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=0.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,8775b19e3c68a5dc X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 10d15b,328622178ec8b832 X-Google-Attributes: gid10d15b,public X-Google-Thread: 111d6b,328622178ec8b832 X-Google-Attributes: gid111d6b,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 1094ba,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid1094ba,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public From: miker3@ix.netcom.com (Michael Rubenstein) Subject: Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? Date: 1998/02/12 Message-ID: <34e45ae8.320334566@nntp.ix.netcom.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 324544272 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> <34e37094.260332117@nntp.ix.netcom.com> <6bvdv1$bku@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Organization: Netcom X-NETCOM-Date: Thu Feb 12 2:54:51 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: 1998-02-12T14:54:51-06:00 List-Id: On Thu, 12 Feb 1998 11:09:21 -0700, "James Giles" wrote: > >Michael Rubenstein wrote in message ><34e37094.260332117@nntp.ix.netcom.com>... >... >>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. > >The OED contains references of all kinds of usage. It is not a >recommendation that the usage is listed there. I'm sure that >there are numerous other usages listed there which no one >would recommend. > >On the other hand, most uses of plural pronouns for singular >antecedants that are listed actually have a pseudo-grammatical >basis. There are a number of words that are syntactically >singular, but whose usual application is to a large number of >people. It is in these cases (and rarely any others) that >uses of plural pronouns for 'singular' antecedents often >occurred in the past. These are words like "everyone", >"no one", "someone", "anyone", etc.. > >In general, the use of plural pronouns for the singular generic >does nothing except reduce the efficiency of the language >for its primary purpose: communication. It's not more polite. >Indeed, the idea that it's impolite to use the traditional generic >was *invented* by political activists who wanted a divisive >rhetorical tool (it's actually deliberately impolite to complain >about someone's use of the traditional generic). > >Now, there *were* (and still are) real sexist abuses of the language. >To use feminine singular pronouns for generic individuals of only >certain professions is sexist. To say "the teacher ... she", >"the nurse ... she", or to refer to the generic secretary with >"your girl can contact my girl" - these are all sexist. The correct >traditional generic is to use the masculine singular for the >generic member of *any* profession or group (with the obvious >exception of mothers, wives, daughters, etc.). I believe that >if these genuinely sexists uses of the language weren't ever >used, the whole issue would never have arisen. Of course the OED is descriptive and makes no claim to prescribe correct usage. In fact, in the definition for "their", which I've quoted in another post, it describes the usage as "not favored by grammarians." 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." -- Michael M Rubenstein