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: 10d15b,328622178ec8b832 X-Google-Attributes: gid10d15b,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 111d6b,328622178ec8b832 X-Google-Attributes: gid111d6b,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,8775b19e3c68a5dc X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1094ba,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid1094ba,public From: miker3@ix.netcom.com (Michael Rubenstein) Subject: Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? Date: 1998/02/13 Message-ID: <34e43647.50558038@nntp.ix.netcom.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 324730799 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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> <34e37094.260332117@nntp.ix.netcom.com> <6bvdv1$bku@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net> <34e45ae8.320334566@nntp.ix.netcom.com> <6c09ub$78@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Organization: Netcom X-NETCOM-Date: Fri Feb 13 6:25:10 AM 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: 1998-02-13T06:25:10-06:00 List-Id: On Thu, 12 Feb 1998 19:06:47 -0700, "James Giles" wrote: > >Michael Rubenstein wrote in message ><34e45ae8.320334566@nntp.ix.netcom.com>... >... >>However, my post did not claim that this is correct usage (I never >>even claimed to know what that means). It should have been clear >>that I was responding to the statement "[t]he language will be lost, >>but it is important to use political correctness." As the OED shows, >>this is not a new usage and I have some difficulty attributing most of >>the quotes in the OED to "political correctness" nor do I find it >>credible that they are a reaction to "your girl can contact my girl." > >I looked through your list and could find none that actually used the >plural pronoun to refer to a single person. They referred to non-empty >collections of people that just happened to be introduced in a preceeding >clause with a *grammatically* singular phrase (eg. "Many a Sarazen lost >their life"). Clearly, the plural pronoun is referring to the many people >that fit the initial noun phrase. > >The modern "political correctness" advacates would use the plural pronoun >even when the antecedent is clearly singular. The worst of the bunch >consist of such completely unnecessary combinations as "a man lost >their wife" or "a girl had their bike stolen." Here, the pronoun referring >to the poor widower could clearly have lost "his" wife with no sexism >implied. And you really wonder who owned the bike the girl was >associated with: your initial thought is that maybe the word order >is wrong and it should have said "the girl had their stolen bike." > >What do you suggest is the meaning of "The pilot is in command of the >flight crew and they are responsible for the safe operation of the plane."? >If you were to say that the whole flight crew was collectively responsible >for safety, you'd be wrong. The pilot is individually responsible for the >safe >operation of the aircraft. The singular/plural ambiguity is more important >than any percieved sexism in the language. Adopting plural pronouns for >the singular generic merely decreases the efficiency of the language. > >Oh well. It's happened before (changes making the language less efficient). >It'll probably happen again. Obviously you are very bothered by this. So bothered that you didn't notice that the sentence that started this may be considered to fall into that category. It was not talking about a specific individual. How is The more a "programmer" knows, the more "well rounded" they are. different from A person can�t help their birth. I'm afraid I just don't share your concern about the "efficiency" of the language. We've survived the use of the plural pronoun for the second person singular. From the OED definition of "you": Originally the accusative and dative plural of the second personal pronoun: see thou for the declension of the 2nd pers. pron. in OE. and ME. Between 1300 and 1400 it began to be used also for the nominative ye, which it had replaced in general use by about 1600. During the 14th century it also appears as a substitute for the singular obj. thee and nom. thou, being originally used in token of respect in addressing a superior, but later also to an equal, and ultimately generally: cf. thou 1. Thus you is now the general pronoun of the second person, nominative or objective, singular or plural.] Languages change. -- Michael M Rubenstein