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: 109fba,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 10d15b,328622178ec8b832 X-Google-Attributes: gid10d15b,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public X-Google-Thread: 1094ba,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid1094ba,public From: "Frank A. Adrian" Subject: Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? Date: 1998/02/12 Message-ID: <6bv72g$h7v$1@client2.news.psi.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 324465179 References: <6at330$7uj$1@mainsrv.main.nc.us> <6bsddk$3cp$1@news.nyu.edu> <34E23B11.6AD8@erols.com> <6bti3r$e96$1@client3.news.psi.net> <6bv3no$b62@clarknet.clark.net> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Organization: First DataBank 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: docdwarf@clark.net wrote in message <6bv3no$b62@clarknet.clark.net>... >In article <6bti3r$e96$1@client3.news.psi.net>, >Frank A. Adrian wrote: >>In short, lighten up, Mr. Language Pedant. > >Mr? Why do you call me 'Mr'? Permit me to offer you a challenge, Mr >Adrian... I say there is a simple, readily accepted substitute for this >instance of antecedant/consequent disagreement. I say, further, that you >can neither generate it yourself nor, after I generate it, give any >passable reason as to *why* this antecedant/consequent disagreement is >superior to the alternative that you are obviously unable to generate. To be honest, I cannot find a solution that sounds superior to my ears than the use of the plural "they". Even though others have proposed alternatives, they have generally been rebuffed by the only court that holds sway in the linguistic realm, the court of common usage. As I see the current situation being satisfactory, I have no need to lower myself to the level of your suposed challenge. If you find the situation intolerable, I apologize about and withdraw my objection to your post and will certainly not stand in your way as you make a braying ass of yourself about the matter. >Are you up to the challenge, Mr Adrian? Do you say there is *no* >acceptable alternative to the above cited disagreement... or that the >failure to find one is just a matter of laziness? I admit neither. Perhaps there is an acceptable alternative. Perhaps there is not. The fact that there is no acceptable alternative NOW, I will not ascribe to laziness. I might ascribe it to inertia or a lack of concern on the part of English speakers, but in any case, I find the status quo with respect to the issue (i.e., overloading use of the plural to also mean the sex-neutral singular case) quite satisfactory. I have no need to search for this chimerical solution you prattle on about. If you have a problem with common usage, please go ahead with your Quixotic quest, friend. -- Frank A. Adrian First DataBank frank_adrian@firstdatabank.com (W) franka@europa.com (H) This message does not necessarily reflect those of my employer, its parent company, or any of the co-subsidiaries of the parent company.