From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
X-Google-Thread: 111d6b,328622178ec8b832
X-Google-Attributes: gid111d6b,public
X-Google-Thread: 10d15b,328622178ec8b832
X-Google-Attributes: gid10d15b,public
X-Google-Thread: 1014db,a03ae7f4e53958e1
X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public
X-Google-Thread: 1094ba,a03ae7f4e53958e1
X-Google-Attributes: gid1094ba,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,8775b19e3c68a5dc
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Thread: 109fba,a03ae7f4e53958e1
X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public
X-Google-Thread: 114809,a03ae7f4e53958e1
X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public
From: The Goobers <docdwarf@erols.com>
Subject: Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java?
Date: 1998/02/12
Message-ID: <34E39DBF.FE9@erols.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 324606493
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
References: <6at330$7uj$1@mainsrv.main.nc.us>
 <01bd3756$552bf060$efd9cdcf@ms112188.mindspring.com>
 <34E25602.4F93EF49@for-president.com> <34e37094.260332117@nntp.ix.netcom.com>
 <6bv3ca$afc@clarknet.clark.net> <34e352e5.318283407@nntp.ix.netcom.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: docdwarf@erols.com
To: Michael Rubenstein <miker3@ix.netcom.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
X-Complaints-To: abuse@erols.com
X-Trace: winter.news.erols.com 887332351 4381 207.172.132.103 (13 Feb 1998
 01:12:31 GMT)
Organization: BudNy Organisation
Newsgroups: 
 comp.lang.java.misc,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.cobol,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.ada
Date: 1998-02-12T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Michael Rubenstein wrote:
> 
> On 12 Feb 1998 15:10:02 GMT, docdwarf@clark.net () wrote:
> 
> >In article <34e37094.260332117@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
> >Michael Rubenstein <miker3@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >[snippage]
> >>
> >>Apparently the language was lost a long time ago.  The Oxford English
> >>Dictionary lists quotes using "they" and "their" with singular
> >>antecedants  going back to the 14th century.
> >
> >Usages certainly do become archaic, true... but I am wondering if in this
> >instance we are not trying to have archaic and eat it, too.  My OED is a
> >moderately unwieldly tome; might you provide a citing to which I might
> >turn for verification, lest we find we are unable to hie ourselves hence
> >this wold?
> 
> Certainly, I'm always happy to provide citations..  From the OED entry
> for "their":
> 
>         3. Often used in relation to a singular n. or pronoun denoting
> 
>         a person, after each, every, either, neither, no one, every
>         one, etc. Also so used instead of �his or her�, when the
>         gender is inclusive or uncertain. Cf. they pron. 2, them pron.

[snippage of citings]

Well and good, then... I sit corrected and greatly appreciate your
diligence and effort.

DD