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=0.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_40,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: 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: 114809,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public From: "James Giles" Subject: Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? Date: 1998/02/12 Message-ID: <6bvdv1$bku@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 324496190 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> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services 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: 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. -- J. Giles