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: 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: 103376,8775b19e3c68a5dc X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public From: "James Giles" Subject: Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? Date: 1998/02/12 Message-ID: <6c09ub$78@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 324620424 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> 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 <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. -- J. Giles