A friend of mine (is no friend of mine)
Mark Daniels
sentence (in a UK sit-com): "a friend of Tonys (sic)". Is this
grammatically correct according to the prescriptivists? Why not 'a
friend of me', 'a friend of Tony'.
Mark Daniels
Curtis Cameron
Logically, "a friend of Tony" might be more logical, but "a friend of
Tony's" is how it is said. Even prescriptivists must bow to idiom.
I don't know if this is true for others, but the phrase gives me the
idea of a set of Tony's friends, and you are referring to one of them.
So "a friend out of the set of Tony's friends" shortens to "a friend
of Tony's".
-Curtis Cameron
WGS-84 33.033N, 96.724W
matthew.connolly
> Can anyone shed any light on this construction? I just saw it in the
> sentence (in a UK sit-com): "a friend of Tonys (sic)". Is this
> grammatically correct according to the prescriptivists? Why not 'a
> friend of me', 'a friend of Tony'.
>
> Mark Daniels
It should read "a friend of Tony's" as in Tony's friend. It would not be
correct to say "me friend" or "Tony friend" for the same reason it would
not be correct to say "a friend of Tony". These are possessive
constructions.
>
>
>
Vesa Raiskila
>
> Mark Daniels wrote:
>
> >Can anyone shed any light on this construction? I just saw it in the
> >sentence (in a UK sit-com): "a friend of Tonys (sic)". Is this
> >grammatically correct according to the prescriptivists? Why not 'a
> >friend of me', 'a friend of Tony'.
> Logically, "a friend of Tony" might be more logical, but "a friend of
> Tony's" is how it is said. Even prescriptivists must bow to idiom.
I know my American language advisor would disagree!
The following sentences found on the Net show how, in my opinion, the
apostrophe-s construction should be logically used:
"my girlfriend's father is a friend of John and him"
"A friend of John's son Joel gave John a frog pin"
"I am a friend of John's sister, Heather."
But as one writer on something called The Linguist List wrote a couple
of years ago after a long commentary on the possessive construction "a
friend of John's" wrote:
"So, with all due respect to the fascinating facts revealed in
Wiedrick's summary, I still don't understand what's going on in
English with 's."
The article can be found at
http://www.ai.univie.ac.at/archives/Linguist/Vol-6-0700-0799/0001.html
Vesa
--
http://www.jyu.fi/~raives/
I welcome corrections to my English. To reply via e-mail, please delete
DEL. from my e-mail address.
a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca
wrote:
>Can anyone shed any light on this construction? I just saw it in the
>sentence (in a UK sit-com): "a friend of Tonys (sic)". Is this
>grammatically correct according to the prescriptivists? Why not 'a
>friend of me', 'a friend of Tony'.
>
>Mark Daniels
>
This is the infamous idiomatic double genitive, the
"indefensible" of Fowler. It is permitted, but "a friend of Tony
is no friend of mine" is just as good in my opinion and sets up
no semantic vibrations -- as the other does.
j. lyle
>>
>> >Can anyone shed any light on this construction? I just saw it in the
>> >sentence (in a UK sit-com): "a friend of Tonys (sic)". Is this
>> >grammatically correct according to the prescriptivists? Why not 'a
>> >friend of me', 'a friend of Tony'.
>
>> Tony's" is how it is said. Even prescriptivists must bow to idiom.
>
>I know my American language advisor would disagree!
>
>The following sentences found on the Net show how, in my opinion, the
>apostrophe-s construction should be logically used:
>
>"my girlfriend's father is a friend of John and him"
So you would say "I am a good friend of him"? "He is a good friend of me"?
Here's a little bit on the "double genitive" from a couple of usage books:
Edward D. Johnson, _The Handbook of Good English_: "The preposition _of_
can often replace the possessive case: _the government's role, the role of
the government_; _the man's name, the name of the man_. However, when _of_
is used, the possessive case often can be or must be used too: _John's
friend, a friend of John's_; _my friend, a friend of mine_. (Note that it
is apparent from the last example, _a friend of mine_, that the possessive
is like the independent possessive discussed in the preceding paragraph
[examples: "My hamburger fell into the fire, so I ate John's"; "This
house is hers"]; _of_ could not have an ordinary possessive such as _my_
as its object.) This so-called double possessive is hard to explain. One
reason it has developed is that the word _of_, just like the possessive
case, can express more than possession, but the relationships that _of_
can express and those that the possessive case can express do not always
overlap. (This explains why pairs such as _moment's thought_ and _moment
of thought_ can have identical meanings; in the first the possessive
_moment's_ expresses the genitive, and in the second _of_ expresses the
genitive, but the genitives are of different kinds). . . .
The double genitive seems to be used less often than formerly when it is
considered optional, as in _Smith is an old friend of President Bush_. No
unwanted meaning of _of_ intrudes in the example. However, _Smith is an
old friend of him_ is not English; with personal pronouns we use the
double possessive even when no unwanted meaning of _of_ intrudes. . . ."
Evans and Evans go into considerable detail; here's part of it: "As a
rule, a noun in the genitive case or a possessive pronoun can be replaced
by an _of_ phrase in which _of_ is followed by the common form of the
noun or the objective form of the pronoun. . . . But when the genitive or
possessive represents ownership, as in _a child's toy_, _a dog's bone_,
it keeps its form even when it follows the preposition _of_, as in _a toy
of the child's_, _a bone of the dog's_.
This is a curious and interesting construction. It is never misused and
no one needs to understand it to use it properly. That is fortunate,
because it is almost impossible to understand. . . .
This double genitive is essentially a defining or classifying expression.
It is used with words such as _a_, _some_, _any_, and numerals, which
indicate that the following noun is not completely specified. And it is
used with one kind of _the_ and not with the other. The word _the_ usually
means 'that which is already defined.' We are using this _the_ in _There
once was a king in Thule, and when the king was old. . . . _ But there is
another _the_ which is simply the sign that a clause is to follow, and
which means 'more information is coming.' We have this _the_ in _the man
who came to dinner_. The second _the_ may be used with the double
genitive, as in _the friend of yours who is going abroad told me. . . . _
But the first _the_, which says that what follows is already defined,
cannot be used in this construction. We cannot say _the friend of yours
told me. . . . _
The double genitive is required whenever a word indicating ownership is
placed after _of_. For example, _he found a bone of the dog's_ and _he
found a bone of the dog_ mean different things; and _he found a toy of
the child_ is meaningless. In fact, a genitive form or a possessive
pronoun that does not keep its form after _of_ does not represent ownership.
At this point it would seem reasonable to say that the double genitive
defines a particular thing by saying to whom it belongs. That is, the
genitive relation of ownership is used again in the primary genitive
function of a classifying word. This would be a satisfactory explanation
if the double genitive always implied ownership. There is no doubt that
ownership after _of_ has to be expressed in this way, but it does not
follow that everything that is expressed in this way is ownership.
If we assert that the double genitive always implies ownership, some
curious things follow. Since we say _a bone of the dog_ when we mean a
bone from its own body, it would follow that we think the dog is his body
and not the owner of it. A human being, on the other hand, must always be
spoken of as the owner and not as the body itself, as in _that leg of
John's is hurting him again_. But man does not seem to own his
appearance, or likeness, since we say _a picture of him_. . . ."
Jane
N.Mitchum
-----
> It should read "a friend of Tony's" as in Tony's friend. It would not be
> correct to say "me friend" or "Tony friend" for the same reason it would
> constructions.
>.....
What bothered the poster, though, and has bothered plenty of other
native speakers, is that this construction is the "double
possessive" (or "double genetive"). That is, the possessive is
marked twice, once by the preposition "of" and again by the
inflection "Tony's." Idiom aside, you would expect to have it one
way or the other, not both ways at the same time.
--- NM
Mailers, drop HINTS. (I welcome mailed copies of replies)
P&DSchultz
>
> matthew.connolly wrote:
> >
> > ... it would
> > not be correct to say "a friend of Tony". These are possessive
> > constructions.
>
Me too.
//P. Schultz -- a Citizen of the United States's
Vesa Raiskila
>
> > Can anyone shed any light on this construction? I just saw it in the
> > sentence (in a UK sit-com): "a friend of Tonys (sic)". Is this
> > grammatically correct according to the prescriptivists? Why not 'a
> >
> > Mark Daniels
>
> It should read "a friend of Tony's" as in Tony's friend. It would not be
> not be correct to say "a friend of Tony". These are possessive
> constructions.
I find it hard to believe that "a friend of Tony" would be _incorrect_.
I just made an AltaVista search and found matches for both "a friend of
Tony" and "a friend of Tony's". There were only a few matches for the
former, but those that there were seemed to represent a slightly more
formal register. Here's one example:
"Paul Chang, senior in music education and bass trombonist in the
K-State Jazz Band, said they came to the concert not only because they
are big fans, but because they knew Wilson was a friend of Tony."
Moreover, when both the first and the last name are given, apostrophe-s
never seems to be used:
"And he's a Friend of Tony Brouner."
"A friend of Tony Redhouse pounds the drum..."
"Chemart's earlier DOS-base accounting system was developed by a
friend of Tony Tan..."
_Is_ there any logic in this?
Mark Daniels
a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Jul 1998 15:16:52 -0600, Mark Daniels <ma...@eunet.yu>
> wrote:
>
> >Can anyone shed any light on this construction? I just saw it in the
> >sentence (in a UK sit-com): "a friend of Tonys (sic)". Is this
> >grammatically correct according to the prescriptivists? Why not 'a
> >friend of me', 'a friend of Tony'.
> >
> >Mark Daniels
> >
> This is the infamous idiomatic double genitive, the
> "indefensible" of Fowler. It is permitted, but "a friend of Tony
> is no friend of mine" is just as good in my opinion and sets up
> no semantic vibrations -- as the other does.
OK, is this correct: "One of my friends' mother" (meaning 'the mother of
one of my friends')? Or should it be 'One of my friends mothers'!?
Mark D.
Gary Williams, Business Services Accounting
writes:
>> > Mark Daniels
>>
>> It should read "a friend of Tony's" as in Tony's friend.
>I find it hard to believe that "a friend of Tony" would be _incorrect_.
>_Is_ there any logic in this?
Far as I can tell, no.
This is another of those situations where Neil would probably say, "Well, of
course the double genitive is grammatical; people say it all the time" and
where he would probably, if pressed, admit that the "of Tony" form is also
grammatical, as it gets used a lot, too.
And it is another of those situations that make me wonder whether there is _no_
rule, and that one and the same speaker will use either construction more or
less at random, or whether there are two or more rules, and while the rules
differ from speaker to speaker, each speaker has a rule which he follows
consistently (at least within a given social context).
I certainly would not say "a friend of me", but I think I would say "a friend
of Tony"....consistency being the hobgoblin of small minds. But I'm not _sure_
I would not say "a friend of Tony's"; in fact I think I might (evidence of my
large mind, I guess). Mark at least does seem to be in possession of a
consistent rule, and it must be a genuine rule for him, because it is not, I
think, what a prescriptivist would prescribe.
Gary Williams
K. Edgcombe
Gary Williams, Business Services Accounting <will...@ahecas.AHEC.EDU> wrote:
>
>I certainly would not say "a friend of me", but I think I would say "a friend
>of Tony"....consistency being the hobgoblin of small minds. But I'm not _sure_
>I would not say "a friend of Tony's"; in fact I think I might (evidence of my
>large mind, I guess).
I've been trying alternatives.
(i) I would say "a friend of mine" but not "a friend of me", and I would
go so far as to call the second ungrammatical in the Coffeyan sense.
(ii) I would say "a friend of John's" but not "a friend of John", but I
wouldn't assert anything either way about the grammaticality of the
second.
(iii) I might say either "a friend of my mother's" or "a friend of my
mother", and there would be a fine distinction between the two which I
can't quite get hold of; that is, in any given situation I would be
likely to say one but not the other.
(iv) I would be more likely to say "a friend of Winston Churchill" than
"a friend of Winston Churchill's", and this has something to do with the
fact that I don't (didn't) know Winston Churchill.
(v) I would certainly say "a friend of that tall man" rather than "a
friend of that tall man's".
(vi) In the case of friends whose friendship is not reciprocated,
perhaps because it is directed to an institution (such as the American
Friends of Cambridge University), I would never use 's.
(vii) Lastly, if ushering at a traditional wedding, I would say "Friend
of the bride, or friend of the bridegroom?" and would find it very odd
with 's.
This would look rather like a matter of register, but in case (ii) I
would not find the second option to be high-register, merely strange.
I think I must have a large mind too, not to mention untidy.
Katy
podibanda Kuruppu
One of my friend's mother.
j. lyle
K. Edgcombe <ke...@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>(iii) I might say either "a friend of my mother's" or "a friend of my
>mother", and there would be a fine distinction between the two which I
>can't quite get hold of; that is, in any given situation I would be
>likely to say one but not the other.
>
>(iv) I would be more likely to say "a friend of Winston Churchill" than
>"a friend of Winston Churchill's", and this has something to do with the
>fact that I don't (didn't) know Winston Churchill.
>
>perhaps because it is directed to an institution (such as the American
>Friends of Cambridge University), I would never use 's.
I think you hit the nail squarely on the head with your point (vi), the
lack of reciprocation. With the double genitive, a two-way relationship is
implied--I'm her friend, and she is my friend; she is a friend of mine.
For example, I might say "Dee is a friend of mine," and someone else would
say "Dee is a friend of Jane's." That implies a reciprocal relationship.
Similarly, "Dee is a good friend of mine" and "Dee is a good friend of
Jane's." But "best friend" does not imply a necessarily reciprocal
relationship (it implies a reciprocal relationship of friendship, but not
necessarily of best-friendship), so I would say "Dee is one of my best
friends," not "Dee is a best friend of mine," and someone else would say
"Dee is one of Jane's best friends," not "Dee is a best friend of Jane's."
If we are each other's best friend, they would say "Dee and Jane are best
friends." If Dee has been an obviously good friend, someone might say "Dee
has been a good friend to Jane," not "Dee has been a good friend of
Jane's." But we would say "I met Dee today; she's a good friend of
Jane's." Again, that means that we are reciprocally good friends.
I would say "a friend of my mother's" if I knew the person well enough to
know that she and my mother had a reciprocal friendship. I would say "a
friend of my mother" if I weren't sure that they had a relationship beyond
knowing each other and being on a friendly basis--which is different from
being a "friend friend."
On the other hand, my mother in talking about that person would have to
say "a friend of mine," not "a friend of me." Hmm.
a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca
wrote:
>
>
>a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 21 Jul 1998 15:16:52 -0600, Mark Daniels <ma...@eunet.yu>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Can anyone shed any light on this construction? I just saw it in the
>> >sentence (in a UK sit-com): "a friend of Tonys (sic)". Is this
>> >grammatically correct according to the prescriptivists? Why not 'a
>> >friend of me', 'a friend of Tony'.
>> >
>> >Mark Daniels
>> >
>> This is the infamous idiomatic double genitive, the
>> "indefensible" of Fowler. It is permitted, but "a friend of Tony
>> is no friend of mine" is just as good in my opinion and sets up
>> no semantic vibrations -- as the other does.
>
>
>OK, is this correct: "One of my friends' mother" (meaning 'the mother of
>one of my friends')? Or should it be 'One of my friends mothers'!?
Great balls of fire! "The mother of one of my friends is sick".
" One of my friends mothers an ape"
Gary Williams, Business Services Accounting
jl...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (j. lyle) writes:
>I think you hit the nail squarely on the head with your point (vi), the
>lack of reciprocation. With the double genitive, a two-way relationship is
>implied--I'm her friend, and she is my friend; she is a friend of mine.
Jeremiah was a bullfrog
He was a good friend of mine....
Well, maybe this relationship was reciprocal; Jeremiah did apparently let the
singer taste some of his best wine.
I don't think the analysis works for me, though. If I am thinking of a one-way
friendship, I am likely to say "He was a good friend to John" rather than "he
was John's good friend" or "a good friend of John's". I can't work up that
much of difference between "my" and "of mine".
Gary Williams
Curtis Cameron
>I find it hard to believe that "a friend of Tony" would be _incorrect_.
>I just made an AltaVista search and found matches for both "a friend of
>Tony" and "a friend of Tony's". There were only a few matches for the
>former, but those that there were seemed to represent a slightly more
>formal register. Here's one example:
>
>"Paul Chang, senior in music education and bass trombonist in the
>K-State Jazz Band, said they came to the concert not only because they
>are big fans, but because they knew Wilson was a friend of Tony."
>_Is_ there any logic in this?
No logic, just idiom. The sentences you cite certainly sound fine.
However, in the original post, the sentence sounded better to me with
the apostrophe-s. And if I arrange the above sentence with the phrase
in question in the middle, it sounds better to my ear with "'s":
"Because they are big fans, and they knew Wilson was a friend of
Tony's, Paul said they came to the concert."
Podibanda Kuruppu
>
> podibanda Kuruppu wrote:
> >
> > Mark Daniels wrote:
>
> > > OK, is this correct: "One of my friends' mother" (meaning 'the mother of
> > > one of my friends')? Or should it be 'One of my friends mothers'!?
>
>
You are right. Too bad there is no way to pick just one friend
out the lot, so we can apply the possesive as:
(one of all my friends)'s mother.
>
> "one of my friend's mothers"
But this refers to one of several mothers (ridiculous though it is) that
my friend has. I'm confused.
>
> or
>
> "the mother of a friend of mine" (which, incidentally, makes more sense)
>
I like this version a lot better.
Vesa Raiskila
>
> Mark Daniels wrote:
> > OK, is this correct: "One of my friends' mother" (meaning 'the mother of
> > one of my friends')? Or should it be 'One of my friends mothers'!?
> One of my friend's mother.
No. If you say "one of...", a plural noun must follow. So it's either
"one of my friend's mothers"
or
"the mother of a friend of mine" (which, incidentally, makes more sense)
Vesa
Brian J Goggin
Business Services Accounting) wrote:
[...]
>But I'm not _sure_ I would not say "a friend of Tony's"; in fact I think I might (evidence of my
>large mind, I guess).
Indeed. But it would be simpler to say "Peter".
bjg
j. lyle
In article <35B6712D...@cc.jyu.fi>,
Vesa Raiskila <del.r...@cc.jyu.fi> wrote:
>podibanda Kuruppu wrote:
>>
>> Mark Daniels wrote:
>
>> > OK, is this correct: "One of my friends' mother" (meaning 'the mother of
>> > one of my friends')? Or should it be 'One of my friends mothers'!?
>
>> One of my friend's mother.
>
>No. If you say "one of...", a plural noun must follow. So it's either
>
>"one of my friend's mothers"
Vesa, you made a punctuation mistake! Do I win, or has someone beaten me
to the punch?
The apostrophe goes after the "s"--"friends'." "One of my friend's
mothers" means "one of the mothers of my friend," not "the mother of one
of my friends." That would be "one of my friends' mother."
But to make it all a bit more confusing, you can also say "one of my
friends' mothers." It depends on whether you mean "[one of my friends']
mother" or "one of [my friends' mothers]"--i.e., whether you mean "the
mother of one of my friends" or "one among my friends' mothers."
Jane
a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca
You are a tantalising lot. Is this a musical exchange as in
_The turn of the screw_? Am I missing what Maggie Knows and her
half-wit booters do not. Next episode *please*. Blair it!
Pierce the fog!
Vesa Raiskila
>
> podibanda Kuruppu wrote:
> >
> > Mark Daniels wrote:
>
> > > OK, is this correct: "One of my friends' mother" (meaning 'the mother of
> > > one of my friends')? Or should it be 'One of my friends mothers'!?
>
> > One of my friend's mother.
>
> No. If you say "one of...", a plural noun must follow. So it's either
>
>
> or
>
> "the mother of a friend of mine" (which, incidentally, makes more sense)
I forgot one possibility:
"one of my friends' mothers" [note the apostrophe]
where 'one' relates to 'mothers', not 'friends'.
Vesa Raiskila
> I don't think the analysis works for me, though. If I am thinking of a one-way
> friendship, I am likely to say "He was a good friend to John" rather than "he
> was John's good friend" or "a good friend of John's". I can't work up that
> much of difference between "my" and "of mine".
Can a friendship be one-way? Isn't a friendship _ipso facto_ reciprocal?
Brian J Goggin
[...]
>>>But I'm not _sure_ I would not say "a friend of Tony's"; in fact I think I might (evidence of my
>>>large mind, I guess).
>>Indeed. But it would be simpler to say "Peter".
[...]
>You are a tantalising lot. Is this a musical exchange as in
>_The turn of the screw_? Am I missing what Maggie Knows and her
>half-wit booters do not. Next episode *please*. Blair it!
>Pierce the fog!
It's the Third Way.
Peter Mandelson, Minister without Portfolio and fixer in Her Majesty's
Government, could be described as a friend of Tony Blair's.
bjg
Gary Williams, Business Services Accounting
>No. If you say "one of...", a plural noun must follow. So it's either
>
>"one of my friend's mothers"
I was going to ask just how many mothers this friend has, when I realized the
point. Should be "one of my friends' mothers".
Do I get the punctuation error prize; or are you going to say, with Neil, that
"friend's" and "friends'" are really the same word?
Gary Williams
Gary Williams, Business Services Accounting
writes:
>Can a friendship be one-way? Isn't a friendship _ipso facto_ reciprocal?
Generally, which is why I have to resort to an odd preposition if it is not.
I think when I say "friend to" rather than "friend of" I am referring to the
acts on which friendship is built more than on the feeling or the relationship.
If I said "friend to", in most cases I would be speaking of a reciprocal
relationship but emphasizing the acts the friend did for the recipient. I
_might_ be referring to acts of friendship which did not result in a friendship
relationship because they were unappreciated.
Gary Williams
podibanda Kuruppu
> In article <35B6712D...@cc.jyu.fi>, Vesa Raiskila <del.r...@cc.jyu.fi>
> writes:
>
> >No. If you say "one of...", a plural noun must follow. So it's either
> >
> >"one of my friend's mothers"
>
> I was going to ask just how many mothers this friend has, when I realized the
> point. Should be "one of my friends' mothers".
I tried to parse it as (one of my friend)'s mother and that is why I ended up
with"one of my friend's mother. I didn't realize that "one of", as Vesa pointed
out,
must be followed by a plural noun.
Now it is parsed, as you have above, as one of my friends' (we are trying to
go through all of them) mothers ( to one of the mothers.).
If one were to take this further, one could talk about one of the _mothers'_
friend as:
"...one of my friends' mothers' friends."
So the rule is:
"one of <possessive plural noun><possessive plural noun>
<possessive plural noun>....<plural noun>"
How is that?
The trick is to convince yourself that this indeed is correct.
>Do I get the punctuation error prize; or are you going to say, with Neil, that
>"friend's" and "friends'" are really the same word?
You don't. Jane has bagged it already.
a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca
Goggin) wrote:
>It's the Third Way.
>
>Peter Mandelson, Minister without Portfolio and fixer in Her Majesty's
>Government, could be described as a friend of Tony Blair's.
>
>bjg
>
Were they pals at Charterhouse too? I see why they will not give
Peter a Portfolio: he might write things in it.
Gary Williams, Business Services Accounting
<po...@NoSpam.3com.com> writes:
>>Do I get the punctuation error prize; or are you going to say, with Neil, that
>>"friend's" and "friends'" are really the same word?
>
>You don't. Jane has bagged it already.
If I recall correctly, Jane's response was qualitatively better than mine,
also. But I'm feeling a little dizzy, and think I will go lie down.
Gary Williams
Brian J Goggin
[...]
>>Peter Mandelson, Minister without Portfolio and fixer in Her Majesty's
>>Government, could be described as a friend of Tony Blair's.
[...]
>Were they pals at Charterhouse too? I see why they will not give
>Peter a Portfolio: he might write things in it.
Don't know where Peter went, but Tony was Fettes.
I don't think Peter would put anything in writing, though.
Unattributable lobby briefings from Alistair Campbell are much more
effective.
bjg
a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca
Goggin) wrote:
>On Thu, 23 Jul 1998 16:59:36 GMT, a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca wrote:
[ ]
>>>Peter Mandelson, Minister without Portfolio and fixer in Her Majesty's
>>>Government, could be described as a friend of Tony Blair's.
] ]
>>Were they pals at Charterhouse too? I see why they will not give
>>Peter a Portfolio: he might write things in it.
>
>Don't know where Peter went, but Tony was Fettes.
>
>I don't think Peter would put anything in writing, though.
>Unattributable lobby briefings from Alistair Campbell are much more
>effective.
>bjg
>
I look forward to the movie 'The Glasgow Connection'.
Vesa Raiskila
>
> In article <35B6712D...@cc.jyu.fi>, Vesa Raiskila <del.r...@cc.jyu.fi>
> writes:
>
> >No. If you say "one of...", a plural noun must follow. So it's either
> >
> >"one of my friend's mothers"
>
> I was going to ask just how many mothers this friend has, when I realized the
> point. Should be "one of my friends' mothers".
As I have already argued to Jane in a private e-mail (before I noticed
that she had also _posted_ what she e-mailed to me; it took a while
before her post appeared on our server), I can write about the _mothers_
of a friend of mine and I can write about unicorns; no topic as such
makes a sentence ungrammatical. (I thought that the "makes more sense"
part in my post would reveal my intentions.)
> Do I get the punctuation error prize; or are you going to say, with Neil, that
> "friend's" and "friends'" are really the same word?
There is no need for such diversionary tactics, as lack of sensibleness
does not a sentence ungrammatical make.
Besides, the deadline for pinpointing a punctuation error in a message
of mine expired on the 20th...
j. lyle
Vesa Raiskila <del.r...@cc.jyu.fi> wrote:
>Gary Williams, Business Services Accounting wrote:
>>
>> In article <35B6712D...@cc.jyu.fi>, Vesa Raiskila <del.r...@cc.jyu.fi>
>> writes:
>>
>> >No. If you say "one of...", a plural noun must follow. So it's either
>> >
>> >"one of my friend's mothers"
>>
>> I was going to ask just how many mothers this friend has, when I realized the
>> point. Should be "one of my friends' mothers".
>
>As I have already argued to Jane in a private e-mail (before I noticed
>that she had also _posted_ what she e-mailed to me; it took a while
>before her post appeared on our server), I can write about the _mothers_
>of a friend of mine and I can write about unicorns; no topic as such
>makes a sentence ungrammatical. (I thought that the "makes more sense"
>part in my post would reveal my intentions.)
Ahem!!!! My dear Vesa Raiskila (or should that be Evasive Rascal?), no one
has said that your sentence isn't grammatical. But it doesn't say what you
intended it to say--or at least it doesn't say what Mark was asking how to
say. Here is your response to the original post:
From: Vesa Raiskila <del.r...@cc.jyu.fi>
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: A friend of mine (is no friend of mine)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 02:09:33 +0300
podibanda Kuruppu wrote:
>
> Mark Daniels wrote:
> > OK, is this correct: "One of my friends' mother" (meaning 'the mother of
> > one of my friends')? Or should it be 'One of my friends mothers'!?
> One of my friend's mother.
No. If you say "one of...", a plural noun must follow. So it's either
"one of my friend's mothers"
or
"the mother of a friend of mine" (which, incidentally, makes more sense)
[end of original post]
Me again: "One of my friend's mothers" does not mean the same thing as
"the mother of one of my friends." Nor does it mean "the mother of a
friend of mine." It means one of the mothers of my friend--the mothers of
a friend of mine.
And my private response to you was different from my follow-up post. I
wrote to you before I saw another post from you in a.u.e.; it was that
post that I then posted in response to!
Deadline of the 20th or no deadline of the 20th, I'm starting to feel
that I deserve that bottle of whatever it was!
Jane
Vesa Raiskila
> Vesa Raiskila <del.r...@cc.jyu.fi> writes:
> > "one of my friend's mothers"
> But this refers to one of several mothers (ridiculous though it is) that
> my friend has. I'm confused.
I'm afraid that James Follett was correct in arguing that Finnish humor
is too much for a.u.e.
a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca
<del.r...@cc.jyu.fi> wrote:
>Podibanda Kuruppu wrote:
>
>> Vesa Raiskila <del.r...@cc.jyu.fi> writes:
>
>> > "one of my friend's mothers"
>
>> But this refers to one of several mothers (ridiculous though it is) that
>> my friend has. I'm confused.
>
>I'm afraid that James Follett was correct in arguing that Finnish humor
>is too much for a.u.e.
>
>Vesa
Americans quite often have several mothers. Those who do are
marked for life and see no reason to joke about the holocaust.
K1912
[...]
>Deadline of the 20th or no deadline of the 20th, I'm starting to feel
>that I deserve that bottle of whatever it was!
>
>
And whatever it is I'm sure it's just what the doctor ordered to go along with
special noogie treatments (that is, as long as the bottle itself isn't somehow
used in administering the noogies. BTW, Jane, before __ Saturday Night Live,"
noogies used to be known as Tony Scabonys).
George, punctuation-innovator unirregardless of exceedances.
K1912
j. lyle
K1912 <k1...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> BTW, Jane, before __ Saturday Night Live," noogies used to be known as
> Tony Scabonys).
I beg to differ! Noogies were noogies way before SNL. I grew up getting
and giving noogies. (Getting more than giving--I have an older sister, and
the neighborhood was full of older boys.) And then there was the
oh-so-painful "Dutch rub"--the hard noogie to the head accompanied by a
scrubbing motion--and the equally painful "Indian burn" administered to
the bare arm. And then there was the boys' "Did I show you where the horse
bit me?" move.
Sheesh, it's no wonder I'm so psychologically scarred! I was tortured.
Where does "Tony Scabony" come from?
Skitt
Vesa Raiskila wrote in message <35B91EBA...@cc.jyu.fi>...
>j. lyle wrote:
>
>> Ahem!!!! My dear Vesa Raiskila (or should that be Evasive Rascal?), no one
>> has said that your sentence isn't grammatical. But it doesn't say what you
>> intended it to say--or at least it doesn't say what Mark was asking how to
>> say.
>
>
>I'm beginning to wish I had never 'contributed' to this thread. I now
>understand that what I suggested was not a response to what was actually
>being asked.
>
>> Me again: "One of my friend's mothers" does not mean the same thing as
>> "the mother of one of my friends." Nor does it mean "the mother of a
>> friend of mine." It means one of the mothers of my friend--the mothers of
>> a friend of mine.
>
>understand the above distinctions?
>
>one of my friend's mothers = my friend has several mothers
>the mother of one of my friends = one of my friends has a mother
What you have said was perfectly clear to me. Somewhat illogical, but clear.
<Chopped the bottle stuff, but the no-further-posting stuff of yours (snipped)
remains in question>
Jane's opinion may vary.
What was in that bottle, anyway. I forgot.
We discussed the Finnish beer I drank in Sankt Peterburg that wasn't all that
good, but after the first two ... who cares?
--
Skitt http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/5537/
If you are posting a reply, please, do not email it.
It just confuses me.
Skitt
j. lyle wrote in message <6pb5tg$m52$1...@jetsam.uits.indiana.edu>...
Oh, Jane! Don't know about Tony, but my heart goes out to you. Have you ever
experienced the after-effect of complying with the request, made on a very, very
cold winter day: "Jane, have you licked this real good-tasting monkeybar? Try
it!"
(I grew up in a building that had brass door-opener bars. I grew up in Latvia. I
had playmates who were older than I. Girls. The picture forms. Ouch.)
Skitt
Mark Daniels wrote in message <35B5F9DE...@eunet.yu>...
>OK, is this correct: "One of my friends' mother" (meaning 'the mother of
>one of my friends')?
Yes.
Or should it be 'One of my friends mothers'!?
Oy! (*you* made me do it -- I ain't even Jewish.)
Vesa Raiskila
> Ahem!!!! My dear Vesa Raiskila (or should that be Evasive Rascal?), no one
> has said that your sentence isn't grammatical. But it doesn't say what you
> intended it to say--or at least it doesn't say what Mark was asking how to
> say.
Dear Jane,
I'm beginning to wish I had never 'contributed' to this thread. I now
understand that what I suggested was not a response to what was actually
being asked.
> Me again: "One of my friend's mothers" does not mean the same thing as
> "the mother of one of my friends." Nor does it mean "the mother of a
> friend of mine." It means one of the mothers of my friend--the mothers of
> a friend of mine.
Jane, do you really think that my English is so bad that I do not
understand the above distinctions?
one of my friend's mothers = my friend has several mothers
the mother of one of my friends = one of my friends has a mother
> And my private response to you was different from my follow-up post. I
> wrote to you before I saw another post from you in a.u.e.; it was that
> post that I then posted in response to!
Sorry -- I just looked at what _you_ had written in your follow-up, and
the text looked identical to what you had written to me in your private
e-mail (was it fully identical?), and I didn't notice that it was in
response to a different post by me.
> Deadline of the 20th or no deadline of the 20th, I'm starting to feel
> that I deserve that bottle of whatever it was!
None will be on its way, and I hope I will not have to post to _this_
thread again... but I'm afraid I will [sigh].
Skitt
j. lyle wrote in message <6p4vv1$tsa$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>...
<excellent discussion of who her friends are, but due to the length of it, I
felt compelled to snip it>
Then the question remained: Am I a friend of yours? Or am I a friend of you?
Shhh, I know the answer -- it be the first 'un.
Comments?
Vesa Raiskila
> j. lyle wrote:
> > And my private response to you was different from my follow-up post. I
> > wrote to you before I saw another post from you in a.u.e.; it was that
> > post that I then posted in response to!
> Sorry -- I just looked at what _you_ had written in your follow-up, and
> the text looked identical to what you had written to me in your private
> e-mail (was it fully identical?), and I didn't notice that it was in
> response to a different post by me.
I just checked that your follow-up _was_ identical to what you wrote to
me privately, and it [your follow-up] was a follow-up to the same post
as that about which you wrote privately to me.
So it must be that you are playing the 'define difference' game with me
here!
j. lyle
Vesa Raiskila <del.r...@cc.jyu.fi> wrote:
>Vesa Raiskila wrote:
>
>> j. lyle wrote:
>
>> > And my private response to you was different from my follow-up post. I
>> > wrote to you before I saw another post from you in a.u.e.; it was that
>> > post that I then posted in response to!
>
>> Sorry -- I just looked at what _you_ had written in your follow-up, and
>> the text looked identical to what you had written to me in your private
>> e-mail (was it fully identical?), and I didn't notice that it was in
>> response to a different post by me.
>
>I just checked that your follow-up _was_ identical to what you wrote to
>me privately, and it [your follow-up] was a follow-up to the same post
>as that about which you wrote privately to me.
>
>So it must be that you are playing the 'define difference' game with me
>here!
I may have cc'd that post to you, but I also wrote you privately on this
subject, two or three times--and you responded. After I wrote you one of
those times, a post from you appeared on my server, and I then composed a
new response in reply to it. (I read my mail on a UNIX machine, so e-mail
and news are totally separate for me.) I probably did cc that one to you,
but it was separate from--albeit an expansion on--the e-mail message I had
already written you on the same topic.
So I'm not playing any kind of game with you.
And I'm sorry if my gentle teasing of you yesterday hurt your feelings.
Your English is impeccable, and your misplacement of the apostrophe in
"friends'" was a very common one for even native writers of English.
Jane
a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca
lyle) finally finely wrote:
>Your English is impeccable
Is that a cluck, or a chuck?
Vesa Raiskila
> And I'm sorry if my gentle teasing of you yesterday hurt your feelings.
A real Finn doesn't allow himself* to be hurt, only enraged!
> Your English is impeccable, and your misplacement of the apostrophe in
> "friends'" was a very common one for even native writers of English.
Aaarrgghhh!!!
> So I'm not playing any kind of game with you.
Yes you are, Jane! (Unfortunately, the prevailing spatio-temporal
curvature of the universe prevents me from exacting a legitimate yet
gentle revenge.)
Vesa
* How would you express this gender-neutrally without pluralizing the
sentence (which here would constitute an obvious stylistic compromise)?
I don't think that "A real Finn doesn't allow themselves to be hurt"
looks at all good, and the same applies to "A real Finn doesn't allow
him- or herself to be hurt".
RossHoward
<del.r...@cc.jyu.fi> wrote:
>j. lyle wrote:
>
>> And I'm sorry if my gentle teasing of you yesterday hurt your feelings.
>
>A real Finn doesn't allow himself* to be hurt, only enraged!
>* How would you express this gender-neutrally without pluralizing the
>sentence (which here would constitute an obvious stylistic compromise)?
>I don't think that "A real Finn doesn't allow themselves to be hurt"
>looks at all good, and the same applies to "A real Finn doesn't allow
>him- or herself to be hurt".
Let's double the stakes and replace "a real Finn" with "a real
[personal noun or nouns of your choice for a person from England]".
Then we can all ignore the thread, confident that it'll only go round
in the same circles we've already been round three times this year.
We *agree with you* that the lack of a singular gender-neutral
personal pronoun in English is an untidy mess. You don't need to
convince us of the problem any further, because I suspect you've
already got as many disciples for your proposed solution as you're
going to get -- all three of them.
You're starting to sound disappointingly like one of those people who
stand in front of a Raphael, scratch their chins and see nothing
except a chip in the gilt of the frame.
Ross H.
Vesa Raiskila
Dear Clarence, although my nonnativespeakerism may be betrayed by my
complete lack of punctuation errors (such as the one in the above
sentence), I recognize that I may occasionally make a grammatical error
of some other kind. However,
1) **they** I do not try to deny; and
2) I know that I will be making even fewer of them in, say, **fewer**
than 12 months.
:) Vesa
a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca
<rai...@cc.jyu.fi> wrote:
>a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca wrote:
>
>> On 25 Jul 1998 13:26:21 GMT, jl...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (j.
>> lyle) finally finely wrote:
>
>> >Your English is impeccable
>
>> Is that a cluck, or a chuck?
>
>Dear Clarence, although my nonnativespeakerism may be betrayed by my
>complete lack of punctuation errors (such as the one in the above
>sentence), I recognize that I may occasionally make a grammatical error
>of some other kind. However,
>
>1) **they** I do not try to deny; and
>2) I know that I will be making even fewer of them in, say, **fewer**
>than 12 months.
>
>:) Vesa
That's the spirit, Vesa: you keep at it.
Simon R. Hughes
> You're starting to sound disappointingly like one of those people who
> stand in front of a Raphael, scratch their chins and see nothing
> except a chip in the gilt of the frame.
That kind of thing really annoys me! If they can spend umpteen
millions of pounds on the painting, you'd think they'd be able to
afford the up-keep of the frame, too.
--
Simon R. Hughes
| Mail not sent directly to | http://skrik.home.ml.org |
| my reply address will be | |
| deleted without being read. |(Last updated 10th July 1998) |
RossHoward
wrote:
[I wrote:]
>> You're starting to sound disappointingly like one of those people who
>> stand in front of a Raphael, scratch their chins and see nothing
>> except a chip in the gilt of the frame.
>
>And you're starting to sound as if you only read my GFP-related posts,
>and through highly selective eyes to boot.
If I don't reply to many of your non-GFP postings it's either because
I agree with you (which I do in a lot of cases) and can think of
nothing particularly useful to add, or because I'm not particularly
interested in the subject (which, like most people, I'm not in a lot
of cases).
Since I've made my living from writing and editing English of all
kinds for the last 20 years, how people rejig text to make it
communicate as effectively as possible is something that's of more
interest to me more than most other aspects of English usage. But the
GFP problem is ground that has been gone over so many times -- Jane
bloody Austen this, male bloody nurses that -- that if you harp on
about it, without triggering a new debate or adding anything new, all
you achieve is to spur someone to tell you, ever more forcefully (and
that picture-frame dig was perhaps overdoing it, I admit), that it's
time to drop it, let it go, not go there, give it a rest, and knock it
on the head.
Not only is it a scratched record, it's not even a melody that you're
ever going to get anyone out there in big bad world of real English
usage to hum. Let's not kid ourselves; no solution to the GFP problem
proposed in a.u.e. -- no matter how logical or practical it may be --
is ever going to have the slightest effect on what people in general
are going to write and their readers are going to expect to read.
Ross H.
Vesa Raiskila
> >* How would you express this gender-neutrally without pluralizing the
> >sentence
> Let's double the stakes and replace "a real Finn" with "a real
> [personal noun or nouns of your choice for a person from England]".
> Then we can all ignore the thread, confident that it'll only go round
> in the same circles we've already been round three times this year.
I was just interested in hearing how those who have argued that there
really is no problem because the singular they already exists and can be
used istead of 'he' would respond here. Note also that I asked the
question in a footnote.
> We *agree with you* that the lack of a singular gender-neutral
> personal pronoun in English is an untidy mess. You don't need to
> convince us of the problem any further
See above. But my main intention, of course, is not to argue that the
lack of such a pronoun is an untidy mess, but to argue that it would be
*nice* if something (something constructive rather than reconstructive)
could be done about it!
After all, who of us would like to live in a house that remains in a
state of untidy messiness?
> because I suspect you've
> already got as many disciples for your proposed solution as you're
> going to get -- all three of them.
Why are you so obsessed with my GFP-related posts, Ross? I just happen
to be one of those who think that English could do with some kind of a
lasting solution to the gender-neutrality problem. I mostly write about
the topic in threads, often originated by someone else than me, that
specifically deal with these issues. I am not a fanatic advocate of 'se'
either -- if someone comes up with a better suggestion, I might well be
converted :)
> You're starting to sound disappointingly like one of those people who
> stand in front of a Raphael, scratch their chins and see nothing
> except a chip in the gilt of the frame.
And you're starting to sound as if you only read my GFP-related posts,
and through highly selective eyes to boot.
Vesa
Vesa Raiskila
> That's the spirit, Vesa: you keep at it.
Perhaps I shouldn't keep at it... My apologies if I sounded offending --
it was the intoxicating Finnish summer that did it... (I now understand
the acronym thing too)
Please keep correcting my language at your leisure!
a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca
<rai...@cc.jyu.fi> wrote:
>And you're starting to sound as if you only read my GFP-related posts,
>and through highly selective eyes to boot.
>
>Vesa
>I welcome corrections to my English.
You are, as your Mancunian correspondent might observe, a right
comic. But there's nothing actually _wrong_ up there. <g>
a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca
<rai...@cc.jyu.fi> wrote:
>a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca wrote:
>
>> That's the spirit, Vesa: you keep at it.
>
>Perhaps I shouldn't keep at it... My apologies if I sounded offending --
>it was the intoxicating Finnish summer that did it... (I now understand
>the acronym thing too)
>
>Please keep correcting my language at your leisure!
>
>Vesa
>I welcome corrections to my English.
PING (pay is no good).
Truly Donovan
wrote:
>I was just interested in hearing how those who have argued that there
>really is no problem because the singular they already exists and can be
>used istead of 'he' would respond here. Note also that I asked the
>question in a footnote.
You weren't interested in that at all, because you put an unreasonable
restriction on the response, so one can only assume that this was not
a seeking after information but a trollish Finnicism.
Your alleged "stylistic compromise" is the usual load of bunkum, not
too far removed from the fundamental requirement for generic shes and
hes so as to be able to tell the nurses from the patients without the
use of nouns.
--
Truly Donovan
reply to truly at lunemere dot com
Vesa Raiskila
> On Tue, 28 Jul 1998 12:15:47 +0300, Vesa Raiskila <rai...@cc.jyu.fi>
> wrote:
> >I was just interested in hearing how those who have argued that there
> >really is no problem because the singular they already exists and can be
> >used istead of 'he' would respond here. Note also that I asked the
> >question in a footnote.
> You weren't interested in that at all, because you put an unreasonable
> restriction on the response, so one can only assume that this was not
> a seeking after information but a trollish Finnicism.
No, Truly, I just realized what an interesting construction I had come
up with. Moreover, I don't think that the restriction was at all
unreasonable. All I wanted to show was that here is one more common
sentence structure that the 'singular they' cannot fit into -- and,
judging by the responses, I think I succeeded!
> Your alleged "stylistic compromise" is the usual load of bunkum
If you cannot tell the stylistic difference between
"A real Finn doesn't allow himself to be hurt" and
"Real Finns do not allow themselves to be hurt", perhaps you should
consider a different line of work. <G>
Vesa Raiskila
> Not only is it a scratched record, it's not even a melody that you're
> ever going to get anyone out there in big bad world of real English
> usage to hum.
Well, as someone wrote to me some time ago, what would life be without a
quixotic quest or two!
But more seriously: how, then, _do_ pronouns change, because they _have_
changed, and dramatically, in the course of the history of English? Is
getting a new pronominal form accepted a function of one's success in
persuading Bill Clinton to use it in his press conferences? (Now _that_
would be a challenge, wouldn't it?)
P&DSchultz
> <...>
> If you cannot tell the stylistic difference between
>
> "A real Finn doesn't allow himself to be hurt" and
> "Real Finns do not allow themselves to be hurt", perhaps you should
> consider a different line of work.
I note the stylistic difference, but I don't think it is a
significant one, certainly not significant enough to warrant
the coining of new pronouns. But I salute your initiative anyway.
//P. Schultz
Truly Donovan
<del.r...@cc.jyu.fi> wrote:
>Truly Donovan wrote:
>> Your alleged "stylistic compromise" is the usual load of bunkum
>
>If you cannot tell the stylistic difference between
>
>"A real Finn doesn't allow himself to be hurt" and
>"Real Finns do not allow themselves to be hurt", perhaps you should
>consider a different line of work. <G>
I can tell that one is singular and the other plural and that makes
them different, but you said "stylistic compromise," implying that the
use of imported pronouns would not be more of stylistic compromise,
and that is entirely a matter of subjective opinion and I don't share
yours, just as I didn't share someone else's opinion that the
stylistic objectives of being able to tell the nurse from the patient
without resorting to nouns transcended all other considerations,
style-wise.
a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca
<schu...@erols.com> wrote:
>Vesa Raiskila wrote:
>> <...>
>> If you cannot tell the stylistic difference between
>>
>> "A real Finn doesn't allow himself to be hurt" and
>> "Real Finns do not allow themselves to be hurt", perhaps you should
>> consider a different line of work.
>
>I note the stylistic difference, but I don't think it is a
>significant one, certainly not significant enough to warrant
>the coining of new pronouns. But I salute your initiative anyway.
>//P. Schultz
"Not significant" is an understatement, I think.
In 'The real Finn allows no injury to enter' there *is* a
"stylistic difference": and there is that of 'Real Finns do not
permit being hurt'; or 'No real Finn accepts hurt'; or even 'A
real Finn's thick as a plank'.
In other words, there are several different ways of expressing
the idiotic sentiment, several different *stylistic* ways. The
mere substitution of plural for singular indicates no "stylistic
difference" to me and it would not even if I were as touchy on
pronoun usage as some here.
Either of Vesa 's sentences is ambiguous in any case: I chose
only one interpretation: how about "Real Finns are really good at
Judo"? What's this "line of work" stuff?
Vesa Raiskila
>
> On Wed, 29 Jul 1998 13:43:40 +0300, Vesa Raiskila
> <del.r...@cc.jyu.fi> wrote:
>
> >Truly Donovan wrote:
>
> >> Your alleged "stylistic compromise" is the usual load of bunkum
> >
> >
> >"A real Finn doesn't allow himself to be hurt" and
> >"Real Finns do not allow themselves to be hurt", perhaps you should
>
> I can tell that one is singular and the other plural and that makes
> them different, but you said "stylistic compromise,"
For me it would have been a stylistic compromise, which is why I stuck
with "A real Finn does not allow himself to be hurt". "Real Finns do not
allow themselves to be hurt" would somehow have distanced the statement
from me as an individual, in addition to sounding more 'matter-of-fact'.
> implying that the
> use of imported pronouns would not be more of stylistic compromise,
What I was arguing is that until English has adopted or developed an
uncontroversial, relatively gapless and stylistically unproblematic way
to make gender-neutral references in singular, stylistic compromises are
inevitable -- especially if one wants to maintain political correctness
at all cost.
I really would be interested in hearing if you think -- or do not think
-- that constructions like
"A real Finn does not allow themselves to be hurt"
will ultimately become acceptable. Or do you think that the form
"themself" will become increasingly common?
Vesa Raiskila
>
> Vesa Raiskila wrote:
> > <...>
> >
> > "A real Finn doesn't allow himself to be hurt" and
> > "Real Finns do not allow themselves to be hurt", perhaps you should
> > consider a different line of work.
>
> significant one, certainly not significant enough to warrant
> the coining of new pronouns. But I salute your initiative anyway.
Of course, a problem with one particular sentence structure alone does
not warrant the coining of new pronouns. I don't think that any new
pronouns would have been suggested if the problem were that narrow. But
I'm sure that we both recognize that the problem is wider than that.
Or do I have to go into details?
Aaron J. Dinkin
<del.r...@cc.jyu.fi> wrote:
> I really would be interested in hearing if you think -- or do not think
> -- that constructions like
>
> "A real Finn does not allow themselves to be hurt"
>
> will ultimately become acceptable. Or do you think that the form
> "themself" will become increasingly common?
What do you mean, "themself" will become increasingly common? It's already
the usual word. As far as I know, "themselves" is not used with a singular
meaning:
"Real Finns do not allow themselves to be hurt."
"A real Finn does not allow themself to be hurt."
-Aaron J. Dinkin
Dr. Whom
Truly Donovan
<del.r...@cc.jyu.fi> wrote:
>I really would be interested in hearing if you think -- or do not think
>-- that constructions like
>
>"A real Finn does not allow themselves to be hurt"
>
>will ultimately become acceptable. Or do you think that the form
>"themself" will become increasingly common?
I think that constructions like that are already acceptable in
informal use, and the ultimate acceptability is only a matter of time.
The whining and moaning about its being "grammatically incorrect" is
sounding more and more irrational every day, given that everyone does
it in speech and it causes no difficulties in comprehension whatsoever
*and* it provides a practical and useful solution to a gaping hole in
English as she is spoke that has otherwise resisted solution except
among those who can satisfy themselves that generic hes and shes are
intrinsically elegant and must be used whenever the sex of the
referent is not known because then, assuming you share the same
cultural exposure, you know what the speaker's assumptions about the
likelihood of its being one sex or the other are.
I haven't given any thought to whether the usage will come down to
"themselves" or "themself," although I am personally attracted to the
latter form, because it leaves no doubt in anyone's mind what usage we
are eschewing thereby.
RossHoward
<del.r...@cc.jyu.fi> wrote:
>Is
>getting a new pronominal form accepted a function of one's success in
>persuading Bill Clinton to use it in his press conferences? (Now _that_
>would be a challenge, wouldn't it?)
I can see it now: "Ah deard NAHT have seck-shill rely-tions with sem,
uh, that woman, uh, Miss Lewinski."
Ross H.
Vesa Raiskila
> the idiotic sentiment, several different *stylistic* ways. The
> mere substitution of plural for singular indicates no "stylistic
> difference" to me
As is well known, one way to get around the gender-neutrality problem is
pluralization. Unfortunately, it so happens that there is no one-to-one
stylistic correspondence between a particular sentence and its
pluralized (but otherwise identical) counterpart (I think this has been
adequately covered on a.u.e. earlier).
Of course I could have formulated a totally different sentence with
vastly different stylistic implications, but I found the rather
spontaneous one I came up with quite appropriate for my purposes. (It
may have been bad style, but it was _my_ style!) Alas, it turned out not
to be as gender-neutral as I would have wished. My point was that the
only way to make it 'gender-neutral' _and_ acceptable -- without a total
rewrite -- would have been to pluralize it, which would have changed it
in ways I wouldn't have liked.
It is self-evident that there are innumerable ways to create stylistic
differences. Pluralizing a perfect but 'politically incorrect' sentence
is one such way!
Bob Cunningham
[ . . . ]
>What I was arguing is that until English has adopted or developed an
>uncontroversial, relatively gapless and stylistically unproblematic way
>to make gender-neutral references in singular, stylistic compromises are
>inevitable -- especially if one wants to maintain political correctness
>at all cost.
>I really would be interested in hearing if you think -- or do not think
>-- that constructions like
>"A real Finn does not allow themselves to be hurt"
>will ultimately become acceptable. Or do you think that the form
>"themself" will become increasingly common?
Fearless prediction:
People will continue to be turned off by ungrammatical solutions to the
gender-neutral problem. Meanwhile, some people will continue to realize
that there is only one grammatically correct way to deal with the
problem, so they will use it. Others will hear it or read it often
enough to become accustomed to it, so that the usage will spread and
become commonplace, and people will wonder why there was ever any
objection to it. When that happy day arrives, your statement will have
the form:
A real Finn does not allow himself or herself to be hurt.
Why all the fuss? When there is only one grammatically correct way to
say something, let's say it that way. Long live 'he or she', 'him or
her', and 'himself or herself'. They're beautiful because they're
right.
John Doherty
| People will continue to be turned off by ungrammatical solutions to the
| gender-neutral problem.
Maybe. Or maybe people will continue to solve the problem in a way you
consider "ungrammatical" as they have done for hundreds of years, by
using the so-called "singular they."
| Meanwhile, some people will continue to realize that there is only one
| grammatically correct way to deal with the problem, so they will use it.
Some people undoubtedly will, but lots of others won't.
| Long live 'he or she', 'him or her', and 'himself or herself'. They're
| beautiful because they're right.
Maybe. But they're also ugly because they're unnecessarily wordy, often
awkward, and well... just plain ugly.
I think this really is a deficiency of English, and that "he or she" is
anything but beautiful: it's just an ugly hack to work around a stupid
problem. We could call it a "kludge," as I understand that term.
RossHoward
wrote:
>I haven't given any thought to whether the usage will come down to
>"themselves" or "themself," although I am personally attracted to the
>latter form, because it leaves no doubt in anyone's mind what usage we
>are eschewing thereby.
Like asterisks for dirty words, you mean?
Ross H.
Aaron J. Dinkin
> Fearless prediction:
>
> People will continue to be turned off by ungrammatical solutions to the
> gender-neutral problem. Meanwhile, some people will continue to realize
> that there is only one grammatically correct way to deal with the
> problem, so they will use it. Others will hear it or read it often
> enough to become accustomed to it, so that the usage will spread and
> become commonplace, and people will wonder why there was ever any
> objection to it.
Agreed.
> When that happy day arrives, your statement will have the form:
>
> A real Finn does not allow himself or herself to be hurt.
Disagreed. The only one grammatically correct way to deal with the problem
is to use "themself". (I define "grammatically correct" the way I usually
do.) Everything in your above paragraph applies to so-called singular
"they", however.
> Why all the fuss? When there is only one grammatically correct way to
> say something, let's say it that way. Long live 'he or she', 'him or
> her', and 'himself or herself'. They're beautiful because they're
> right.
Contrapositively, they're wrong because they're ugly. I don't want to use a
single reflexive pronoun that has five syllables.
On a related note, I was listening to "The Connection" the other day and I
heard Christopher Lydon neatly dodge the problem of the clumsiness of
repeated "he-or-she"s thuswise:
"If he or she has her own web page...."
No doubt this operates on the same principle as "you or I am" - namely,
that if one word must agree with two other words connected by "or" that
don't match, it agrees with whichever is closer. I don't think you'd be
able to get away with that in writing, though.
Vesa Raiskila
>
> On Thu, 30 Jul 1998 23:28:39 +0300, Vesa Raiskila <del.r...@cc.jyu.fi>
> said:
>
> [ . . . ]
>
> >What I was arguing is that until English has adopted or developed an
> >uncontroversial, relatively gapless and stylistically unproblematic way
> >to make gender-neutral references in singular, stylistic compromises are
> >inevitable -- especially if one wants to maintain political correctness
> >at all cost.
>
> >I really would be interested in hearing if you think -- or do not think
> >-- that constructions like
>
> >"A real Finn does not allow themselves to be hurt"
>
> >will ultimately become acceptable. Or do you think that the form
> >"themself" will become increasingly common?
>
>
> People will continue to be turned off by ungrammatical solutions to the
> gender-neutral problem. Meanwhile, some people will continue to realize
> that there is only one grammatically correct way to deal with the
> problem, so they will use it. Others will hear it or read it often
> enough to become accustomed to it, so that the usage will spread and
> become commonplace, and people will wonder why there was ever any
> the form:
>
> A real Finn does not allow himself or herself to be hurt.
Why not:
"A real Finn does not allow him- or herself to be hurt."
Not that it would make the expression any less inelegant.
> Why all the fuss? When there is only one grammatically correct way to
> say something, let's say it that way. Long live 'he or she', 'him or
> her', and 'himself or herself'. They're beautiful because they're
> right.
Perhaps you have been lucky enough not to have had to wade through a
200-page dissertation with hundreds of 'he or shes', 'him or hers', 'his
or hers', and 'himself or herselfs'. After reading one or two such
monographs you might consider this solution a bit less elegant.
Furthermore, I think it is clear that 'he or she' does not suit fiction
or poetry at all... not now, not ever.
a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca
Cunningham ) wrote:
>
> A real Finn does not allow himself or herself to be hurt.
>
>Why all the fuss? When there is only one grammatically correct way to
>say something, let's say it that way. Long live 'he or she', 'him or
>her', and 'himself or herself'. They're beautiful because they're
>right.
>
Yes indeed: except that you forgot 'itself' for very small Finns.
a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca
The second President "without an accent".
Truly Donovan
Doherty) wrote:
>| Long live 'he or she', 'him or her', and 'himself or herself'. They're
>| beautiful because they're right.
>
>Maybe. But they're also ugly because they're unnecessarily wordy, often
>awkward, and well... just plain ugly.
>
>I think this really is a deficiency of English, and that "he or she" is
>anything but beautiful: it's just an ugly hack to work around a stupid
>problem. We could call it a "kludge," as I understand that term.
It may be useful to remember that the person advocating the use of "he
or she," etc., neither writes nor publishes anywhere but on Usenet,
and thus hasn't any need to consider the impact of his style on his
readership or his desired readership, as evidenced by his considering
alleged grammatical correctness the overriding value. People who are
professionals at the trade tend to place the effectiveness of the
communication first.
rai...@cc.jyu.fi
tr...@lunemere.com wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Jul 1998 23:28:39 +0300, Vesa Raiskila
> <del.r...@cc.jyu.fi> wrote:
>
> >I really would be interested in hearing if you think -- or do not think
> >-- that constructions like
> >
> >"A real Finn does not allow themselves to be hurt"
> >
> >will ultimately become acceptable. Or do you think that the form
> >"themself" will become increasingly common?
> I think that constructions like that are already acceptable in
> informal use, and the ultimate acceptability is only a matter of time.
I'm surprised to hear that some people would actually say "A real [X] does not
allow themselves...".
When I first heard "Tell everyone that they..." (or something like that) some
15 years ago, it didn't sound very strange or unnatural, but "A real Finn
does not allow themselves to..." sounds ugly, no matter how many times I say
it.
Vesa
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Vesa Raiskila
> When that happy day arrives, your statement will have
> the form:
> A real Finn does not allow himself or herself to be hurt.
> Why all the fuss? When there is only one grammatically correct way to
> say something, let's say it that way. Long live 'he or she', 'him or
> her', and 'himself or herself'.
Bob, what made you suddenly interrupt your promising experimentation
with the aesthetically much more pleasing singular gender-neutral
alternative? Was it Reinhold's comment that everyone who uses 'se'
should be excluded from a moderated group?
But have no fear: my mercy is unlimited, and I welcome all prodigal sons
(and daughters) back to the community of the lovers of beautiful
language!
Bob Cunningham
>On Fri, 31 Jul 1998 00:37:17 -0500, jdoh...@ix.netcom.com (John
>Doherty) wrote:
>
>>| Long live 'he or she', 'him or her', and 'himself or herself'. They're
>>| beautiful because they're right.
>>
>>Maybe. But they're also ugly because they're unnecessarily wordy, often
>>awkward, and well... just plain ugly.
>>
>>I think this really is a deficiency of English, and that "he or she" is
>>anything but beautiful: it's just an ugly hack to work around a stupid
>>problem. We could call it a "kludge," as I understand that term.
>
>It may be useful to remember that the person advocating the use of "he
>or she," etc., neither writes nor publishes anywhere but on Usenet,
>and thus hasn't any need to consider the impact of his style on his
>readership or his desired readership, as evidenced by his considering
>alleged grammatical correctness the overriding value.
That's a rather striking statement; it reveals that we have in our midst
a contributor who feels no need to consider the impact of her style on
her readership when she is writing only for us unworthy netizens.
>People who are professionals at the trade tend to place the
>effectiveness of the communication first.
But only when they are trying to communicate with a readership that is
more worthy of consideration than we are? Why is it not appropriate to
try to communicate effectively regardless of the readership being
addressed?
Bob Cunningham
said:
>Bob Cunningham wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 30 Jul 1998 23:28:39 +0300, Vesa Raiskila <del.r...@cc.jyu.fi>
>> said:
>>
>> [ . . . ]
>>
>> >What I was arguing is that until English has adopted or developed an
>> >uncontroversial, relatively gapless and stylistically unproblematic way
>> >to make gender-neutral references in singular, stylistic compromises are
>> >inevitable -- especially if one wants to maintain political correctness
>> >at all cost.
>>
>> >I really would be interested in hearing if you think -- or do not think
>> >-- that constructions like
>>
>> >"A real Finn does not allow themselves to be hurt"
>>
>> >will ultimately become acceptable. Or do you think that the form
>> >"themself" will become increasingly common?
>>
>> Fearless prediction:
>>
>> People will continue to be turned off by ungrammatical solutions to the
>> gender-neutral problem. Meanwhile, some people will continue to realize
>> that there is only one grammatically correct way to deal with the
>> problem, so they will use it. Others will hear it or read it often
>> enough to become accustomed to it, so that the usage will spread and
>> become commonplace, and people will wonder why there was ever any
>> objection to it. When that happy day arrives, your statement will have
>> the form:
>>
>> A real Finn does not allow himself or herself to be hurt.
>
>Why not:
>
>"A real Finn does not allow him- or herself to be hurt."
>
>Not that it would make the expression any less inelegant.
>
>> Why all the fuss? When there is only one grammatically correct way to
>> say something, let's say it that way. Long live 'he or she', 'him or
>> her', and 'himself or herself'. They're beautiful because they're
>> right.
>
>Perhaps you have been lucky enough not to have had to wade through a
>200-page dissertation with hundreds of 'he or shes', 'him or hers', 'his
>or hers', and 'himself or herselfs'. After reading one or two such
>monographs you might consider this solution a bit less elegant.
Please consider the possibility that in a typical one of those
dissertations there may be other three- or four-syllable set phrases
that appear more often than 'he or she' and that are just as cumbersome,
but that you find less objectionable because you're more familiar with
them.
My point, which admittedly was more that of a devil's advocate than of a
true believer, was that if 'he or she' is used often enough, people will
gradually become accustomed to it and it will no longer seem ugly.
>Furthermore, I think it is clear that 'he or she' does not suit fiction
>or poetry at all... not now, not ever.
I would agree with that statement if it were stated less positively,
which could be done by stopping after the word 'poetry'. The 'at all'
seems too sweeping, and the 'not ever' seems too bold. As for the 'not
now', it would be somewhat redundant if it were tacked on by itself.
Anyway, I think I could better express my true feeling about the
gender-neutral-pronoun problem by saying that I like your 'se', 'sem',
and 'ses' better than anything I've seen proposed. The only thing wrong
with them, in my opinion, is that they are so new that they draw
attention from what is being said to how it's being said. No one can
use them comfortably until everyone else does. (Apologies to the spirit
of Yogi Berra.)
By the way, 'draw attention from what is being said to how it is being
said' expresses a simple concept that has appeared more than once in
AUE. Is there any way to express it in fewer than seventeen syllables
(beyond contracting 'what is' and 'it is')?
Maria Conlon
Bob Cunningham wrote:
>>Someone who didn't care to provide complete attributions said:
[These attributions may still be messed up]
>>>>| Long live 'he or she', 'him or her', and 'himself or herself'.
They're
>>>>| beautiful because they're right.
>>>>Maybe. But they're also ugly because they're unnecessarily wordy,
often
>>>>awkward, and well... just plain ugly.
>>>>I think this really is a deficiency of English, and that "he or
she" is
>>>>anything but beautiful: it's just an ugly hack to work around a
stupid
>>>>problem. We could call it a "kludge," as I understand that term.
>>>It may be useful to remember that the person advocating the use of
"he
>>>or she," etc., neither writes nor publishes anywhere but on Usenet,
>>>and thus hasn't any need to consider the impact of his style on his
>>>readership or his desired readership, as evidenced by his
considering
>>>alleged grammatical correctness the overriding value.
[Bob said]
>>That's a rather striking statement; it reveals that we have in our
midst
>>a contributor who feels no need to consider the impact of her style
on
>>her readership when she is writing only for us unworthy netizens.
>>>People who are professionals at the trade tend to place the
>>>effectiveness of the communication first.
[Bob again]
>>But only when they are trying to communicate with a readership that
is
>>more worthy of consideration than we are? Why is it not appropriate
to
>>try to communicate effectively regardless of the readership being
>>addressed?
[Polar]
>The key word here is "effectively". If I try to communicate with an
>Epsilon Minus phone answerer or store clerk using my "normal"
>vocabulary and syntax, I'm likely to encounter (1) puzzlement (2)
>delay, (3) downright hostility.
Bob was talking about writing to an audience of newsgroup readers (as
opposed to an audience of book readers, magazine readers, manual
readers, etc.). He is saying that newsgroup readers are just as worthy
of efforts toward effective communication as are readers of other
materials that may be produced by a writer. I explain this
(unnecessarily, I think) only because Polar's response seems to be
about conversation with (or notes to?) phone answerers or store
clerks.
Of course, even with careful attention to communicating effectively in
newsgroup postings, one may still encounter (1) puzzlement, (2) delay,
or (3) downright hostility. ;-)
Btw, phone answerers and store clerks may be just as "up" on
vocabulary and syntax as anyone else. Occupation does not necessarily
indicate one's level of "smartitude."^
^ I heard "smartitude" on a TV show about 10 years ago. I think it was
Family Ties -- or whichever show included a daughter named Mallory.
Michael J. Fox was in it, playing "Alex P. Keaton." I love the word.
Maria Conlon
rai...@cc.jyu.fi
> said:
> >Perhaps you have been lucky enough not to have had to wade through a
> >200-page dissertation with hundreds of 'he or shes', 'him or hers', 'his
> >or hers', and 'himself or herselfs'. After reading one or two such
> >monographs you might consider this solution a bit less elegant.
> Please consider the possibility that in a typical one of those
> dissertations there may be other three- or four-syllable set phrases
> that appear more often than 'he or she' and that are just as cumbersome,
> but that you find less objectionable because you're more familiar with
> them.
On the other hand, pronouns should be short and inconspicuous, because they
are mere 'placeholders', whereas it is less of a problem if what is actually
being written about must be repeatedly expressed using three- or
four-syllable phrases.
> My point, which admittedly was more that of a devil's advocate than of a
> true believer, was that if 'he or she' is used often enough, people will
> gradually become accustomed to it and it will no longer seem ugly.
And I was just asking if it is possible for an abomination like "himself or
herself" to stop seeming ugly :)
> Anyway, I think I could better express my true feeling about the
> gender-neutral-pronoun problem by saying that I like your 'se', 'sem',
> and 'ses' better than anything I've seen proposed. The only thing wrong
> with them, in my opinion, is that they are so new that they draw
> attention from what is being said to how it's being said. No one can
> use them comfortably until everyone else does.
At least 15 different posters have used it on a.u.e. during this summer alone
(quite a feat for a non-standard pronoun), so it seems your criterion of
comfort will soon be fulfilled, albeit only 'locally' (at first)!
> By the way, 'draw attention from what is being said to how it is being
> said' expresses a simple concept that has appeared more than once in
> AUE. Is there any way to express it in fewer than seventeen syllables
> (beyond contracting 'what is' and 'it is')?
'distract the reader'?
Peter Moylan
>^ I heard "smartitude" on a TV show about 10 years ago. I think it was
>Family Ties -- or whichever show included a daughter named Mallory.
>Michael J. Fox was in it, playing "Alex P. Keaton." I love the word.
Well enough documented. You have a good remembery.
--
Peter Moylan pe...@ee.newcastle.edu.au
Maria Conlon
Peter Moylan wrote in message
>Maria Conlon wrote:
>
>>^ I heard "smartitude" on a TV show about 10 years ago. I think it was
>>Family Ties -- or whichever show included a daughter named Mallory.
>>Michael J. Fox was in it, playing "Alex P. Keaton." I love the word.
>
>Well enough documented. You have a good remembery.
>
can outforget just about anyone.
PS. I remember "Alex P. Keaton" because we got a kitten about that time
and I wanted to name it "Alex P. Kitten." My son refused (it was his
kitten) but said plain "Alex" was okay.
Maria Conlon
a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca
<mcon...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>PS. I remember "Alex P. Keaton" because we got a kitten about that time
>and I wanted to name it "Alex P. Kitten." My son refused (it was his
>kitten) but said plain "Alex" was okay.
>
>Maria Conlon
>
Unisex too.
Mark Schaefer
> In article <35c52ce9....@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
> > Anyway, I think I could better express my true feeling about the
> > gender-neutral-pronoun problem by saying that I like your 'se', 'sem',
> > and 'ses' better than anything I've seen proposed. The only thing wrong
> > with them, in my opinion, is that they are so new that they draw
> > attention from what is being said to how it's being said. No one can
> > use them comfortably until everyone else does.
>
> At least 15 different posters have used it on a.u.e. during this summer alone
> (quite a feat for a non-standard pronoun), so it seems your criterion of
> comfort will soon be fulfilled, albeit only 'locally' (at first)!
>
I would have to object to 'se' etc. merely because we already have a 3rd
person gender neutral pronoun in English that is in everyday usage:
"they." As I have suggested a number of times, we can mollify the purists
by spelling it with an 'a' "thay" but prounoucing it identically to "they"
(other forms would be "thair" "tham"/"them"). I like this solution
because it has the virtue of already being in current use. And lest
anyone object to the use of "are" as a singular verb, let me remind tham
that it is already being used for the second person singular "you are."
-- MaS
Mark Schaefer--------------------------------------------------------
Foundry Democracy Project |"The strength of a political system
Foundry United Methodist | depends on the full and willing
1500 16th Street, N.W. | participation of its citizens."
Washington, D.C. 20036 | Social Principles,
(202) 265-8017 | Methodist Book of Discipline
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Taxation without representation is tyranny."
* * *Support Voting Representation for the District of Columbia* * *
---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://home.dn.net/~schaefer/fdp.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------
James Follett
s.m...@ix.netcom.com "Polar" writes:
>>But only when they are trying to communicate with a readership that is
>>more worthy of consideration than we are? Why is it not appropriate to
>>try to communicate effectively regardless of the readership being
>>addressed?
>
>The key word here is "effectively". If I try to communicate with an
>Epsilon Minus phone answerer or store clerk using my "normal"
>vocabulary and syntax, I'm likely to encounter (1) puzzlement (2)
>delay, (3) downright hostility.
A rare note of patronage from Polar that suggests that she eschews
plain English.
FAWLTY TOWERS GUEST: Would it be possible for arrangements to be
emplaced so that I might partake of the viewing of this televisual
feast?
BASIL: (Baffled expression clears) Oh -- you mean you want to watch
television? For a moment I thought that there was something wrong with
you.
(quoted from an unreliable memory)
I wish I knew what style really was so that I could hang it on the wall
as a reference. I write to please myself and hope that others are also
pleased. Being a simple sort of bloke, I always go for simplicity.
Churchill believed in it and could achieve it; I merely strive for it.
I'm not aware that I change my style unless I'm contributing to a
journal or magazine that has a particular house style.
I often wish that Sir Ernest Gowers was cited more often on this
newsgroup rather than Wilson Follett. Too many of the latter-named
putting pen to paper, or, rather: pixel to phosphorus.
--
James Follett -- novelist http://www.davew.demon.co.uk
Gwen Lenker
>On Mon, 03 Aug 98 00:49:59 GMT, ja...@marage.demon.co.uk (James
>Follett) wrote:
>
>>In article <35c7456f...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>
>> s.m...@ix.netcom.com "Polar" writes:
>>
>>>The key word here is "effectively". If I try to communicate with
an
>>>Epsilon Minus phone answerer or store clerk using my "normal"
>>>vocabulary and syntax, I'm likely to encounter (1) puzzlement (2)
>>>delay, (3) downright hostility.
>>
>>A rare note of patronage from Polar that suggests that she eschews
>>plain English.
>
>
>[Perhaps you overlooked or didn't receive my follow-up:
>
>"The comment was not meant as an elitist sneer, which you and
>perhaps others may have taken it for. The plain fact remains,
>however, that jobs like store clerks (except at fancier stores) and
>phone answerers are more often held by people who are not "up" on
>vocabulary and syntax. This says nothing about their level of
>"smartitude" (love it!) in any other aspect of life."]
If I should happen to encounter the phrase "Epsilon Minus" in the
future, then, would it be safe for me to assume that it refers only to
knowledge of vocabulary and syntax?
(Serious question -- I'm not "up" on this aspect of vocabulary.)
Curtis Cameron
>I would have to object to 'se' etc. merely because we already have a 3rd
>person gender neutral pronoun in English that is in everyday usage:
>"they."
To each their own.
Yuck!
-Curtis Cameron
WGS-84 33.033N, 96.724W
Garry J. Vass
<gale...@worldnet.att.net> writes
>If I should happen to encounter the phrase "Epsilon Minus" in the
>future, then, would it be safe for me to assume that it refers only to
>knowledge of vocabulary and syntax?
>
>(Serious question -- I'm not "up" on this aspect of vocabulary.)
No. Serious answer: 'Epsilon Minus' refers to the amount of oxygen and
nutrients in the cloning tank. The level receiving the most oxygen and
nutrients were 'Alpha'. Then 'Beta', and so on.
Each class also received programming according to their level after they
were 'born'.
This was done to assure that everyone would be content.
Kind regards,
--
Garry J. Vass
John Doherty
| "The comment was not meant as an elitist sneer
Of course, it's entirely possible for things to be intended one way and
perceived as another, and usually, even endless argument can't resolve
the difference between what was meant and what was perceived.
FWIW, I perceived the statement in question as an elitist sneer, and I
don't really care what you think you intended, since experience suggests
that people frequently intend things they won't own up to, and that in
some cases, people say things with inescapable conclusions that they
don't even realize they're implying.
That is, you may not have intended any elitist sneer, and you may not have
even realized that your phrasing might imply one, but one was perceived
anyway. Is this a problem with the perception of your statement, with the expression of it, or is it just not a problem? It's got to be one of the
three.
John Doherty
| To reiterate above "elitist" disclaimer, a snot-nosed clerk who won't
| lift a finger to help a customer could get out on the dance floor that
| night and display admirably naturalistic body movement.
And why exactly is it that you appreciate the ability to dance so little
that your language use disregards it completely, but you value the ability
to perform as a clerk so much that you'll resort to derogatory language to
describe people who don't happen to meet your expectations in that regard?
That is, your statement suggests that a person might have an "admirably
naturalistic body movement" of which you would take no notice, but if
that same person couldn't make change or otherwise suit your idiosyncratic
preferences in some commercial way, you would feel perfectly justified in
calling them "snot-nosed." Why do you suppose that is?
It seems to me that your statement implies that Twyla Tharp can dance as
well she can, or Carlos Santana can play guitar as well as he can, but if
either can't run a cash register to your satisfaction, you think they're snot-nosed idiots, and I have to say that I disagree quite strongly.
There are plenty of people who can do things more worthwhile than meeting
your idiosyncratic expectations in commercial transactions, and if you
can't find a better criterion by which to judge people than that, then
you're the one who's losing.
Elitism never helped anybody. Give it up.
Truly Donovan
Doherty) wrote:
>Elitism never helped anybody. Give it up.
But, but, but, but -- if you haven't managed to rank everyone you
encounter according to their value as a human being, how can you tell
that you're a superior person?
Simon R. Hughes
> On Mon, 03 Aug 1998 22:02:01 -0500, jdoh...@ix.netcom.com (John
> Doherty) wrote:
>
>
> >Elitism never helped anybody. Give it up.
>
> But, but, but, but -- if you haven't managed to rank everyone you
> encounter according to their value as a human being, how can you tell
> that you're a superior person?
If you don't know *that*, I'm afraid that I cannot help you.
--
Simon R. Hughes
| Mail not sent directly to | http://skrik.home.ml.org |
| my reply address will be | |
| deleted without being read. |(Last updated 1st August 1998)|
Gary Williams, Business Services Accounting
writes:
>But, but, but, but -- if you haven't managed to rank everyone you
>encounter according to their value as a human being, how can you tell
>that you're a superior person?
It is not necessary to rank them relative to one another; only relative to me.
Gary Williams
Sam Melton
>In article <35cc02b7...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, s.m...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
>| To reiterate above "elitist" disclaimer, a snot-nosed clerk who won't
>| lift a finger to help a customer could get out on the dance floor that
>| night and display admirably naturalistic body movement.
>
>And why exactly is it that you appreciate the ability to dance so little
>that your language use disregards it completely, but you value the ability
>to perform as a clerk so much that you'll resort to derogatory language to
>describe people who don't happen to meet your expectations in that regard?
>
This seems like a mighty nasty screed to say effectively what Polar
was saying. Perjorative comments may never be justified, but if they
are to be employed, it seems reasonable to employ them with respect to
observed performance. It is certainly better than employing them
based on imputed characteristics derived from, say, sex or national
origin. If Carlos Santana is my clerk, and he doesn't perform to my
reasonable expectations, am I not justified in belittling him (if any
belittlement can ever be justified) as a clerk? I make no comment at
all on his ability to play guitar, or on his basic humanity. Am I
required to excuse his failure as a clerk because he *is* talented in
other areas? Where Polar may be fairly criticized is in the
assumption that incompetent clerks are incompetent due to lack of
ambition or ability or both. As with many assumptions, it is
reasonable as a macro, but subject to multiple exceptions. And I
think Polar clearly recognized this and tried to disclaim it a bit.
That apparently set you off, but I'm not exactly sure why.
V/R
Sam Melton, who can't believe he's *defending* Polar
James Follett
jdoh...@ix.netcom.com "John Doherty" writes:
>Elitism never helped anybody. Give it up.
Elitism is wonderful! It makes the world go around! Elitism is the
great propeller of the ascent of Man. Elitism is owt other than an
expression of self-confidence -- the belief that I can boldly go
where no one has gone before because I'm superior. Elitism is our
tribe can build a better henge than your tribe; elitism is our cricket
club is better than your cricket club; our company/country is better than
your company/country; our culture is superior to your culture; my books
are better-written than your books. Elitism puts spurs on competition and
a cutting edge on good, old-fashioned rivalry -- the determination to do
things better than than those twerps down the road. The result is the
creation of wealth, the expansion of knowledge, and lengthening strides
of civilisation.
On a personal level I happen to believe that I'm superior to a gum-
chewing, baseball-cap-wearing, bingo-playing, Sun-reading, pierced
ear, pierced brain, Butlins-holidaying, work-skiving, McDonald-
munching, tattooed snothead whose skills are limited to connecting a
Playstation to his TV or hanging a furry die on his Escort's mirror. I
daresay I'm even a racist because I really do believe in the superiority
of the Judiac-Christian culture over all others.
My only hatred is that of injustice.
There -- I've probably shocked a few sensibilities but I'm older enough
to accept what I am, not be afraid of the truth, and not give a gnat's
fart in a wind tunnel what other people think of me or what they call me.
My arrogance is the result of many years assiduous cultivation -- I beg
leave to enjoy it.
Mike Connally
> My arrogance is the result of many years assiduous cultivation -- I beg
> leave to enjoy it.
I've snipped most of your rant, but sympathise with all of it.
Well said.
--
Mike Connally Reading, England
'All great truths begin as blasphemies.' - George Bernard Shaw
N.Mitchum
-----
> Elitism is wonderful! It makes the world go around! Elitism is the
> great propeller of the ascent of Man. Elitism is owt other than an
>
> On a personal level I happen to believe that I'm superior to a gum-
> daresay I'm even a racist because I really do believe in the superiority
> of the Judiac-Christian culture over all others.
>
> My only hatred is that of injustice.
You ought to give up your only hatred, no matter how cherished it
is, else you'll be in deep trouble when you discover that your
elitism in unjust to everyone but you and yours. Now, if you can
embrace elitism and injustice alike, you'll be in clover, morally.
--- NM (Mailers: drop HINTS)
N.Mitchum
------
> >But, but, but, but -- if you haven't managed to rank everyone you
> >encounter according to their value as a human being, how can you tell
> >that you're a superior person?
>
> It is not necessary to rank them relative to one another; only relative to me.
Say, bub, where do *you* come into the equation? Plainly you're
too self-centered to be making such judgments. What really
matters is only how to rank others relative to *me*.