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-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 111d6b,328622178ec8b832 X-Google-Attributes: gid111d6b,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,8775b19e3c68a5dc X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1094ba,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid1094ba,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public X-Google-Thread: 10d15b,328622178ec8b832 X-Google-Attributes: gid10d15b,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public From: miker3@ix.netcom.com (Michael Rubenstein) Subject: Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? Date: 1998/02/12 Message-ID: <34e37094.260332117@nntp.ix.netcom.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 324364247 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <6at330$7uj$1@mainsrv.main.nc.us> <6bp6rh$sim$4@peachy.apana.org.au> <6bpoea$rd1$1@bvbsd2.kc.bv.com> <6bsddk$3cp$1@news.nyu.edu> <34E23B11.6AD8@erols.com> <01bd3756$552bf060$efd9cdcf@ms112188.mindspring.com> <34E25602.4F93EF49@for-president.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Organization: Netcom X-NETCOM-Date: Wed Feb 11 9:52:56 PM CST 1998 Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.misc,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.cobol,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-02-11T21:52:56-06:00 List-Id: On Wed, 11 Feb 1998 20:53:06 -0500, Dietmar Stumpe wrote: > > >Eric Clayberg wrote: > >> The Goobers wrote in article >> <34E23B11.6AD8@erols.com>... >> > Richard Kenner wrote: >> > > >> > > The more a "programmer" knows, the more "well rounded" they are. >> > > I see no reason to set a limit to knowlege in any field: it's always >> > > better to know more than to know less. >> > >> > BLEARGH! >> > >> > Read this sentence again, please: >> > >> > 'The more a "programmer" knows, the more "well rounded" they are.' >> > >> > I realise that you are trying to avoid sex-specification ('The more a >> > "programmer" knows, the mofe "well rounded" he/she is.') but you BOTCHED >> > it... now, repeat after me: >> > >> > 'Antecedants must agree with their consequent.' >> > >> > Notice the subtle ha-ha in this 'rule'? 'Antecedants' and 'their' are >> > plurals, 'consequent' is a singular... is make for good joke to >> > remembering Eenglish to be doing by, no? >> > >> > In your sentence 'programmer' is singular, 'knows' is singular, 'they' >> > and 'are' am be pluralismers. >> > >> > What *are* they teaching in schools nowadays? >> >> You might be surprised to discover that his sentence is *correct* based >> upon what is being taught in schools these days. The sex-neutral use of >> "they" and "their" to refer to a single person is now in common usage >> (including the mainstream media) and is being taught in most business >> writing courses (at least it was seven years ago when I went through B' >> school). I don't know if this has caught on in grade school or high school >> yet. If not, it's only a matter or time. You might as well get used to it. >> >> -Eric > >I love political correctness! The language will be lost, but it is important >to use political correctness. LOL 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. -- Michael M Rubenstein