Standard vs Non-standard English
Gary Eickmeier
the prescriptivists and descriptivists and see if we can come to any
conclusions or way of going forward.
I am new to all this, I haven't studied the subject as extensively as
anyone out there, just what I have been told in this group. Some poor
soul will come up with a grammar point, and then a descriptivist will
pop in with the "alternate version." We've got to accept all of the
possible other "registers" of the language, or dialects, or usages, or
even AAVE. There is no case any more. "They" and "their" are singular.
"I" is accusative (objective). Each person is welcome to make up his
(their) own rules in his head (wouldn't "their head" be a funny one!).
So here is my take. Let's step back from the entire discussion for a
moment and ask ourselves how we might want to proceed. I'm thinking
that if there are no rules, we might as well hang it up and not have
this group. I am personally interested in discussing the various
errors and eccentricities that you see out there with people who
understand the correct use of the language and care about it. I think
that most of the rules of English are logical and help us communicate
more effectively. I think the descriptivist arguments are just
spoilers, confusing the issue and not on point. Like, how do we want
to teach the language to our kids? Standard or dialect English? How do
we want to edit newspapers and other books? How do we want our
newscasters to talk? Do we want to EDUCATE the masses to a standard,
or let them all relapse into fifedoms of peculiar local usages all
over the world? I understand the differences between British English
and American, and that is fine, but it also doesn't violate case and
number (I know, I know, there are exceptions), and most other normal
rules. We can communicate just fine. I can even understand southern.
But unless you are doing dialogue in dialect for a purpose, you should
probably write and speak in standard English.
So we could have an understanding in this group that what we are
talking about most of the time is standard English, or we could put a
shorthand notation such as SE at the beginning or in the title of a
post in which we don't want to be bothered with all of the obscuration
of the descriptivists, sort of telling them to just "skip it." It
would be easier than trying to put which dialect or rule or register
or whatever other nonsense qualifier we are talking about every time
we post a simple comment.
So you say something like, "I just read an article in which the author
said 'People should speak in the style of whomever is standing around
them.' This should be 'whoever' (SE)." Then there is no
misunderstanding of how you are approaching the subject, and the
subsequent comments will refer to standard English only, and we won't
get off on all of these tangents.
Your comments?
Gary Eickmeier
Dena Jo
> So here is my take. Let's step back from the entire discussion for a
> moment and ask ourselves how we might want to proceed.
Gary,
I guess I'm lost as to why we need a way to proceed. This is a newsgroup.
It's the equivalent of a pub in cyberspace. In this particular pub, the
patrons tend to talk about language, but many also come to socialize. It
doesn't take more than a few seconds to decide one doesn't want to continue
reading a particular post. On the other hand, I like hearing perspectives
different from my own.
Even if they are wrong.
:-)
--
Dena Jo
Dave Swindell
<geic...@tampabay.rr.com> writes
>I just want to attempt a discussion on the frequent clashes between
>the prescriptivists and descriptivists and see if we can come to any
>conclusions or way of going forward.
>
>
>So here is my take. Let's step back from the entire discussion for a
>moment and ask ourselves how we might want to proceed.
<SNIP>
> Like, how do we want
>to teach the language to our kids? Standard or dialect English? How do
>we want to edit newspapers and other books? How do we want our
>newscasters to talk? Do we want to EDUCATE the masses to a standard,
>or let them all relapse into fifedoms of peculiar local usages all
>over the world? I understand the differences between British English
>and American, and that is fine, but it also doesn't violate case and
>number (I know, I know, there are exceptions), and most other normal
>rules.
<SNIP>
>
>So we could have an understanding in this group that what we are
>talking about most of the time is standard English
<SNIP>
I'm afraid that your request has itself the potential to generate much
argument on what "standard English" is.
Within any country you will find variations in the language that are
perfectly acceptable to most other dialect groups, but which
nevertheless represent differences between these dialects. This is
before you even begin to address the different national dialects of
English, such as US, Australian, Canadian, Indian subcontinent etc, and
the acceptable variations from the mouths of people for whom English is
not their first tongue. So the "standard" should embrace these
variations, which brings into question the nature of a "standard".
Then the "acceptable" range of dialect, accent, idiom and grammatical
usage changes with the generations, and even within a lifetime, so any
static definition of the "standard" will rapidly become outdated, and
thus no longer a "standard".
The essence of language is that it is forever changing, and the comments
made in this NG wonderfully illustrate this.
Perhaps the best source for such an enterprise is to look at text books
used to teach the language to foreign students. These target the most
common, basic, "logical(1)" aspects of the language, but they are always
by necessity incomplete, leaving the student to learn the rest of the
language and social context once they have the basics.
On the whole my vote is against the attempt.
(1) Rather than "logic", my experience is that language demonstrates
what I have come to call "perverse logic". This is a barely defineable
"feel" that comes from familiarity with a language and a society, and
that leads you to use the language effectively (properly?) in new
situations that you have never yet come across.
--
Dave dswindel...@tcp.co.uk Remove my gerbil for email replies.
Bike's are bosh, PC's are pointless, and the 1990's are nuts!
Bikes are great, PCs are super, and the 1990s are the time to be!
Save the apostrophe! Get 'em right! If in doubt, leave 'em out!!
Mark Wallace
> I just want to attempt a discussion on the frequent clashes
> between the prescriptivists and descriptivists and see if we can
> come to any conclusions or way of going forward.
<snip>
Has anyone got a bargepole I can borrow, so I can not touch this thread with
it?
--
Mark Wallace
-----------------------------------------------------
For the intelligent approach to nasty humour, visit:
The Anglo-American Humour (humor) Site
http://humorpages.virtualave.net/mainmenu.htm
-----------------------------------------------------
Harvey V
> I just want to attempt a discussion on the frequent clashes
> between the prescriptivists and descriptivists and see if we can
> come to any conclusions or way of going forward.
>
> I am new to all this, I haven't studied the subject as extensively
> as anyone out there, just what I have been told in this group.
> Some poor soul will come up with a grammar point, and then a
> descriptivist will pop in with the "alternate version." We've got
> to accept all of the possible other "registers" of the language,
> or dialects, or usages, or even AAVE. There is no case any more.
> "They" and "their" are singular. "I" is accusative (objective).
> Each person is welcome to make up his (their) own rules in his
> head (wouldn't "their head" be a funny one!).
>
> So here is my take. Let's step back from the entire discussion for
> a moment and ask ourselves how we might want to proceed. I'm
> thinking that if there are no rules, we might as well hang it up
> and not have this group.
I have yet to read any serious descriptivist who has said "there are no
rules", rather than "different dialects have different rules, and no
set of rules is superior to any other set of rules". (No one disputes
the existence of rules: I've seen no one who would maintain that that
statement could equally be rendered as "Existence disputes one no of
rules the".)
The descriptivist position merely states that -- by tautological
definition -- the rules for different dialects are different. Not
"more correct", or "less correct", or "eccentric": just different.
That a "Standard English" exists is obvious; the dispute between the
prescriptive/descriptive approaches, however, has to do with whether or
not "standard" equates to "better" or "more correct" than "non-
standard".
> I am personally interested in discussing the various errors and
> eccentricities that you see out there with people who understand
> the correct use of the language and care about it.
It therefore seems reasonable to conclude that you would maintain that
"standard English" is "non-erroneous", "non-eccentric" and "correct".
Many of us don't accept that. Standard English may -- arguably -- be
the most widely disseminated form of English, but that doesn't make it
"more correct".
You see, that is where the only real difference lies. Saying that the
descriptivist position says "there are no rules" is either misguided or
disingenuous.
-snip-
> Your comments?
It's a sterile argument unless the topic of the argument is agreed:
not whether "rules is good/rules is bad", but whether "these rules
produce more correct English than those rules".
And that argument will not, I think, be a very fruitful one.
--
Cheers,
Harvey
For e-mail, harvey becomes whhvs.
John Dean
> I just want to attempt a discussion on the frequent clashes between
> the prescriptivists and descriptivists and see if we can come to any
> conclusions or way of going forward.
>
> So we could have an understanding in this group that what we are
> talking about most of the time is standard English, or we could put a
> shorthand notation such as SE at the beginning or in the title of a
> post in which we don't want to be bothered with all of the obscuration
> of the descriptivists, sort of telling them to just "skip it."
<snip>
> Your comments?
Comment One - If you think there are 'rules of English' you should start by
indicating where they might be found. I can find the rules of baseball and
the rules of cricket, but I do not know where these 'rules of English' might
be found. This may sound flippant but I assure you it is not. Far from there
being any 'rules of English', I don't believe there are universally
recognised rules for any part of English - not grammar, not spelling, not
nuffin. And unless we can agree what these rules are, there's no point
attempting to say 'This sentence / phrase / word breaks the rules in the
following way ...'
Comment Two - What is 'Standard English'? I live in England, have done most
of my life, have lived in different parts of the Country and have travelled
around it. I neither see nor hear 'Standard English'. There is RP, but that
is a pronunciation used by a minority and favoured by a slightly larger
minority. Beyond that is a wealth of dialect and variation. Travel beyond
the boundaries of England to Scotland , Wales and Ireland and the diversity
becomes more apparent. Hop across the Atlantic or head East to any part of
the former Commonwealth and diversity increases exponentially. This group is
concerned with 'usage' and, as far as I am concerned, that means all types
of usage of all types of English.
--
John Dean
Oxford
De-frag to reply
John Smith
>
> I just want to attempt a discussion on the frequent clashes between
> the prescriptivists and descriptivists and see if we can come to any
No need.
You're still nursing a lot of false premises.
There are no "the prescriptivists and descriptivists". It's like
dividing the world into short-divisionists and long-devisionists.
Each approach has its place and its use, and only people who are
profoundly ignorant about the nature of human language consider
themselves just one or just the other.
\\P. Schultz
Robert Lieblich
>On Wed, 08 Jan 2003 17:38:51 GMT, Gary Eickmeier wrote
[ ... ]
> The descriptivist position merely states that -- by tautological
> definition -- the rules for different dialects are different. Not
> "more correct", or "less correct", or "eccentric": just different.
>
> That a "Standard English" exists is obvious; the dispute between the
> prescriptive/descriptive approaches, however, has to do with whether or
> not "standard" equates to "better" or "more correct" than "non-
> standard".
>
> > I am personally interested in discussing the various errors and
> > eccentricities that you see out there with people who understand
> > the correct use of the language and care about it.
>
> It therefore seems reasonable to conclude that you would maintain that
> "standard English" is "non-erroneous", "non-eccentric" and "correct".
>
> Many of us don't accept that. Standard English may -- arguably -- be
> the most widely disseminated form of English, but that doesn't make it
> "more correct".
>
> You see, that is where the only real difference lies. Saying that the
> descriptivist position says "there are no rules" is either misguided or
> disingenuous.
Me, too.
I'd like to add a few words (sentences, paragraphs) about "error."
What's an "error" is dependent on what you mean by "correct." It's
certainly not an error in AAVE to say "He bad," but that is a clear
error in Standard American English (even if we cannot agree entirely
on exactly what the rules of SAE are).
We are often asked in this group and AUE to comment on particular
usages. Being a lawyer, I have a tendency to try for a complete
answer, or at least an approximation to one, so you will sometimes
find me saying things like: "This particular usage would be
considered incorrect according to traditional English grammar, but
it is often heard in informal spoken Standard American English." I
may comment that something is literally grammatical but unidiomatic,
or that it is would only be heard, if at all, in some dialect I
don't know. In other words, careful posters are aware of nuances
and try to deal with appropriate variants in their postings.
Which means, I guess, that we are already doing more or less what
Gary wants us to do.
--
Bob Lieblich
And we thank you for your support
Gary Eickmeier
John Smith wrote:
> You're still nursing a lot of false premises.
>
> There are no "the prescriptivists and descriptivists". It's like
> dividing the world into short-divisionists and long-devisionists.
>
> Each approach has its place and its use, and only people who are
> profoundly ignorant about the nature of human language consider
> themselves just one or just the other.
Hey, "prescriptivists and descriptivists" are not my terms; I learned
them here, from you people. I didn't know I was any kind of "ist"
until I came here.
I guess I lost this one. I will just press on with my comments using
standard English, and if some sleeper cell of descriptivists is
activated, I will respond ad hoc. I will also try to learn more about
the subject.
BTW, someone asked where these rules of English can be found. I
thought that (besides English textbooks) they were printed in the back
of most good, large dictionaries.
Thanks for all of your comments,
Gary Eickmeier
Steven
the keyboard.
"Mark Wallace" <mwal...@dse.nl> wrote in message
news:avi2fa$fl1cn$1...@ID-51325.news.dfncis.de...
John Smith
>
> John Smith wrote:
>
> > You're still nursing a lot of false premises.
> >
> > There are no "the prescriptivists and descriptivists". It's like
> > dividing the world into short-divisionists and long-devisionists.
> >
> > Each approach has its place and its use, and only people who are
> > profoundly ignorant about the nature of human language consider
> > themselves just one or just the other.
>
> Hey, "prescriptivists and descriptivists" are not my terms; I learned
Well, you didn't learn here that they were mutually exclusive. You made
that part up.
\\P. Schultz
Steven
follow convention? For example, let us use the '-' in lieu of the '+' (as
we've seen done to "literally"). If these terms became interchangeable, then
the whole language would suffer. I believe the same is true for English.
Math language is also a descriptivist language. It is derived from common
consensus. Yet, no one will argue that terms cannot be used interchangeably.
There are areas of contention within this theoretical science. Methodologies
between cultures in the maths sciences are different. Yet, someone who
studies math intensively in Germany, can read the problems provided by an
American or a Spaniard. Is language less important than math, when it comes
to needing precise terminology? If the majority of people did use math
symbols interchangeably, and did not know how to use the language of math,
would their efforts become less legitimate? Absolutely. I say that there is
little difference in English.
Robert Lieblich
[Still top-posting. Tsk]
>
> Just a quick thought; can you imagine if mathematicians decided not to
> follow convention? For example, let us use the '-' in lieu of the '+' (as
> we've seen done to "literally"). If these terms became interchangeable, then
> the whole language would suffer. I believe the same is true for English.
But math is not a "language" in the same sense English is. The
concept of "proof," which is one of the fundamental and necessary
attributes of mathematics, suffices to differentiate mathematics
from human language. The analogy simply doesn't work.
Anyway, if you do a little research you'll discover that different
symbols are used in different countries for the same concept.
Americans use a dot verticially justified to the bottom of the line
-- . -- as a decimal point. In most of Europe the same dot is
centered on the line. A dot centered on the line in the US means
multiply what precedes the dot by what follows it. Mathematicians
have to make little mental adjustments to take such differences into
account.
> Math language is also a descriptivist language.
Not really.
> It is derived from common consensus.
I'm not at all sure that that is true. Newton and Leibniz invented
the symbols of the calculus out of whole cloth, and people mostly
went along, but that doesn't strike me as "deriving from commmon
consensns." I'll leave it to a mathematician to explicate this
more fully.
> Yet, no one will argue that terms cannot be used interchangeably.
"Cannot." Didn't you mean "can"? Not that you're right either
way. The truth is somewhere in the middle. See my discussion above
of the decimal dot.
> There are areas of contention within this theoretical science.
Mathematics is not a science, nor it is theoretical.
> Methodologies between cultures in the maths sciences are different. Yet, someone who
> studies math intensively in Germany, can read the problems provided by an
> American or a Spaniard.
What are you talking about?
> Is language less important than math, when it comes
> to needing precise terminology?
Yes. Math cannot exist without precise terminology. Language is
but a series of approximations.
> If the majority of people did use math
> symbols interchangeably, and did not know how to use the language of math,
> would their efforts become less legitimate? Absolutely.
The majority of people do not know how to use the language of math
beyond perhaps long division. So your premise is false. How many
people do you think can recognize something like the integral sign
or the sigma of summation? But even if it were true, this would be
like arguing that if you serve chicken you won't be eating beef.
What of it?
> I say that there is little difference in English.
Between what and what? And if you're saying that English needs
precision the way math needs precision, then you are simply wrong.
Go read Korzybski's *Science and Sanity* and report back.
--
Bob Lieblich
Growing impatient
John Dean
all say the same thing. Which do you believe? Which do you trust? The
textbooks don't all agree. Especially when decades have elapsed between
publication of one version and another. Do you regard Strunk & White as
authoritative? Fowler? Which Edition of Fowler - one published while he was
alive or one 'revised' after his death?
I wouldn't play a backgammon tournament unless the rules were pinned on the
wall for all to see. Thus any disagreement goes to the rules. If you say, as
you have done that there are 'Rules of English' then you should be able to
say what they are and where they can be found. Specifically.
My contention is that there are no such rules. Prove me wrong by showing me
exactly where they are.
John Smith
>
> Just a quick thought; can you imagine if mathematicians decided not to
You mean like, if they decided to tie math to the fashion scene and go
with what's in vogue?
The analogy doesn't work, does it? And neither does your comparison of
math with language.
\\P. Schultz
Robert Lieblich
[ ... ]
> I wouldn't play a backgammon tournament unless the rules were pinned on the
> wall for all to see. Thus any disagreement goes to the rules. If you say, as
> you have done that there are 'Rules of English' then you should be able to
> say what they are and where they can be found. Specifically.
> My contention is that there are no such rules. Prove me wrong by showing me
> exactly where they are.
I can't prove you wrong, given your premises. Given your premises,
however, you have no business posting to this group -- or writing or
speaking English at all.
And yet you're likely to respond to this very posting.
Please feel free to add smileys where you think they are needed to
keep me from sounding like a total snot.
--
Bob Lieblich
Waiting to see
Steven
"Robert Lieblich" <Robert....@Verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3E1DF4E0...@Verizon.net...
> Steven wrote:
>
> [Still top-posting. Tsk]
> >
> > Just a quick thought; can you imagine if mathematicians decided not to
> > follow convention? For example, let us use the '-' in lieu of the '+'
(as
> > we've seen done to "literally"). If these terms became interchangeable,
then
> > the whole language would suffer. I believe the same is true for English.
>
> But math is not a "language" in the same sense English is. The
> concept of "proof," which is one of the fundamental and necessary
> attributes of mathematics, suffices to differentiate mathematics
> from human language. The analogy simply doesn't work.
>
> Anyway, if you do a little research you'll discover that different
> symbols are used in different countries for the same concept.
> Americans use a dot verticially justified to the bottom of the line
> -- . -- as a decimal point. In most of Europe the same dot is
> centered on the line. A dot centered on the line in the US means
> multiply what precedes the dot by what follows it. Mathematicians
> have to make little mental adjustments to take such differences into
> account.
>
These symbols are interchangable, just as synonyms often are in English.
Thank-you for supporting my argument in this sense. However, one cannot
mistake a - for a +. When one begins using antonyms (as was the case in the
"literal" debate) to describe a function, then the language becomes
unstable, and is weakened. Can you imagine if one had to know the area from
which the problem was written, in order to understand the meaning of the
mathematical string? If in California, 3+4=-1, we would find it unacceptable
language. The same holds true for using the word "literally" to mean
"almost". Accuracy in English is necessary if we wish to communicate with
others who share the same language (i.e., between England, U.S.A., and
Canada).
> > Math language is also a descriptivist language.
>
> Not really.
It is a matter of consensus. This much is clear.
> > It is derived from common consensus.
>
> I'm not at all sure that that is true. Newton and Leibniz invented
> the symbols of the calculus out of whole cloth, and people mostly
> went along, but that doesn't strike me as "deriving from commmon
> consensns." I'll leave it to a mathematician to explicate this
> more fully.
>
Words like "television", "psychoanalysis", and "radio" came out because
their inventors called them these things. But, this sort of thing does not
always hold true. Certainly, when Crapper invented the toilet, he likely
hadn't imagined his name becoming synonomous with feces. There are many
other instances where the public has decided, and the dictionaries have
recorded, different or similar or the same words as the inventors of the
words themselves. In fact, most times when I study a subject given at
school, I discover whole new inter-related vocabularies brought forth by the
founding thinker or inventor.
> > Yet, no one will argue that terms cannot be used interchangeably.
>
> "Cannot." Didn't you mean "can"? Not that you're right either
> way. The truth is somewhere in the middle. See my discussion above
> of the decimal dot.
One cannot use a + to indicate a -. Again, synonyms exist in English, as
they do in math.
>
> > There are areas of contention within this theoretical science.
>
> Mathematics is not a science, nor it is theoretical.
I feel for you, I really do. I know that in some places, dictionaries are
difficult to find. Until I came to this newsgroup, I was unaware of this
difficulty. So, allow me to share with you the definition of the word
"mathematics". OED "science of space and numbers".
>
> > Methodologies between cultures in the maths sciences are different. Yet,
someone who
> > studies math intensively in Germany, can read the problems provided by
an
> > American or a Spaniard.
>
> What are you talking about?
>
To solve questions, different cultures use different methods. (I don't know
this from experience, but from a cousin of mine who first attended a French
emmersion course, and then changed to the regular English. She had
difficulty, in grade 9, with making the changes necessary in her approach to
the problems provided for her.
> > Is language less important than math, when it comes
> > to needing precise terminology?
>
> Yes. Math cannot exist without precise terminology. Language is
> but a series of approximations.
>
> > If the majority of people did use math
> > symbols interchangeably, and did not know how to use the language of
math,
> > would their efforts become less legitimate? Absolutely.
>
> The majority of people do not know how to use the language of math
> beyond perhaps long division. So your premise is false. How many
> people do you think can recognize something like the integral sign
> or the sigma of summation? But even if it were true, this would be
> like arguing that if you serve chicken you won't be eating beef.
> What of it?
>
Actually, your point is exactly the same as I was making in my paralell
discription. "The majority of people do not know how to use the language of
math..." is parallel to my saying that English is also beyond the grasp of
most people.
> > I say that there is little difference in English.
>
> Between what and what? And if you're saying that English needs
> precision the way math needs precision, then you are simply wrong.
>
Math and English both have certain tendencies that are very similar, as I've
pointed out in the prior post. My clarifications here only further my
argument. Who is the judge of my being wrong? You? That is laughable. I
needed to educate you on the word "mathematics". If you don't understand so
simple a term, and argue against my proper usage of it, what do you think
this does to the credibility of your arguments?
> Go read Korzybski's *Science and Sanity* and report back.
I'm afraid I've not the time to spend on this particular book. There are so
many others I'm required to read at the present moment.
Robert Lieblich
[snip a bunch of stuff not worth bothering with]
> I feel for you, I really do. I know that in some places, dictionaries are
> difficult to find. Until I came to this newsgroup, I was unaware of this
> difficulty. So, allow me to share with you the definition of the word
> "mathematics". OED "science of space and numbers".
Proving that lexicographers are human.
Science is characterized by the scientific method -- the development
and testing of hypotheses. Any scientific theory is subject to
being shown wrong at any time. All theories are therefore
tentative. What cannot be empirically disproved is not a scientific
theory.
Mathematics operates on the foundation of "proof." A mathematical
proof is a demonstration that something is true within its stated
constraints. It will always be true, within basic arithmetic, that
(xy) = (yx). No empirical demonstrations are required or even
wanted. I doubt you will find any knowledgeable scientist who would
agree that mathematics is a science in the sense understood by
scientists. Hey, you're probably taking a course from a scientist.
Ask for yourself.
> > > Methodologies between cultures in the maths sciences are different. Yet,
> someone who
> > > studies math intensively in Germany, can read the problems provided by
> an
> > > American or a Spaniard.
> >
> > What are you talking about?
> >
> To solve questions, different cultures use different methods. (I don't know
> this from experience, but from a cousin of mine who first attended a French
> emmersion course, and then changed to the regular English. She had
> difficulty, in grade 9, with making the changes necessary in her approach to
> the problems provided for her.
All this means is that different algorithms can be equivalent. Big
deal.
[ ... ]
> Math and English both have certain tendencies that are very similar, as I've
> pointed out in the prior post. My clarifications here only further my
> argument. Who is the judge of my being wrong? You? That is laughable. I
> needed to educate you on the word "mathematics". If you don't understand so
> simple a term, and argue against my proper usage of it, what do you think
> this does to the credibility of your arguments?
Steven, I've done you the favor of assuming that you are sincere
(i.e., not a troll). But you have so very much to learn. I don't
see what's going on between you and me as an argument. What I see
is some college kid displaying his ignorance and my attempts to
correct him. It isn't working, so I leave you to wallow in your
ignorance until you learn better.
You might expedite the process by asking some math professor to
consider what you and I have written in response to each other, but
it makes no difference to me whether you do so or not.
> > Go read Korzybski's *Science and Sanity* and report back.
>
> I'm afraid I've not the time to spend on this particular book. There are so
> many others I'm required to read at the present moment.
Has it occurred to you that your need to read so many books is one
reason why you aren't able to carry your side of the argument?
Well, enough. Good luck to you. I hope college opens your mind and
then fills it with useful knowledge. That's what it's for.
Bob Lieblich
Ta-ta
mb
> Just a quick thought; can you imagine if mathematicians decided not to
> follow convention?
...
> Math language is also a descriptivist language. It is derived from common
> consensus.
> Is language less important than math, when it comes
> to needing precise terminology?
> I say that there is
> little difference in English.
Steven, after so many posts I still can't understand what your point
is. Do you read other people's posts? No one has contested the fact
that rules do rule language. Every speech has its own rules, as all
here continue to repeat ad nauseam. So, if one tries to speak or write
the language of a particular speech community without observing its
language consensus, as you rightly call it, one _does_ make a mistake.
All descriptivists agree on this because their job is precisely that
of finding out the rules. Some of the dialects are codified after a
study of the consensual rules. A few of these dialects go by the name
of "Standard English". If this seems reasonable, we might get a
consensus here. If you say there is one and only one "English" or
"French" or "Chinese" just go out in the world and open your ears.
As for precise terminology, a verb by any name is still a verb, but
what exactly is your beef with current terminology?
Raymond S. Wise
Noah Webster considered mathematics to be not only a science, but "pure
science." From his 1828 dictionary:
[quote]
Pure science, as the mathematics, is built on self-evident truths[....]
[end quote]
I would not be at all surprised to find there are still people around, like
Steven, who continue to consider mathematics to be a science. But I'm with
you: mathematics and science are two entirely different critters. I admire
mathematics, but as Martin Gardner (who also admires mathematics) said (and
I paraphrase), every mathematical proof essentially comes down to saying
something as trivially true as "There are twelve eggs in a dozen eggs."
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com
Raymond S. Wise
>
[...]
> Words like "television", "psychoanalysis", and "radio" came out because
> their inventors called them these things. But, this sort of thing does not
> always hold true. Certainly, when Crapper invented the toilet, he likely
> hadn't imagined his name becoming synonomous with feces. There are many
> other instances where the public has decided, and the dictionaries have
> recorded, different or similar or the same words as the inventors of the
> words themselves. In fact, most times when I study a subject given at
> school, I discover whole new inter-related vocabularies brought forth by
the
> founding thinker or inventor.
>
I very much doubt that you will be able to prove that the inventors of the
television coined the word "television." The word "television" dates to
1907, according to *Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary.* But it was
Paul Nipkow in 1884 who proposed the first practical electromechanical
scanner, which eventually lead to the short-lived systems of
electromechanical television. Those systems lost out to electronic systems
in the 1930s, the inventors of which must certainly have heard of the word
"television" years before.
That Crapper invented the flush toilet is an urban legend. See
http://www.snopes.com/business/names/crapper.htm
david56
> Words like "television", "psychoanalysis", and "radio" came out because
> their inventors called them these things. But, this sort of thing does not
> always hold true. Certainly, when Crapper invented the toilet, he likely
> hadn't imagined his name becoming synonomous with feces.
You have been misinformed - this is almost too old a piece of false
information to be called an "urban legend", but it's not true
nonetheless. There are numerous online articles such as:
http://www.plumbingworld.com/historythomas.html
--
David
I say what it occurs to me to say.
=====
The address is valid today, but I will change it to keep ahead of the
spammers.
Odysseus
>
> Anyway, if you do a little research you'll discover that different
> symbols are used in different countries for the same concept.
> Americans use a dot verticially justified to the bottom of the line
> -- . -- as a decimal point. In most of Europe the same dot is
> centered on the line. A dot centered on the line in the US means
> multiply what precedes the dot by what follows it. Mathematicians
> have to make little mental adjustments to take such differences into
> account.
>
done in the mathematical newsgroups, where ASCII text is used to
convey formulas that would normally be rich in 'exotic' characters
and typographic devices. Together with such improvisations as
representing infinity by "oo" the syntax of various programming
languages is drawn on -- which may or may not be familiar to any
given reader. The contributors come, of course, from all over the
world. These factors make for a broad range of 'idiolects' but most
of the time the intended communication is achieved with no less
semantic strictness than when the conventional symbols are available.
This shouldn't be particularly suprising: I imagine that
mathematicians tend to be more skilled at pattern-recognition than
average, and much of their 'bread and butter' involves manipulating
symbols to begin with!
> > Math language is also a descriptivist language.
>
> Not really.
>
> > It is derived from common consensus.
>
> I'm not at all sure that that is true. Newton and Leibniz invented
> the symbols of the calculus out of whole cloth, and people mostly
> went along, but that doesn't strike me as "deriving from commmon
> consensns." I'll leave it to a mathematician to explicate this
> more fully.
>
I'm no mathematician, but I gather that Newton and Liebniz, having
developed much of the calculus independently, used quite different
symbologies to formulate the idea. The existence of the equivalent
expressions for a derivative "dy/dx", "f'(x)" (the "f should be in
script), and "Dxy" (the "x" should be a subscript) -- sometimes used
by the same author in different contexts -- may be to some extent a
legacy of their distinct systems.
--Odysseus
John Dean
> John Dean wrote:
>
> [ ... ]
>
>> I wouldn't play a backgammon tournament unless the rules were pinned
>> on the wall for all to see. Thus any disagreement goes to the rules.
>> If you say, as you have done that there are 'Rules of English' then
>> you should be able to say what they are and where they can be found.
>> Specifically.
>> My contention is that there are no such rules. Prove me wrong by
>> showing me exactly where they are.
>
> I can't prove you wrong, given your premises. Given your premises,
> however, you have no business posting to this group -- or writing or
> speaking English at all.
>
you can post here? You don't sound like a snot, you sound someone taking
leave of their senses.
If you can't prove me wrong given my premises, set your own premises and
prove me wrong by them.
Better still, quote me a snippet from these undisputed 'Rules of English'
and tell me where you got it from.
If this is not an issue of usage, what is? If this group doesn't discuss
usage, what does it do?
John Dean
> "Robert Lieblich" <Robert....@Verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:3E1E3188...@Verizon.net...
>> Steven wrote:
>>
>>
>> Science is characterized by the scientific method -- the development
>> and testing of hypotheses. Any scientific theory is subject to
>> being shown wrong at any time. All theories are therefore
>> tentative. What cannot be empirically disproved is not a scientific
>> theory.
>>
>> Mathematics operates on the foundation of "proof." A mathematical
>> proof is a demonstration that something is true within its stated
>> constraints. It will always be true, within basic arithmetic, that
>> (xy) = (yx). No empirical demonstrations are required or even
>> wanted. I doubt you will find any knowledgeable scientist who would
>> agree that mathematics is a science in the sense understood by
>> scientists. Hey, you're probably taking a course from a scientist.
>> Ask for yourself.
>>
>>
>
> "pure science." From his 1828 dictionary:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/4a65
>
>
> [quote]
>
> Pure science, as the mathematics, is built on self-evident
> truths[....]
>
> [end quote]
>
>
> I would not be at all surprised to find there are still people
> around, like Steven, who continue to consider mathematics to be a
> science. But I'm with you: mathematics and science are two entirely
> different critters. I admire mathematics, but as Martin Gardner (who
> also admires mathematics) said (and I paraphrase), every mathematical
> proof essentially comes down to saying something as trivially true as
> "There are twelve eggs in a dozen eggs."
There are such people around. Some of them apparently contribute to the OED
Mathematics :
Originally, the collective name for geometry, arithmetic, and certain
physical sciences (as astronomy and optics) involving geometrical reasoning.
In modern use applied, (a) in a strict sense, to the abstract science which
investigates deductively the conclusions implicit in the elementary
conceptions of spatial and numerical relations, and which includes as its
main divisions geometry, arithmetic, and algebra;
or MW on-line
Main Entry: math搪搶at搏cs
1 : the science of numbers and their operations, interrelations,
combinations, generalizations, and abstractions and of space configurations
and their structure, measurement, transformations, and generalizations
And if you are able to deconstruct Godel's Incompleteness Theorem so that it
resembles <something as trivially true as "There are twelve eggs in a dozen
eggs." > I doff my cap to you, Sir
Indeed, if you could produce a simplified version of the proof of the
four-colour map theorem I would be eternally grateful as the original Appel
and Haken version hurts my head. Even the Robertson, Sanders, Seymour,
Thomas simplification gives me nightmares.
Dr Robin Bignall
<john...@frag.lineone.net> wrote:
>Robert Lieblich wrote:
>> John Dean wrote:
>>
>> [ ... ]
>>
>>> I wouldn't play a backgammon tournament unless the rules were pinned
>>> on the wall for all to see. Thus any disagreement goes to the rules.
>>> If you say, as you have done that there are 'Rules of English' then
>>> you should be able to say what they are and where they can be found.
>>> Specifically.
>>> My contention is that there are no such rules. Prove me wrong by
>>> showing me exactly where they are.
>>
>> I can't prove you wrong, given your premises. Given your premises,
>> however, you have no business posting to this group -- or writing or
>> speaking English at all.
>>
>I shouldn't be *speaking* English? You have to believe in 'The Rules' before
>you can post here? You don't sound like a snot, you sound someone taking
>leave of their senses.
>If you can't prove me wrong given my premises, set your own premises and
>prove me wrong by them.
>Better still, quote me a snippet from these undisputed 'Rules of English'
>and tell me where you got it from.
>
Er... you forgot the smileys.
>If this is not an issue of usage, what is? If this group doesn't discuss
>usage, what does it do?
Food. Faucets. Law. Mangoes and green peppers. What 'downtown' means in
American. Cul-de-sacs verses closes. Pronunciation of French words with
accents on letters. The requirement or otherwise for a space in siggy
separators. Oh, and English grammar and usage occasionally.
--
wrmst rgrds
Robin Bignall
Steven
"John Dean" <john...@frag.lineone.net> wrote in message
news:avl8cm$6n9$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
I agree 100% with you Dean. It is really difficult to choose which one to
follow. It'd be nice if each professor would list their preference (English,
American, or Canadian English) prior to us writing our papers. This would
make life a whole lot easier.
Steven
Apparently, central heating.
Steven
"Robert Lieblich" <Robert....@Verizon.net> wrote in message
> Steven wrote:
>
> [snip a bunch of stuff not worth bothering with]
>
> > I feel for you, I really do. I know that in some places, dictionaries
are
> > difficult to find. Until I came to this newsgroup, I was unaware of this
> > difficulty. So, allow me to share with you the definition of the word
> > "mathematics". OED "science of space and numbers".
>
> Proving that lexicographers are human.
>
> Science is characterized by the scientific method -- the development
> and testing of hypotheses. Any scientific theory is subject to
> being shown wrong at any time. All theories are therefore
> tentative. What cannot be empirically disproved is not a scientific
> theory.
>
> Mathematics operates on the foundation of "proof." A mathematical
> proof is a demonstration that something is true within its stated
> constraints. It will always be true, within basic arithmetic, that
> (xy) = (yx). No empirical demonstrations are required or even
> wanted. I doubt you will find any knowledgeable scientist who would
> agree that mathematics is a science in the sense understood by
> scientists. Hey, you're probably taking a course from a scientist.
> Ask for yourself.
>
While I get a dose of Freud each semester, I do not take any science
courses. However, I know enough about math to contend that 0< are all
hypothetical. Sure, the banks use these numbers, but they're not real.
They're all based on theory. That is why |-2| = 2. It is real. Everything
less than 0 is hypothetical and unproven. Yet we use negative numbers all
the time. Math contains as much theory as does physics. A calculater cannot
solve for 1/0, yet everyone is aware that it = oo. Pie is always a rough
estimate. etc.
What I see is some fellow who doesn't try to clarify his own understanding
of the world; he fears researching for truth, lest his intellect becomes too
unstable, and the reason he uses to create an understanding of the universe
and his place within it begins to crumble to dust. I use references, for the
most part, in my arguments. I'm often using good references to back my
claims. You have not. You expect me to simply believe what you say because
of your advanced age.
>
> You might expedite the process by asking some math professor to
> consider what you and I have written in response to each other, but
> it makes no difference to me whether you do so or not.
>
> > > Go read Korzybski's *Science and Sanity* and report back.
> >
> > I'm afraid I've not the time to spend on this particular book. There are
so
> > many others I'm required to read at the present moment.
>
> Has it occurred to you that your need to read so many books is one
> reason why you aren't able to carry your side of the argument?
It is great to see that some people have read all the great books that the
world has to offer; you have no need for further reading, as you've done it
all. This is, of course, quite absurd. One can spend an entire lifetime
trying to understand a single author (like Milton, Freud, or Isaac Newton).
I had one professor who has been teaching Milton's _Paradise Lost_ for 42
years. She said that every time she reads _Paradise Lost_, she discovers new
things and comes to minor adjustments in her understanding of the text. Good
professors continually research their topics and read books new to them
still. They don't feel as if they've read everything important or worthy of
being read.
This statement really reveals your arrogance. Arrogance is always a sure
sign of ignorance. Further, your propaganda scheme (calling me "some college
kid", which is wrong in two respects. I am a mature university student.)
means little to me. Why would I care who or what you think I am?
>
> Well, enough. Good luck to you. I hope college opens your mind and
> then fills it with useful knowledge. That's what it's for.
There is much that can be learned at the university. So far, though, I have
to say that it seems largely introductory. Nothing is explored in-depth.
Often we spend one day on a writer whose depth could only be estimated if a
lifetime were spent trying to master it.
>
> Bob Lieblich
> Ta-ta
Gary Eickmeier
Steven wrote:
> I agree 100% with you Dean. It is really difficult to choose which one to
> follow. It'd be nice if each professor would list their preference (English,
> American, or Canadian English) prior to us writing our papers. This would
> make life a whole lot easier.
See now, here is a case where number does count (to coin a phrase).
"...each professor would list their preference..." Whose preference?
Who are "they"? I would say (if this is what Steven was trying to say)
"each professor would list his preference," or "his or her
preference." You might re-cast the phrase to "all professors would
list their preferences." But as written it is confusing and not
communicative. THAT is why we need rules.
Gary Eickmeier
John Dawkins
Robert Lieblich <Robert....@Verizon.net> wrote:
Huh? Mathematics is certainly a science ("a department of systematized
knowledge as an object of study", from MW), and it is nothing if not
theoretical (having to do with "the analysis of a set of facts in their
relation to one another", MW again).
--
J.
John Dawkins
"Raymond S. Wise" <illinoi...@mninter.net> wrote:
> I would not be at all surprised to find there are still people around, like
> Steven, who continue to consider mathematics to be a science.
There are a few; for example, most every mathematician on the planet.
> But I'm with
> you: mathematics and science are two entirely different critters.
Mathematics does differ from the other sciences in that once a question
is answered, and the proof accepted, that's it. Mathematical theory is
not contingent on the discovery of new facts (though it is contingent on
the axioms used...). A theorem proved by Gauss in 1799 is not going to
be overturned by observations made using the latest particle accelerator.
> I admire
> mathematics, but as Martin Gardner (who also admires mathematics) said (and
> I paraphrase), every mathematical proof essentially comes down to saying
> something as trivially true as "There are twelve eggs in a dozen eggs."
Andrew Wiles must wish he'd read more Martin Gardner. It seems he put
all his eggs in the wrong basket.
--
J.
Raymond S. Wise
Did I say anything about mathematics being "simple"? No, I did not.
Dena Jo
> If this is not an issue of usage, what is? If this group doesn't discuss
> usage, what does it do?
Crack wise, provide a forum for socializing...
You play backgammon? If ever we meet in real life, I challenge you to a
game...
--
Dena Jo
John Dean
Where's the rule about their / his / her? If you quote it, we could discuss
it.
John Dean
He shoots! He scores!
Steven
> > If this is not an issue of usage, what is? If this group doesn't discuss
> > usage, what does it do?
>
> Crack wise, provide a forum for socializing...
>
> You play backgammon? If ever we meet in real life, I challenge you to a
> game...
>
> --
> Dena Jo
Yahoo has a public backgammon board.
Robert Lieblich
>
> Robert Lieblich wrote:
> > John Dean wrote:
> >
> > [ ... ]
> >
> >> I wouldn't play a backgammon tournament unless the rules were pinned
> >> on the wall for all to see. Thus any disagreement goes to the rules.
> >> If you say, as you have done that there are 'Rules of English' then
> >> you should be able to say what they are and where they can be found.
> >> Specifically.
> >> My contention is that there are no such rules. Prove me wrong by
> >> showing me exactly where they are.
> >
> > I can't prove you wrong, given your premises. Given your premises,
> > however, you have no business posting to this group -- or writing or
> > speaking English at all.
> >
> I shouldn't be *speaking* English? You have to believe in 'The Rules' before
> you can post here? You don't sound like a snot, you sound someone taking
> leave of their senses.
You deleted this sentence from my posting:
"
Please feel free to add smileys where you think they are needed to
keep me from sounding like a total snot."
I did that for the benefit of those who might otherwise miss the
irony in my remarks. I had thought that someone whose signature
proclaims him a denizen of Oxford might have trouble realizing that
even an American could essay irony, and lo, it has come to pass.
> If you can't prove me wrong given my premises, set your own premises and
> prove me wrong by them.
> Better still, quote me a snippet from these undisputed 'Rules of English'
> and tell me where you got it from.
Well, since you can't follow the logic of a parodic argument, here
it is: You said you wouldn't play a game of badminton unless you
had an official set of rules to follow. You then said that no one
could come up with an official set of rules for English usage. I
concluded that if you wouldn't play badminton without official
rules, you wouldn't -- or at least shouldn't -- use English, which
also lacks such rules.
It was supposed to be funny, okay?
>
> If this is not an issue of usage, what is? If this group doesn't discuss
> usage, what does it do?
Sheesh
--
Bob Lieblich
Probably overreacting
Robert Lieblich
Mathematics is not an *empirical* science, nor is it theoretical.
The problem is one of context. I don't deny that you can find
definitions in dictionaries to justify your contention, but they
don't apply to the point I am trying to make, which is that most
empirical scientists, and most mathematicians, would say that
mathematics does not follow the scientific method and therefore is
not a "science" in that sense. I thought the context of my argument
made that clear. As to "theoretical," mathematicians do not pursue
theories -- they pursue "theorems," not at all the same thing. And,
of course, proofs. General relativity remains a theory (albeit one
with a great deal of experimental verification.) Fermat's now
proven conjecture about integer solutions for equations in powers
greater than two was a theorem, specifically his "Last Theorem."
They guy who proved that theorem gave us a "proof." Relativity has
been experimentally verified in all sorts of ways but will never be
"proven" in the mathematical sense.
The Web is a poor place to do research aimed at proving my point.
(I tried. It's not that anyone said the opposite, just that it's
hard to find authoritative statements on either side.) I'm neither
a scientist nor a mathematician, so I don't speak with any authority
beyond whatever being a reasonably well educated sexagenarian
carries. So I guess further discussion is pointless unless we can
get some discussants with better credentials. Meanwhile, I continue
to stand by my statement as amended: Mathematics is not an
empirical science, nor is it theoretical.
--
Bob Lieblich
Neither an empirical scientist nor a theoretician
Raymond S. Wise
news:artfldodgr-FCB56...@news.fu-berlin.de...
If you were to point that definition out to me and say, "Is mathematics a
science in that sense?" I would say, "Of course." But in the default meaning
of "science" for me and many others, mathematics is by definition excluded,
as a proven mathematical statement cannot be falsified even in principle,
while a "proven" scientific fact can (if only in principle).
To take an example: It is a proven scientific fact that if you drop a rock,
it will fall to the ground. This fact, however, is falsifiable: You can
always do one more test to see whether the rock will fall to the ground. (No
one expects it to not fall to the ground, but in principle the fact can be
falsified.)
On the other hand, a proven mathematical statement cannot be falsified even
in principle. You cannot test whether "2 + 2 = 4." It is not falsifiable. If
someone were to say that they got different results when they added 2 plus
2, there is not the slightest doubt that what they are doing is not
mathematics, not if they are using the same rules that you are using.
Mathematics, and all symbolic logic, is like a game. If you don't play the
game according to the rules, then whatever you call what you are doing, it
isn't playing that game according to the rules.
As I said, mathematics and science are two entirely different critters.
Note that "Christian Science" is a type of "science" too--take another look
at the Merriam Webster's Collegiate's definition of "science" if you doubt
that. But it is not what *I* recognize as belonging to my default meaning of
science.
Carmen L. Abruzzi
----------
In article <3E1EED5F...@tampabay.rr.com>, Gary Eickmeier
<geic...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>Steven wrote:
>
>> I agree 100% with you Dean. It is really difficult to choose
which one to
>> follow. It'd be nice if each professor would list their
preference (English,
>> American, or Canadian English) prior to us writing our papers.
This would
>> make life a whole lot easier.
>
>See now, here is a case where number does count (to coin a phrase).
>"...each professor would list their preference..." Whose preference?
>Who are "they"? I would say (if this is what Steven was trying to say)
>"each professor would list his preference," or "his or her
>preference."
And one might just as legitimately ask "whose preference?" of
those wordings. How are we supposed to know who "his" or "his or
her" refers to? Who is "he"? Who are "he or she"?
> You might re-cast the phrase to "all professors would
>list their preferences." But as written it is confusing and not
>communicative.
Are you confused by this sentence?
> THAT is why we need rules.
>
We have rules.
John Dawkins
Robert Lieblich <Robert....@Verizon.net> wrote:
> John Dawkins wrote:
> >
> > In article <3E1DF4E0...@Verizon.net>,
> > Robert Lieblich <Robert....@Verizon.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Mathematics is not a science, nor it is theoretical.
> >
> > Huh? Mathematics is certainly a science ("a department of systematized
> > knowledge as an object of study", from MW), and it is nothing if not
> > theoretical (having to do with "the analysis of a set of facts in their
> > relation to one another", MW again).
>
> Mathematics is not an *empirical* science, nor is it theoretical.
> The problem is one of context. I don't deny that you can find
> definitions in dictionaries to justify your contention, but they
> don't apply to the point I am trying to make, which is that most
> empirical scientists, and most mathematicians, would say that
> mathematics does not follow the scientific method and therefore is
> not a "science" in that sense.
Mathematics, as procticed by research mathematicians, does indeed follow
the "Scientific Method". Hypotheses ("conjectures") are put forward,
and they are "tested" by being proved (or not). Tested hypotheses
("theorems") lead in turn to further hypothese, and on, and on.
> I thought the context of my argument
> made that clear. As to "theoretical," mathematicians do not pursue
> theories -- they pursue "theorems," not at all the same thing. And,
> of course, proofs. General relativity remains a theory (albeit one
> with a great deal of experimental verification.)
Mathematicians do indeed construct theories, the logical framework into
which all the theorems and lemmas fit. In fact, for many
mathematicians, their job is the construction of theories; the theorems
proved along the way are just progress reports.
> Fermat's now
> proven conjecture about integer solutions for equations in powers
> greater than two was a theorem, specifically his "Last Theorem."
> They guy who proved that theorem gave us a "proof." Relativity has
> been experimentally verified in all sorts of ways but will never be
> "proven" in the mathematical sense.
Granted, this is where mathematics differs from the "empirical" sciences.
> The Web is a poor place to do research aimed at proving my point.
> (I tried. It's not that anyone said the opposite, just that it's
> hard to find authoritative statements on either side.) I'm neither
> a scientist nor a mathematician, so I don't speak with any authority
> beyond whatever being a reasonably well educated sexagenarian
> carries. So I guess further discussion is pointless unless we can
> get some discussants with better credentials. Meanwhile, I continue
> to stand by my statement as amended: Mathematics is not an
> empirical science, nor is it theoretical.
To this mathematician, who has been plying the trade for more than
twenty years, mathematics is a science (the "Queen of the Sciences"),
empirical perhaps only in some vague psychological sense, and highly
theoretical.
--
J.
Dr Robin Bignall
[...]
>
>There is much that can be learned at the university. So far, though, I have
>to say that it seems largely introductory. Nothing is explored in-depth.
>Often we spend one day on a writer whose depth could only be estimated if a
>lifetime were spent trying to master it.
>
That's the way it is, Steven. In my physics course in the early 1960s we
spent maybe a couple of weeks on quantum theory, and a week on special
relativity. One of the greatest physicists who ever lived, Richard
Feynmann, spent his whole life studying quantum theory, and, at the end of
many years, having developed some of the key quantum theories, remarked "If
anyone ever says he understands quantum theory, he's a fool" -- or words to
that effect.
My GP has told me that in his 4 years of medicine he spent maybe a couple
of days on intestines. The surgeon who put me together after a great deal
of butchery by another, incompetent surgeon, spent his whole career working
on bowel surgery and said that after thousands of operations, he learned
something new with each new patient.
It's two things: arrogance versus humility -- the humility to realise that
you can never know everything about anything, and the fact that no matter
how bright you are, and no matter how hard you work, there is only a
certain finite amount of information you can process successfully during
three years of a degree course, regardless of subject, and that there is so
much more you could possibly learn that you can only 'hedge-hop' across all
of the different subjects and touch them but briefly. An intelligent person
carries on learning and consolidating until the day of his death.
Torbjörn Svensson Diaz
> As to "theoretical," mathematicians do not pursue
> theories -- they pursue "theorems," not at all the same thing.
Does mathematics really have to persue theories to be called
theoretical? I've always considered "theoretical" being the opposite
of "practical".
Also, somtimes when deriving it is common to enquire a function, or
rather its derivative, in a prurely numerical manner. I'd say that at
least this little subset of the mathematical branch should be
considered empirical. It is true, though, that mathematics is not an
empirical science, if a science at all. However, I don not find the
question all that important. After all, who crares if it is a science
or not? It is the foundation of science and is justified funds anyway.
--
/Torbjörn Svensson Diaz
John Dean
> John Dean wrote:
>>
>> Robert Lieblich wrote:
>>> John Dean wrote:
>>>
>>> [ ... ]
>>>
>>>> I wouldn't play a backgammon tournament unless the rules were
>>>> pinned
>>>> on the wall for all to see. Thus any disagreement goes to the
>>>> rules.
>>>> If you say, as you have done that there are 'Rules of English' then
>>>> you should be able to say what they are and where they can be
>>>> found. Specifically.
>>>> My contention is that there are no such rules. Prove me wrong by
>>>> showing me exactly where they are.
>>>
>>> I can't prove you wrong, given your premises. Given your premises,
>>> however, you have no business posting to this group -- or writing or
>>> speaking English at all.
>>>
>> I shouldn't be *speaking* English? You have to believe in 'The
>> Rules' before you can post here? You don't sound like a snot, you
>> sound someone taking leave of their senses.
>
> You deleted this sentence from my posting:
> "
> Please feel free to add smileys where you think they are needed to
> keep me from sounding like a total snot."
I put the smileys where I thought they were needed and you still sounded
snotty
>
> I did that for the benefit of those who might otherwise miss the
> irony in my remarks. I had thought that someone whose signature
> proclaims him a denizen of Oxford might have trouble realizing that
> even an American could essay irony, and lo, it has come to pass.
It always comes to pass. Like, wherever you go, there you are.
>
>> If you can't prove me wrong given my premises, set your own premises
>> and prove me wrong by them.
>> Better still, quote me a snippet from these undisputed 'Rules of
>> English' and tell me where you got it from.
>
> Well, since you can't follow the logic of a parodic argument, here
> it is: You said you wouldn't play a game of badminton unless you
> had an official set of rules to follow.
Game of Badminton? Send three and fourpence we're going to a dance. I was
talking about Tournaments, not games. And Backgammon, not Badminton.
Backgammon uses a smaller racquet but a larger shuttlecock
You then said that no one
> could come up with an official set of rules for English usage. I
> concluded that if you wouldn't play badminton without official
> rules, you wouldn't -- or at least shouldn't -- use English, which
> also lacks such rules.
I would play a *game*, except against a stranger for money, without the
rules being present (thought I would know they were accessible) I wouldn't
play a Tournament unless they were already posted. My whole point was that
English lacks rules. I have been debating this with those who think it does.
Thank you
>
> It was supposed to be funny, okay?
I know
>>
>> If this is not an issue of usage, what is? If this group doesn't
>> discuss usage, what does it do?
>
> Sheesh
Furrfu
--
Bob Lieblich
Probably overreacting
I was overreacting too. This stuff has been doing my head in. I am sorry to
have been so ungracious and for not allowing my sense of humo(u)r free rein.
I acknowledge your gift for irony. You prolly have a steely gaze too. I was
an a***hole. I abase myself.
Dr Robin Bignall
<Robert....@Verizon.net> wrote:
[snip of good stuff deleted for brevity]
Here is my take, based on a private exchange between Steven and I, which he
has given me his permission to publish.
***begins***
>While I don't always respect your opinion on English, I would take your word
>on an issue I've been debating. Being an engineer (or so I believe you said)
>you have had access to advanced maths. So I wonder if you consider math to
>be a science.
I was trained as a physicist, Steven, and my access to advanced maths was
over 30 years ago. I've forgotten most of it now and have a struggle to
read my own PhD thesis!
I think it's almost a science, but not quite. The trouble is, in defining
the difference, that the most complex of modern science is only fully and
precisely explainable by using maths as the language. Let me try to
explain.
The basis of reputable science, as Robert Lieblich stated in AEU, is
'scientific method'. This is to base all new conclusions on data that have
been measured and verified independently before. Apparently, some great
thinkers can make intuitive leaps in the dark, such as Einstein with
Special Relativity. But if one looks closely, one can see that the seeds of
relativity were embedded in a variety of previous work that others had
done, and the genius of Einstein was to take these apparent disparate bits
of research, realise that Newton had gone as far as he could, that there
were unexplained gaps, and put all of these things together to come up with
a new theory. That's what it, and all other scientific 'laws' are,
theories, which remain true until someone finds some conditions in which
the theory does not apply, and come up with another, more generalised
theory.
Take another situation (and you'll have to accept this on trust, as you
have enough reading to do in your professional work that you don't need to
get involved in other things!) In quantum mechanics, the only theory which
seems to make mathematical sense, and which fits the *measured* data, is
that basic particles have such attributes as mass, momentum, velocity,
spin, but *NO* size or shape. Any attempt to develop a theory in which
particles have some finite size leads to equations that have absurd
infinities in them, and which produce ridiculous results. This is a
stumbling block for purists, but it has not led more practical physicists
and engineers to throw up their hands in defeat. On the contrary, by
assuming that particles such as electrons are 'point particles', computer
circuits for the next generation of computers can be produced which depend
on predicted behaviour of electrons in current pathways that are little
bigger than the electrons themselves. These effects can therefore be used,
even if they cannot be fully explained. For it seems reasonable to assume
that any physical object must have a size which is finite, even if minute.
So where does the maths come in? In order to explain these phenomena,
mathematical physicists and pure mathematicians have had to learn to speak
each other's languages and go back to the drawing board to produce a new
theory called 'string theory'. In basic terms, all particles can be
considered mathematically to be varieties of vibrations in some sort of
tiny string, open-ended, or closed, like a tire, far too tiny to be seen by
any method imaginable. The maths is in its infancy, but it has been
sufficiently developed to give a glimmer that some general theory based on
it might provide an overall theory, without those troublesome infinities.
The trouble is, that these strings have to vibrate in 11 dimensions for any
theory to make sense, 6 of those dimensions result from a particular type
of geometry which has an almost infinite number of permutations, and we
haven't yet hit on which one is *the* one.
So, to summarise, science is, or should be, based on a step by step
experimental verification of what actually you measure, rather than what
you hope is happening. You can use perfectly respectable maths to then try
to predict what might happen under a series of different assumptions, but
the results you get are based solely on those assumptions, which might or
might not be true when you develop ways to measure what you have predicted.
I hope this makes sense. If not. let me know, and I'll try to illustrate it
further with a review of 'Black Holes'.
--
regards,
Robin
Outgoing mail checked by Norton AntiVirus
***ends***
There's much more that one could say, but I agree with Robert Lieblich.
Steven
> it is: You said you wouldn't play a game of badminton unless you
> had an official set of rules to follow. You then said that no one
> could come up with an official set of rules for English usage. I
> concluded that if you wouldn't play badminton without official
> rules, you wouldn't -- or at least shouldn't -- use English, which
> also lacks such rules.
I do believe you scored a point there Robert. And if he has any consistency,
until there are written rules for English, we shan't be hearing from him for
at least as long as it takes for him to discover such books as dictionaries,
grammar texts, and usage manuals.
Steven
There are definitely some missing pronouns in English. I wished neither to
say 'his', nor 'hers'. I cannot say 'its'. Thus, I chose 'their'. I don't
really like "his or her" as it is wordy and awkward. Using "their" for many
will come out comprehensible to any person of reasonable intelligence, and
it is less wordy.
John Flynn
> There are definitely some missing pronouns in English. I wished
> neither to say 'his', nor 'hers'. I cannot say 'its'. Thus, I chose
> 'their'. I don't really like "his or her" as it is wordy and awkward.
> Using "their" for many will come out comprehensible to any person of
> reasonable intelligence, and it is less wordy.
I went throught the first 20 years of my life not realising that some people
would condemn the use of singular "they". In my home life, my school life,
my social life, everywhere I went and interacted with the locals, I was able
to use singular "they" with so total a comprehension and so much a lack of
castigation that it didn't even strike me as being "wrong" until leaving that
area and meeting people who communicated with their other Englishes.
*THAT* is why I will defend singular "they" until my last breath. Not because
of a hundred thousand descriptivist texts saying that it has been done since
the year dot, not because of people pointing out that even 'esteemed' authors
have used it, but rather because I lived in a situation where it was the normal
way to express that particular idea and it was never looked on as illogical or
wrong.
--
johnF
"It is, of course, impossible to characterize a language in one formula; languages,
like men, are too composite to have their whole essence summed up in one short
expression." -- Otto Jespersen, _Growth and Structure of the English Language_
Torbjörn Svensson Diaz
> I hope this makes sense. If not. let me know, and I'll try to illustrate it
> further with a review of 'Black Holes'.
It does make sense, but I'd be glad to read your further illustrations
anyway. :-)
--
/Torbjörn Svensson Diaz
Torbjörn Svensson Diaz
> I went throught the first 20 years of my life not realising that some people
> would condemn the use of singular "they". In my home life, my school life,
> my social life, everywhere I went and interacted with the locals, I was able
> to use singular "they" with so total a comprehension and so much a lack of
> castigation that it didn't even strike me as being "wrong" until leaving that
> area and meeting people who communicated with their other Englishes.
I'm curious, what area was it?
--
/Torbjörn Svensson Diaz
Gary Eickmeier
Dr Robin Bignall wrote:
> Here is my take, based on a private exchange between Steven and I, which he
> has given me his permission to publish.
"...between Steven and I"? Am I going to have to get ugly here?
Gary Eickmeier
Gary Eickmeier
John Flynn wrote:
> *THAT* is why I will defend singular "they" until my last breath. Not because
> of a hundred thousand descriptivist texts saying that it has been done since
> the year dot, not because of people pointing out that even 'esteemed' authors
> have used it, but rather because I lived in a situation where it was the normal
> way to express that particular idea and it was never looked on as illogical or
> wrong.
Okay ace, try this on for size:
John Flynn enjoyed playing basketball, but occasionally got an
embarrassing itch in the crotch area. One time, right in the midst of
a huddle with the other guys, he could resist no longer; he had to
scratch their balls.
Or is that how you would have worded it?
Gary Eickmeier
Raymond S. Wise
news:3E1F8E4A...@tampabay.rr.com...
My prediction: If by some chance John deigns to answer your question about
the rules of his dialect--and given your "ace" comment, I wouldn't blame him
for not doing so--you will treat his dialect with contempt, and will likely
deny that it *has* any rules.
Henryu
john...@frag.lineone.net wrote on 1/9/03 5:41 PM:
> I wouldn't play a backgammon tournament unless the rules were pinned on the
> wall for all to see. Thus any disagreement goes to the rules.
But you neglect the only really serious disagreement; that which is not
anticipated by the rules.
It's just this that language is designed to handle; human language is
designed to handle unanticipated situations, with off-the-cuff,
extemporaneous rules, needing no previous agreement as to their structure.
Raymond S. Wise
news:BA452321.3C4B%hert...@mac.com...
Language is extemporanerrific!
John Flynn
The north east of England. Sunderland, to be more precise, but my frequent
incursions into Durham and Newcastle and further south into Cleveland also
never encountered a disdain for singular "they".
John Flynn
> Okay ace, try this on for size:
>
> John Flynn enjoyed playing basketball, but occasionally got an
> embarrassing itch in the crotch area. One time, right in the midst of
> a huddle with the other guys, he could resist no longer; he had to
> scratch their balls.
>
> Or is that how you would have worded it?
That just shows your lack of understanding of the rules for singular
"they". It's on par with the attempts you made in another thread to
mimic AAVE.
Here's an acceptable singular "they" situation that follows the rules:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Say I'm working in an office and I'm very busy. The telephone rings and
a colleague answers it for me. He receives the call, puts the caller on
hold, then turns to me and says, "Hey, John, I've got a customer here on
the line who wants to talk to you personally. Want to take the call?" My
reply might be, "I can't, I'm busy, tell them to ring back in an hour."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can't simply replace ANY pronoun with "they" (or "case" equivalent) and
expect to get away with it as being acceptable to those who use such a thing.
There are rules, and if you can't grasp them then you're never going to
understand the concept.
jen
"John Flynn" <joh...@flynndins.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Xns9300D00...@130.133.1.4...
> Steven wrote:
(snip)
> I went throught the first 20 years of my life not realising that
some people
> would condemn the use of singular "they". In my home life, my
school life,
> my social life, everywhere I went and interacted with the locals, I
was able
> to use singular "they" with so total a comprehension and so much a
lack of
> castigation that it didn't even strike me as being "wrong" until
leaving that
> area and meeting people who communicated with their other Englishes.
>
> *THAT* is why I will defend singular "they" until my last breath.
Not because
> of a hundred thousand descriptivist texts saying that it has been
done since
> the year dot, not because of people pointing out that even
'esteemed' authors
> have used it, but rather because I lived in a situation where it was
the normal
> way to express that particular idea and it was never looked on as
illogical or
> wrong.
>
> --
I'm from West Yorkshire in the north of England and my own experience
mirrors John Flynn's. I'm now middle aged and worldly wise enough to
avoid using 'singular they' in formal documents for fear of bringing
disparagement on my head. However, like everyone else in my area,
whether educated or uneducated, PC or not PC, I hear it and use it on
a daily basis. I have never felt or noticed any confusion on my part
or anyone else's and I continue to regard it as a completely normal,
useful and unambiguous (yes, really) piece of language.
--
Jen
Steven
to you, at this point Gary. I just can't think of one right now.
Gary Eickmeier
John Flynn wrote:
> You can't simply replace ANY pronoun with "they" (or "case" equivalent) and
> expect to get away with it as being acceptable to those who use such a thing.
> There are rules, and if you can't grasp them then you're never going to
> understand the concept.
Quite a different tune from
"*THAT* is why I will defend singular "they" until my last breath.
Not because
of a hundred thousand descriptivist texts saying that it has been done
since
the year dot, not because of people pointing out that even 'esteemed'
authors
have used it, but rather because I lived in a situation where it was
the normal
way to express that particular idea and it was never looked on as
illogical or
wrong."
So you're saying there ARE some situations where using a singular
"they" or "their" makes no sense, and detracts from the meaning and
communication?
Gary Eickmeier
Gary Eickmeier
jen wrote:
> I'm from West Yorkshire in the north of England and my own experience
> mirrors John Flynn's. I'm now middle aged and worldly wise enough to
> avoid using 'singular they' in formal documents for fear of bringing
> disparagement on my head. However, like everyone else in my area,
> whether educated or uneducated, PC or not PC, I hear it and use it on
> a daily basis. I have never felt or noticed any confusion on my part
> or anyone else's and I continue to regard it as a completely normal,
> useful and unambiguous (yes, really) piece of language.
Jen is a natural brunette, but the rest of the staff are blonds. Jen
lost no time dying their hair.
Gary Eickmeier
Gary Eickmeier
Steven wrote:
>
> Geeze, I should think that there would be a million sarcastic things to say
> to you, at this point Gary. I just can't think of one right now.
Thanks. Someone had to say it - especially in an English usage group.
Gary Eickmeier
Dr Robin Bignall
<tob...@bolina.hsb.se> wrote:
>Dr Robin Bignall wrote:
>
>> I hope this makes sense. If not. let me know, and I'll try to illustrate it
>> further with a review of 'Black Holes'.
>
>It does make sense, but I'd be glad to read your further illustrations
>anyway. :-)
OK. This is off the top of my head without going to the books. I hope my
memory is up to it.
A long time ago, maybe 60 or 70 years, scientists (actually astronomers)
found that they could detect, long distances away, something that they
could not see (hence 'black') which appeared to have an influence on other
bodies such that these bodies were disturbed in their orbits or paths. The
observations were repeatable, hence the 'scientific method' was working.
The invisible bodies appeared to be objects with huge amounts of gravity,
and hence of huge mass.
Other scientists (astrophysicists...) thought about what they could be. The
theory of stars collapsing because of their own gravity, into such things
as white and red dwarfs, and neutron stars, had been formulated in the
1930s, but the masses of these new objects were much more vast. It was
postulated that to produce them, only the largest stars or even whole
galaxies would have to collapse.
So far it's pure science (observation) plus some speculation. In the late
1950s/ 1960s, people such as Stephen Hawking and Kip Thorne started to
think about what these objects could be, and how could they could have been
produced. Many people thought that such collapse of a huge amount of matter
could tear the fabric of space-time, and produce a singularity which could
have infinite gravity. Hence 'black hole'. An examination of the effects of
such a singularity predicted that it would have a barrier around it, the
'event horizon', such that if anything -- matter, information, radiation --
was captured by the black hole and fell through it, it could never escape.
So Hawking et al decided to use maths to figure out the properties of black
holes, based on the above observations *and their assumptions*. They
figured out that for a given amount of mass, there was a certain size of
black hole; that black holes would or would not spin; that BHs getting near
to each other would rotate about the common centre of mass and look (if you
could see them) like a dumbell until they fused together; that they would
not emit light because the gravity was so strong (and light has a small but
finite mass) but would radiate, and Hawking suggested a mechanism for this
radiation and the maths to describe it, and so on... Without glancing at my
copies of Hawking and Thorne, I can't remember much more.
The point is that the maths they used is perfectly rational, logical and
leads to those conclusions *if, and only if* their assumptions are correct,
and those astronomical observations are truly of black holes. If the
effects are from something entirely different (someone suggested, a year or
so ago, a new sort of object called a 'gravastar') then those conclusions,
no matter how rigourous the maths, would not be a true picture of what is
actually there.
Until we develop the technology to get out into deep space and have a look
at a black hole, we can't be sure that from a scientific, experimental
basis, they exist. But there has been accumulated, by astronomers, all
sorts of corroborating evidence once the theorists gave them an idea of
what to look for. They have been able to detect the magnetic forces around
rotating BHs, see a difference in the spectra of the gas clouds which
surround a rotating BH but which have not yet been sucked in, and see that
the gas heading away from us has a slight red shift from the gas on the
other side heading towards us. Their instruments are that sensitive. There
are other observed phenomena which point towards black holes being the most
probable explanation.
I hope that gives an idea of the difference between the experimental
science and the theoretical science, which depends on maths.
John Flynn
Of course. Your attempt to mimic singular "they" was a perfect example
of someone not understanding how and when to use it. According to the
rules of that dialect, you were speaking completely ungrammatically and,
for want of a better word, it was wrong. I can use singular "they" with
speakers of the dialect I grew up with and use it so that not a single
one of those speakers will look at me strangely. If I tried to use YOUR
example sentence, people would laugh and mock me and point at me when I
walked down the street.
And I fail to see how the two pieces I wrote are in any way contradictory.
The first (chronologically speaking) stated that my reason for using singular
"they" (note: using it as the rules of my dialect tell me, not just blindly
replacing random pronouns with "they/them/their") is based on the fact I had
almost twenty years of inconspicuous use.
The second piece states that, according to my dialect, there are rules for
singular "they" use. Rules which you don't seem to be able to grasp.
Where's the conflict?
John Flynn
You're being an idiot if you think you're using the rules of singular "they"
that I and, I presume, Jen know how to use.
Did you actually see the example I gave before for an acceptable-in-my-dialect
singular "they" use? The one about an unknown caller on the telephone? That
is how it's used, not just plucking a random pronoun from a sentence and
changing it into the appropriate "they/them/their" equivalent.
Gary Eickmeier
John Flynn wrote:
> The second piece states that, according to my dialect, there are rules for
> singular "they" use. Rules which you don't seem to be able to grasp.
Interestinger and interestinger. So what are these rules?
I operate by the traditional if the referrent is singular, you should
use a singular pronoun or possessive. If plural, then plural. Seems
simple enough.
Gary Eickmeier
John Flynn
Pronouns in English, when referring to people, have real-world gender
attached to them. What do you do if: (1) the gender is unknown; (2) the
gender is unimportant; or even (3) the number of people is unknown?
The rules I use for singular "they" are not written in some Big Book of
Grammar anywhere, so I would have to analyse my own instinctual use of
"they" and then whittle out some spur-of-the-moment rules based on those
musings. I've got a feeling that such impromptu rule-codification will not
cover every exception. I can, however, give you some examples that
exemplify different situations where I (and the hundreds of thousands of
speakers in my dialect area -- and probably many other areas, too, as
singular "they" isn't confined just to this part of the world) would use
singular "they".
Person A: There's someone at the door.
Person B: Tell them to go away!
Person A: I got one of the teaching assistants to type up today's lesson
notes, but I think some bits are wrong.
Person B: Well, they'll just have to type it again, won't they?
Person A: I don't care who split this milk, I want them to admit to their
crime and wipe it up.
Getting it yet?
Steven
Gary, you're pushing its use. The sentence I used it for was, "It'd be nice
if each professor would list their preference (English,
American, or Canadian English) prior to us writing our papers." Perhaps if
you are so sage, you'll offer something to replace "their". Perhaps, "It'd
be nice if each professor would list his and her preference (English,
American, or Canadian English) prior to us writing our papers." Or again,
"It'd be nice if each professor would list his or her preference (English,
American, or Canadian English) prior to us writing our papers." Perhaps a /
instead of the conjunction. Instead, you make up retarded examples that have
little similarity to the one I constructed.
Gary Eickmeier
John Flynn wrote:
> Getting it yet?
A fool and their grammar are soon parted.
Gary Eickmeier
Gary Eickmeier
Steven wrote:
]
> Gary, you're pushing its use. The sentence I used it for was, "It'd be nice
> if each professor would list their preference (English,
> American, or Canadian English) prior to us writing our papers." Perhaps if
> you are so sage, you'll offer something to replace "their". Perhaps, "It'd
> be nice if each professor would list his and her preference (English,
> American, or Canadian English) prior to us writing our papers." Or again,
> "It'd be nice if each professor would list his or her preference (English,
> American, or Canadian English) prior to us writing our papers." Perhaps a /
> instead of the conjunction. Instead, you make up retarded examples that have
> little similarity to the one I constructed.
I have covered that, Steven. If the referrant is singular (each
professor), the possessive must agree in number with it - "his or her
preference."
"A fool and his money are soon parted" is a famous quote, or saying,
from the past, before the language was corrupted with these no-gender
possessives and pronouns.
How would you say "A man broke his nose in a fist fight"?
Gary Eickmeier
Robert Lieblich
>
> Steven wrote:
> ]
> > Gary, you're pushing its use. The sentence I used it for was, "It'd be nice
> > if each professor would list their preference (English,
> > American, or Canadian English) prior to us writing our papers." Perhaps if
> > you are so sage, you'll offer something to replace "their". Perhaps, "It'd
> > be nice if each professor would list his and her preference (English,
> > American, or Canadian English) prior to us writing our papers." Or again,
> > "It'd be nice if each professor would list his or her preference (English,
> > American, or Canadian English) prior to us writing our papers." Perhaps a /
> > instead of the conjunction. Instead, you make up retarded examples that have
> > little similarity to the one I constructed.
>
> I have covered that, Steven. If the referrant is singular (each
> professor), the possessive must agree in number with it - "his or her
> preference."
But "their" is used as a singular in such usages, even as "you,"
originally the second person plural only, came to be used also as
the singular, even as it retained as its companion verb the "plural"
form "are." This left English with no differentiation between
singular and plural in the second person and has led to things like
"y'all" and "youse." (Not endorsing, just reporting.)
>
> "A fool and his money are soon parted" is a famous quote, or saying,
> from the past, before the language was corrupted with these no-gender
> possessives and pronouns.
And "A fool and their money are soon parted" sounds weird enough to
me that I'd find a write-around if I wasn't willing (which actually
I am) to stay with the time-tested phrasing of this particular
cliche. But that's a matter of my taste. Others might find if far
less weird.
>
> How would you say "A man broke his nose in a fist fight"?
"A man broke his nose in a fist fight." If you have a grammatical
singular and a given gender, you don't need "they" or "their," which
are used when the gender is unclear. I wouldn't say "Every pregnant
woman should visit their doctor monthly," nor would I say "Every
professional football player should manage their money carefully."
(Others do.) But when you don't know the gender and you need a
singular, there are times when "they" or "their" is the easiest
solution. As for writing around, I feel about singular "they" as
Fowler did about the split infinitive -- you can do it, but
frequently it isn't worth the effort.
This remains a rehash of similar threads that have appeared on AUE
over the past few years, except that most of your examples are more
obvious straw men -- whoops -- straw persons than are usually
encountered, and really much too easy to demolish.
--
Bob Lieblich
Tolerant but no doormat
Steven
> > How would you say "A man broke his nose in a fist fight"?
>
> "A man broke his nose in a fist fight." If you have a grammatical
> singular and a given gender, you don't need "they" or "their," which
> are used when the gender is unclear. I wouldn't say "Every pregnant
> woman should visit their doctor monthly," nor would I say "Every
> professional football player should manage their money carefully."
> (Others do.) But when you don't know the gender and you need a
> singular, there are times when "they" or "their" is the easiest
> solution. As for writing around, I feel about singular "they" as
> Fowler did about the split infinitive -- you can do it, but
> frequently it isn't worth the effort.
Well, if you didn't know the gender of the person who broke their nose in a
fist fight, then you need to find something other than "his".
Gary Eickmeier
Robert Lieblich wrote:
> But "their" is used as a singular in such usages, even as "you,"
> originally the second person plural only, came to be used also as
> the singular, even as it retained as its companion verb the "plural"
> form "are." This left English with no differentiation between
> singular and plural in the second person and has led to things like
> "y'all" and "youse." (Not endorsing, just reporting.)
Is this like "Aren't I?"?
> And "A fool and their money are soon parted" sounds weird enough to
> me that I'd find a write-around if I wasn't willing (which actually
> I am) to stay with the time-tested phrasing of this particular
> cliche. But that's a matter of my taste. Others might find if far
> less weird.
Thank you.
> > How would you say "A man broke his nose in a fist fight"?
>
> "A man broke his nose in a fist fight." If you have a grammatical
> singular and a given gender, you don't need "they" or "their," which
> are used when the gender is unclear. I wouldn't say "Every pregnant
> woman should visit their doctor monthly," nor would I say "Every
> professional football player should manage their money carefully."
> (Others do.) But when you don't know the gender and you need a
> singular, there are times when "they" or "their" is the easiest
> solution. As for writing around, I feel about singular "they" as
> Fowler did about the split infinitive -- you can do it, but
> frequently it isn't worth the effort.
Not long ago, someone in this group gave a whole list of such
sentences, in which the gender is known but the writer insisted on
using "their." I am gratified that you agree with me that this is
silly.
>
> This remains a rehash of similar threads that have appeared on AUE
> over the past few years, except that most of your examples are more
> obvious straw men -- whoops -- straw persons than are usually
> encountered, and really much too easy to demolish.
But you haven't demolished them; you have agreed with me.
My main point is that "they" and "their" are NOT singular, and some
sentences bring this out.
And there is no reason to change "straw men" to "straw persons." I
might just as easily be constructing straw men as straw women. Nothing
wrong with that. My wife thinks we should say "snow person" instead of
"snow man." I tell her that I just might be making a snow man - what's
wrong with that?
Gary Eickmeier
Robert Lieblich
>
> Robert Lieblich wrote:
[ ... ]
> > This remains a rehash of similar threads that have appeared on AUE
> > over the past few years, except that most of your examples are more
> > obvious straw men -- whoops -- straw persons than are usually
> > encountered, and really much too easy to demolish.
>
> But you haven't demolished them; you have agreed with me.
Hardly. In other postings I have knocked down several of them, as
have others. But let's not go through all that again.
>
> My main point is that "they" and "their" are NOT singular, and some
> sentences bring this out.
Here I disagree with you. They are plural in form, but when they
fill the gaping hole in the English language where a genderless
(lexicographers like to say "epicene") singular should be, they are
singular. If I address a single person with a sentence beginning
"You are," both "You" and "are" are singular. Same here.
> And there is no reason to change "straw men" to "straw persons."
I thought you'd seen enough of my stuff by now to know when I was
pulling your leg. Apparently not. Okay -- I was pulling your leg.
And the legs of all other readers as well. I.e., it's a joke, son.
> I might just as easily be constructing straw men as straw women. Nothing
> wrong with that. My wife thinks we should say "snow person" instead of
> "snow man." I tell her that I just might be making a snow man - what's
> wrong with that?
Nothing, of course. I don't belong to the language police, and I
don't like them all that much. Sometimes they're right (IMO),
sometimes they're wrong. We each decide for ourselves.
--
Bob Lieblich
Free spirit
Dr Robin Bignall
wrote:
[..]
>Not long ago, someone in this group gave a whole list of such
>sentences, in which the gender is known but the writer insisted on
>using "their." I am gratified that you agree with me that this is
>silly.
>>
That was Paul Schultz, and I'm still not clear what point he was trying to
illustrate.
Robert Lieblich
I believe that the actual first name of "John Smith" is "Peter."
It's probably best to follow his own practice and stick to "P.
Schultz."
--
Bob Lieblich
Who goes by almost everything these days
Dr Robin Bignall
I remember, from two or three years ago, a poster who had an ID something
like "P.and.X.Schultz". I can't remember what initial the X was. That was
the only Schultz that I can remember seeing in AEU. I believe that on some
posts one Schultz identified himself as 'Paul', to distinguish himself from
the other Schultz who posted occasionally.
I may have made an unwarranted assumption that our John '//P. Schultz'
Smith is the same person. If so, I apologise. Could the real //P. Schultz
clear up this mystery?
Steven
> might just as easily be constructing straw men as straw women. Nothing
> wrong with that. My wife thinks we should say "snow person" instead of
> "snow man." I tell her that I just might be making a snow man - what's
> wrong with that?
>
> Gary Eickmeier
I would say it depends on whether the straw-(wo)man has a pecker or not. Did
you check for genetalia? :p
Richard R. Hershberger
For an informal description of the rules for "singular they" given by
a linguist, take a look at
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/arts/ling/stories/s546929.htm. You will find
it consistant with John's discussion. The point to note is that
"singular they" is not an entirely correct characterization of the
phenomenon, as "they" cannot be used in every circumstance where "he"
or "she" is appropriate.
Richard R. Hershberger
Dr Robin Bignall
wrote:
>Steven wrote:
>
>> There are definitely some missing pronouns in English. I wished
>> neither to say 'his', nor 'hers'. I cannot say 'its'. Thus, I chose
>> 'their'. I don't really like "his or her" as it is wordy and awkward.
>> Using "their" for many will come out comprehensible to any person of
>> reasonable intelligence, and it is less wordy.
>
>I went throught the first 20 years of my life not realising that some people
>would condemn the use of singular "they". In my home life, my school life,
>my social life, everywhere I went and interacted with the locals, I was able
>to use singular "they" with so total a comprehension and so much a lack of
>castigation that it didn't even strike me as being "wrong" until leaving that
>area and meeting people who communicated with their other Englishes.
>
>*THAT* is why I will defend singular "they" until my last breath. Not because
>of a hundred thousand descriptivist texts saying that it has been done since
>the year dot, not because of people pointing out that even 'esteemed' authors
>have used it, but rather because I lived in a situation where it was the normal
>way to express that particular idea and it was never looked on as illogical or
>wrong.
We've had our little differences in the past from time to time over
singular 'their' but what follows is an example of its bad use --
inevitable in the way it was written.
The example is from page 1 of today's Indy and concerns the incident when 6
police with protective clothing (from an anti-terrorist squad) and 3
ordinary police went to a flat to investigate the London ricin incident.
They found their suspect with two other people. The three people were
guarded by the anti-terrorist police while the other 3 searched the flat.
The suspect escaped, and before he was recaptured, had seized a knife and
killed one of the unprotected policemen.
So, imagine a para talking about the 3 suspects. Another para starts thus:
"After about an hour one suspect managed to break free and attacked
their guard with a kitchen knife."
There is, nitpickingwise, at least one factual item wrong with this
sentence. For a start, the person attacked and killed was not one of the
persons guarding the suspects. Factually, even replacing the 'their' with a
'his' would still not make it true. Englishwise, the 'their' is completely
wrong also; it only makes any sense when considered in the context of the
previous para. A very sloppy piece of writing indeed, IMO, even if it is
not ambiguous.
Steven
about an hour(,) one suspect managed to break free and attacked a guard with
a kitchen knife." There is no need for a pronoun here at all. It is
perfectly clear. The only time I'd use "their" for a singular pronoun, is to
replace "her or his". I am content to say "(s)he", or (fe)male when trying
to remain gender neutral. However, I've not yet found a smooth replacement
for the singular of "her or his". The best solution is to use "their" (imo).
Peter Duncanson
<further nitpicking -- possibly unpicking one of your pickednits>
If the person killed had in fact been guarding the suspects then "their" in
"their guard" could refer to the 3 suspects.
However, in view of the general sloppiness of the writing, there is no way
to be sure.
--
Peter D.
UK
(posting from a.e.u)
Steven
in
> "their guard" could refer to the 3 suspects.
>
> However, in view of the general sloppiness of the writing, there is no way
> to be sure.
Sure, that would make sense as well... "their guard" would indicate that the
guard was responsible for all three suspects.
Dr Robin Bignall
It may make English sense, but it was not what actually happened.
Paul C
<joh...@flynndins.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>
>> Okay ace, try this on for size:
>>
>> John Flynn enjoyed playing basketball, but occasionally got an
>> embarrassing itch in the crotch area. One time, right in the midst of
>> a huddle with the other guys, he could resist no longer; he had to
>> scratch their balls.
>>
>> Or is that how you would have worded it?
>
>That just shows your lack of understanding of the rules for singular
>"they". It's on par with the attempts you made in another thread to
>mimic AAVE.
>
>Here's an acceptable singular "they" situation that follows the rules:
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Say I'm working in an office and I'm very busy. The telephone rings and
>a colleague answers it for me. He receives the call, puts the caller on
>hold, then turns to me and says, "Hey, John, I've got a customer here on
>the line who wants to talk to you personally. Want to take the call?" My
>reply might be, "I can't, I'm busy, tell them to ring back in an hour."
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doesn't BT's 1471 have something like "the caller withheld their
number".
--
Paul
http://www.footballpyramid.co.uk
frank green
John Dean wrote:
> Gary Eickmeier wrote:
> > I just want to attempt a discussion on the frequent clashes between
> > the prescriptivists and descriptivists and see if we can come to any
> > conclusions or way of going forward.
> >
> <snip>
>
> > So we could have an understanding in this group that what we are
> > talking about most of the time is standard English, or we could put a
> > shorthand notation such as SE at the beginning or in the title of a
> > post in which we don't want to be bothered with all of the obscuration
> > of the descriptivists, sort of telling them to just "skip it."
>
> <snip>
>
> > Your comments?
>
> Comment One - If you think there are 'rules of English' you should start by
> indicating where they might be found. I can find the rules of baseball and
> the rules of cricket, but I do not know where these 'rules of English' might
> be found. This may sound flippant but I assure you it is not. Far from there
> being any 'rules of English', I don't believe there are universally
> recognised rules for any part of English - not grammar, not spelling, not
> nuffin. And unless we can agree what these rules are, there's no point
> attempting to say 'This sentence / phrase / word breaks the rules in the
> following way ...'
>
Strunk and White, among others, number some of the elements of style as
"rules." The rules are what writers and readers have generally come to accept
as what works best. Many can be cited.
>
> Comment Two - What is 'Standard English'? I live in England, have done most
> of my life, have lived in different parts of the Country and have travelled
> around it. I neither see nor hear 'Standard English'. There is RP, but that
> is a pronunciation used by a minority and favoured by a slightly larger
> minority. Beyond that is a wealth of dialect and variation. Travel beyond
> the boundaries of England to Scotland , Wales and Ireland and the diversity
> becomes more apparent. Hop across the Atlantic or head East to any part of
> the former Commonwealth and diversity increases exponentially. This group is
> concerned with 'usage' and, as far as I am concerned, that means all types
> of usage of all types of English.
> --
Perhaps we are concerned with best usage, not all types.
>
> John Dean
> Oxford
> De-frag to reply
frank green
John Smith wrote:
> Gary Eickmeier wrote:
> >
> > I just want to attempt a discussion on the frequent clashes between
> > the prescriptivists and descriptivists and see if we can come to any
> > conclusions or way of going forward. <...>
>
> No need.
>
> You're still nursing a lot of false premises.
>
> There are no "the prescriptivists and descriptivists". It's like
> dividing the world into short-divisionists and long-devisionists.
>
> Each approach has its place and its use, and only people who are
> profoundly ignorant about the nature of human language consider
> themselves just one or just the other.
>
> \\P. Schultz
Is that so?
Descriptivists concern themselves primarily if not solely with all the
ways words are used. They will say that "infer" and "imply" are
synonymous.
Prescriptivists concern themselves primarily if not solely with the best
way to use a word, and go to great lengths to help concerned writers
choose the precise word so that the perspicacious reader will not be
distracted by a malapropism.
frank green
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
> John Smith wrote:
>
> > You're still nursing a lot of false premises.
> >
> > There are no "the prescriptivists and descriptivists". It's like
> > dividing the world into short-divisionists and long-devisionists.
> >
> > Each approach has its place and its use, and only people who are
> > profoundly ignorant about the nature of human language consider
> > themselves just one or just the other.
>
> Hey, "prescriptivists and descriptivists" are not my terms; I learned
> them here, from you people. I didn't know I was any kind of "ist"
> until I came here.
>
> I guess I lost this one. I will just press on with my comments using
> standard English, and if some sleeper cell of descriptivists is
> activated, I will respond ad hoc. I will also try to learn more about
> the subject.
>
> BTW, someone asked where these rules of English can be found. I
> thought that (besides English textbooks) they were printed in the back
> of most good, large dictionaries.
>
> Thanks for all of your comments,
>
> Gary Eickmeier
Hey, Gary, your call to action was a good-hearted one stemming from love
of the word. Pay no attention to the men behind the screen.
frank green
John Smith wrote:
> Gary Eickmeier wrote:
> >
> > John Smith wrote:
> >
> > > You're still nursing a lot of false premises.
> > >
> > > There are no "the prescriptivists and descriptivists". It's like
> > > dividing the world into short-divisionists and long-devisionists.
> > >
> > > Each approach has its place and its use, and only people who are
> > > profoundly ignorant about the nature of human language consider
> > > themselves just one or just the other.
> >
> > Hey, "prescriptivists and descriptivists" are not my terms; I learned
> > them here, from you people. <...>
>
> Well, you didn't learn here that they were mutually exclusive. You made
> that part up.
>
> \\P. Schultz
WHAT?
frank green
John Dean wrote:
> Robert Lieblich wrote:
> > John Dean wrote:
> >
> > [ ... ]
> >
> >> I wouldn't play a backgammon tournament unless the rules were pinned
> >> on the wall for all to see. Thus any disagreement goes to the rules.
> >> If you say, as you have done that there are 'Rules of English' then
> >> you should be able to say what they are and where they can be found.
> >> Specifically.
> >> My contention is that there are no such rules. Prove me wrong by
> >> showing me exactly where they are.
> >
> > I can't prove you wrong, given your premises. Given your premises,
> > however, you have no business posting to this group -- or writing or
> > speaking English at all.
> >
> I shouldn't be *speaking* English? You have to believe in 'The Rules' before
> you can post here? You don't sound like a snot, you sound someone taking
> leave of their senses.
> If you can't prove me wrong given my premises, set your own premises and
> prove me wrong by them.
> Better still, quote me a snippet from these undisputed 'Rules of English'
> and tell me where you got it from.
>
> If this is not an issue of usage, what is? If this group doesn't discuss
> usage, what does it do?
> --
> John Dean
> Oxford
> De-frag to reply
Careful, John. You're coming off like a blockhead.
frank green
Robert Lieblich wrote:
> John Dean wrote:
> >
> > Robert Lieblich wrote:
> > > John Dean wrote:
> > >
> > > [ ... ]
> > >
> > >> I wouldn't play a backgammon tournament unless the rules were pinned
> > >> on the wall for all to see. Thus any disagreement goes to the rules.
> > >> If you say, as you have done that there are 'Rules of English' then
> > >> you should be able to say what they are and where they can be found.
> > >> Specifically.
> > >> My contention is that there are no such rules. Prove me wrong by
> > >> showing me exactly where they are.
> > >
> > > I can't prove you wrong, given your premises. Given your premises,
> > > however, you have no business posting to this group -- or writing or
> > > speaking English at all.
> > >
> > I shouldn't be *speaking* English? You have to believe in 'The Rules' before
> > you can post here? You don't sound like a snot, you sound someone taking
> > leave of their senses.
>
> You deleted this sentence from my posting:
> "
> Please feel free to add smileys where you think they are needed to
> keep me from sounding like a total snot."
>
> I did that for the benefit of those who might otherwise miss the
> irony in my remarks. I had thought that someone whose signature
> proclaims him a denizen of Oxford might have trouble realizing that
> even an American could essay irony, and lo, it has come to pass.
>
> > If you can't prove me wrong given my premises, set your own premises and
> > prove me wrong by them.
> > Better still, quote me a snippet from these undisputed 'Rules of English'
> > and tell me where you got it from.
>
> Well, since you can't follow the logic of a parodic argument, here
> it is: You said you wouldn't play a game of badminton unless you
> had an official set of rules to follow. You then said that no one
> could come up with an official set of rules for English usage. I
> concluded that if you wouldn't play badminton without official
> rules, you wouldn't -- or at least shouldn't -- use English, which
> also lacks such rules.
>
> It was supposed to be funny, okay?
> >
> > If this is not an issue of usage, what is? If this group doesn't discuss
> > usage, what does it do?
>
> Sheesh
>
> --
> Bob Lieblich
> Probably overreacting
No, just proving your point. No rules, not play, he said. QED.
frank green
John Dean wrote:
> Robert Lieblich wrote:
> > John Dean wrote:
> >>
> >> Robert Lieblich wrote:
> >>> John Dean wrote:
> >>>
> >>> [ ... ]
> >>>
> >>>> I wouldn't play a backgammon tournament unless the rules were
> >>>> pinned
> >>>> on the wall for all to see. Thus any disagreement goes to the
> >>>> rules.
> >>>> If you say, as you have done that there are 'Rules of English' then
> >>>> you should be able to say what they are and where they can be
> >>>> found. Specifically.
> >>>> My contention is that there are no such rules. Prove me wrong by
> >>>> showing me exactly where they are.
> >>>
> >>> I can't prove you wrong, given your premises. Given your premises,
> >>> however, you have no business posting to this group -- or writing or
> >>> speaking English at all.
> >>>
> >> I shouldn't be *speaking* English? You have to believe in 'The
> >> Rules' before you can post here? You don't sound like a snot, you
> >> sound someone taking leave of their senses.
> >
> > You deleted this sentence from my posting:
> > "
> > Please feel free to add smileys where you think they are needed to
> > keep me from sounding like a total snot."
>
> I put the smileys where I thought they were needed and you still sounded
> snotty
>
> >
> > I did that for the benefit of those who might otherwise miss the
> > irony in my remarks. I had thought that someone whose signature
> > proclaims him a denizen of Oxford might have trouble realizing that
> > even an American could essay irony, and lo, it has come to pass.
>
> It always comes to pass. Like, wherever you go, there you are.
> >
> >> If you can't prove me wrong given my premises, set your own premises
> >> and prove me wrong by them.
> >> Better still, quote me a snippet from these undisputed 'Rules of
> >> English' and tell me where you got it from.
> >
> > Well, since you can't follow the logic of a parodic argument, here
> > it is: You said you wouldn't play a game of badminton unless you
> > had an official set of rules to follow.
>
> Game of Badminton? Send three and fourpence we're going to a dance. I was
> talking about Tournaments, not games. And Backgammon, not Badminton.
> Backgammon uses a smaller racquet but a larger shuttlecock
>
> You then said that no one
> > could come up with an official set of rules for English usage. I
> > concluded that if you wouldn't play badminton without official
> > rules, you wouldn't -- or at least shouldn't -- use English, which
> > also lacks such rules.
>
> I would play a *game*, except against a stranger for money, without the
> rules being present (thought I would know they were accessible) I wouldn't
> play a Tournament unless they were already posted. My whole point was that
> English lacks rules. I have been debating this with those who think it does.
> Thank you
>
> >
> > It was supposed to be funny, okay?
>
> I know
> >>
> >> If this is not an issue of usage, what is? If this group doesn't
> >> discuss usage, what does it do?
> >
> > Sheesh
>
> Furrfu
>
> --
> Bob Lieblich
> Probably overreacting
>
> I was overreacting too. This stuff has been doing my head in. I am sorry to
> have been so ungracious and for not allowing my sense of humo(u)r free rein.
> I acknowledge your gift for irony. You prolly have a steely gaze too. I was
> an a***hole. I abase myself.
>
> --
> John Dean
> Oxford
> De-frag to reply
Now, here is a gentleman! Only one such can apologize sincerely.
frank green
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
> Steven wrote:
>
> > I agree 100% with you Dean. It is really difficult to choose which one to
> > follow. It'd be nice if each professor would list their preference (English,
> > American, or Canadian English) prior to us writing our papers. This would
> > make life a whole lot easier.
>
> See now, here is a case where number does count (to coin a phrase).
> "...each professor would list their preference..." Whose preference?
> Who are "they"? I would say (if this is what Steven was trying to say)
> "each professor would list his preference," or "his or her
> preference." You might re-cast the phrase to "all professors would
> list their preferences." But as written it is confusing and not
> communicative. THAT is why we need rules.
>
> Gary Eickmeier
Ain't the truth?
frank green
> > You might re-cast the phrase to "all professors would
> >list their preferences."
GOOD!
frank green
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
> John Flynn wrote:
>
> > The second piece states that, according to my dialect, there are rules for
> > singular "they" use. Rules which you don't seem to be able to grasp.
>
> Interestinger and interestinger. So what are these rules?
>
> I operate by the traditional if the referrent is singular, you should
> use a singular pronoun or possessive. If plural, then plural. Seems
> simple enough.
>
> Gary Eickmeier
Exactly. Non illegitum carborundum, Gary.
frank green
John Flynn wrote:
> Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>
> > John Flynn wrote:
> >
> >> The second piece states that, according to my dialect, there are
> >> rules for singular "they" use. Rules which you don't seem to be able
> >> to grasp.
> >
> > Interestinger and interestinger. So what are these rules?
> >
> > I operate by the traditional if the referrent is singular, you should
> > use a singular pronoun or possessive. If plural, then plural. Seems
> > simple enough.
>
> Pronouns in English, when referring to people, have real-world gender
> attached to them. What do you do if: (1) the gender is unknown; (2) the
> gender is unimportant; or even (3) the number of people is unknown?
>
> The rules I use for singular "they" are not written in some Big Book of
> Grammar anywhere, so I would have to analyse my own instinctual use of
> "they" and then whittle out some spur-of-the-moment rules based on those
> musings. I've got a feeling that such impromptu rule-codification will not
> cover every exception. I can, however, give you some examples that
> exemplify different situations where I (and the hundreds of thousands of
> speakers in my dialect area -- and probably many other areas, too, as
> singular "they" isn't confined just to this part of the world) would use
> singular "they".
>
> Person A: There's someone at the door.
> Person B: Tell them to go away!
>
> Person A: I got one of the teaching assistants to type up today's lesson
> notes, but I think some bits are wrong.
> Person B: Well, they'll just have to type it again, won't they?
>
> Person A: I don't care who split this milk, I want them to admit to their
> crime and wipe it up.
>
> Getting it yet?
>
> --
> johnF
> "It is, of course, impossible to characterize a language in one formula; languages,
> like men, are too composite to have their whole essence summed up in one short
> expression." -- Otto Jespersen, _Growth and Structure of the English Language_
Look, Johnny boy: recast those sentences where you are tempted to have a pronoun and
its referent not agree in number. It's easy and doesn't make you sound like a bumpkin.
frank green
"Richard R. Hershberger" wrote:
> Gary Eickmeier <geic...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message news:<3E20519E...@tampabay.rr.com>...
> > John Flynn wrote:
> >
> > > The second piece states that, according to my dialect, there are rules for
> > > singular "they" use. Rules which you don't seem to be able to grasp.
> >
> > Interestinger and interestinger. So what are these rules?
> >
> > I operate by the traditional if the referrent is singular, you should
> > use a singular pronoun or possessive. If plural, then plural. Seems
> > simple enough.
> >
> > Gary Eickmeier
>
> For an informal description of the rules for "singular they" given by
> a linguist, take a look at
> http://www.abc.net.au/rn/arts/ling/stories/s546929.htm.
This is getting interestinger and interestinger. The piece seems to totally ignore the easy possibility
of recasting sentences so they are not internally contradictory.
> You will find
> it consistant [sic] with John's discussion. The point to note is that
frank green
Steven wrote:
> > jen wrote:
> >
> > > I'm from West Yorkshire in the north of England and my own experience
> > > mirrors John Flynn's. I'm now middle aged and worldly wise enough to
> > > avoid using 'singular they' in formal documents for fear of bringing
> > > disparagement on my head. However, like everyone else in my area,
> > > whether educated or uneducated, PC or not PC, I hear it and use it on
> > > a daily basis. I have never felt or noticed any confusion on my part
> > > or anyone else's and I continue to regard it as a completely normal,
> > > useful and unambiguous (yes, really) piece of language.
> >
> > Jen is a natural brunette, but the rest of the staff are blonds. Jen
> > lost no time dying their hair.
> >
> > Gary Eickmeier
>
> Gary, you're pushing its use. The sentence I used it for was, "It'd be nice
> if each professor would list their preference (English,
> American, or Canadian English) prior to us writing our papers." Perhaps if
> you are so sage, you'll offer something to replace "their". Perhaps, "It'd
> be nice if each professor would list his and her preference (English,
> American, or Canadian English) prior to us writing our papers." Or again,
> "It'd be nice if each professor would list his or her preference (English,
> American, or Canadian English) prior to us writing our papers." Perhaps a /
> instead of the conjunction. Instead, you make up retarded examples that have
> little similarity to the one I constructed.
My God! Just say "It would be nice if professors listed their preference." You
could say the same thing in several other ways where the words got along real
well with each other.
Dena Jo
At least take a dinner break...
--
Dena Jo