Sorry.
Henry Churchyard
Matt Curtin <cmcu...@interhack.net> wrote:
> Use of "they" is unnatural for me; in my mind, it is plural.
> Shakespeare, Austen, and others use it in the singular, so while it
> is easy to argue that a singular "they" is well-established (at
> least in literary and informal contexts)
That seems to cover both ends of the spectrum ;-)
--
Henry Churchyard chur...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/
Matt Curtin
Gavin <G.T...@isu.usyd.edu.GOLD> said:
Gavin> Someone who has read Shakespeare being less educated than one
Gavin> who has not....
'Tis possible; familiarity with Shakespeare does not an education
make.
(But it helps! :-)
--
Matt Curtin cmcu...@interhack.net http://www.interhack.net/people/cmcurtin/
Henry Churchyard
Jim Dale <dal...@aol.comnospam> wrote:
> I wonder at the people who cite Shakespeare to justify usages that
> are now considered non-standard. He used double-negatives too. So
> what? That was a long time ago, and some locutions that were once
> common are now shibboleths, marking their users as, at best,
> undereducated.
Dude, it isn't Shakepeare as an infallible guide to modern usage, it's
a continuous tradition of colloquial _and_ literary usage from Chaucer
down to 1999. Why not look at http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/austheir.html
again, and if you still feel that unexamined "shibboleths" and
linguistic prejudices that you picked up in junior high school -- on
the order of "It is I" and not ending sentences with a preposition --
outweigh the historical facts, well then you can bask in the glow of
your own personal aura of perceived dogmatic infallibility.
--
"She was of course only too good for him; but nobody minds having what is too
good for them." -M.P., Austen || Henry Churchyard http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/
P&D Schultz
>
> <...>I wonder at the people who cite Shakespeare to justify
> usages that are now considered non-standard. He used double-negatives too. So
> what? That was a long time ago, and some locutions that were once common are
> now shibboleths, marking their users as, at best, undereducated.
I think that Shakespeare is usually trotted out as an example in
order to refute someone's suggestion that no one but an ignorant
yahoo would use whatever non-standard locution is under discussion.
It goes like this:
A: [Locution] is wrong. Only an idiot would use it.
B: Well, Shakespeare used it.
A: Well, but Shakespeare used a lot of things that are now wrong.
See? Person A is trying to hide the fact that he called Shakespeare
an idiot by changing the subject.
//P. Schultz
a1a5...@sprint.ca
wrote:
>Jim Dale wrote:
Nobody would ever do that with you.
Truly Donovan
>It is "unnatural" because we have learned that pronouns should "agree" with
>their antecedents.
It is "natural" because we have learned that the pronoun "they" can be
singular with the circumstances require it, just as the pronoun "you."
So natural, in fact, that most native speakers use it all the time,
even many of the ones who got all hot and bothered about it.
--
Truly Donovan
tr...@lunemere.com
*Chandler's Daughter* [Write Way Publishing, Jan 1999]
a1a5...@sprint.ca
wrote:
>On 27 Aug 1999 01:55:31 GMT, dal...@aol.comnospam (Jim Dale) wrote:
>
>
>>It is "unnatural" because we have learned that pronouns should "agree" with
>>their antecedents.
>
>It is "natural" because we have learned that the pronoun "they" can be
>singular with the circumstances require it, just as the pronoun "you."
This "you" business has been cited many times as proof of the
respectability of your precious singular 'their'. The language
dropped a bit of conjugation (thou art) is all that happened there. By
contrast nobody says 'they is'.
>So natural, in fact, that most native speakers use it all the time,
>even many of the ones who got all hot and bothered about it.
>
>--
>Truly Donovan
>tr...@lunemere.com
>*Chandler's Daughter* [Write Way Publishing, Jan 1999]
Jeff give you a foreword did he?
sam
> This "you" business has been cited many times as proof of the
> respectability of your precious singular 'their'. The language
> dropped a bit of conjugation (thou art) is all that happened there. By
> contrast nobody says 'they is'.
At least as many as say "you is"
Golgo13
> It is "unnatural" because we have learned that pronouns should "agree" with
> their antecedents. I wonder at the people who cite Shakespeare to justify
> usages that are now considered non-standard. He used double-negatives too. So
> what? That was a long time ago, and some locutions that were once common are
> now shibboleths, marking their users as, at best, undereducated.
That's right. Shakespeare is notable for his imagery, his constructions,
his meter and rhyme, but not necessarily for his grammar - save that
today in most contexts you need annotations to follow his meaning. Yes,
you can find singular "they" in Shakespeare, and you can find a thousand
more constructions in any of his plays that would be totally
unacceptable in modern writing. The same goes for the King James bible.
If you consult a standard English grammar text, say, Barron's
_Essentials of English_, to name but one, you'll find a table something
like the following:
Singular Plural
_____________________
I We
You You
He, She, It They
_____________________
But what you won't find is something like this:
Singular Plural
____________________________________________
I We
You You
He, She, It & They (sometimes) They
____________________________________________
Singular they isn't taught, it's proselytized.
sam
gol...@entercomp.com (Golgo13) wrote:
> If you consult a standard English grammar text,...
> Singular they isn't taught, it's proselytized.
But it's used, isn't it, in a variety of contexts, by
excellent writers, and has been for centuries without
interruption. That it's not in the grammar texts is
their failing. It's not the only one.
Brian J Goggin
wrote:
[...]
>If you consult a standard English grammar text, say, Barron's
>_Essentials of English_, to name but one, you'll find a table something
>like the following:
>
> Singular Plural
> _____________________
> I We
> You You
> He, She, It They
> _____________________
>
>But what you won't find is something like this:
>
> Singular Plural
> ____________________________________________
> I We
> You You
> He, She, It & They (sometimes) They
> ____________________________________________
>
>Singular they isn't taught, it's proselytized.
If, however, you consult Michael Swan's *Practical English Usage* 2nd
ed, OUP 1995, 0-19-431197-x (pb), you won't find such a table.
Instead, you will read
===begins=====
505 *singular and plural* (6): *they* with singular reference
*1 singular indefinite person*
_They/them/their_ is often used to refer to a singular indefinite
person who has already been mentioned. This structure is common after
_a person_, _anybody/one_, _somebody/one_, _nobody/one_, _whoever_,
_each_, _every_, _either_, _neither_ and _no_.
_If *a person* doesn't want to go on living, *they are* often very
difficult to help._
_If *anybody* calls, take *their* name and address and tell *them* to
call again later._
_*Somebody* left *their* umbrella behind yesterday. Would *they*
please collect it from the office?_
_*Nobody* was late, were *they*?_
_*Whoever* comes, tell *them* to go away._
_Tell *each person* to help *themselves* to what *they* want._
_*Everybody thinks they're* different from everybody else.
This use of _they/them/their_ is convenient when the person referred
to could be male or female (as in most of the examples above). _He or
she_, _him or her_ and _his or her_ are clumsy, especially when
repeated, and many people dislike the traditional use of _he/him/his_
to refer to people who may be male or female [...].
_They/them/their_ is not only used when the person's sex is unknown.
_I swear more when I'm talking to *a boy*, because I'm not afraid of
shocking *them*._
_*No* girl should have to wear school uniform, because it makes *them*
look like a sack of potatoes._
*2 other uses*
_They/them/their_ is occasionally used to refer to a particular person
who has been mentioned but not identified.
_I had *a friend* in Paris, and *they* had to go to hospital for a
month ...._
*3 correctness*
This use of _they/them/their_ has been normal in English for
centuries, and is perfectly correct. It is most common in an informal
style, but can also be found in formal written English. Here is an
example from a British passport application form. [Cross-thread
alert.]
_Dual nationality: if the child possesses the nationality or
citizenship of another country *they* may lose this when *they* get a
British Passport._
===ends=====
I've used underscores to represent the italics in the text and * ... *
to represent bold.
bjg