The nature of English (was Re: The nature of wizards)

[Bernie Cosell]

jgd at rsiatl.UUCP (John G. DeArmond) writes:

}gdh at calmasd.Prime.COM (Gerald Hall) writes:

}>In article <2719D550.51BE at tct.uucp> chip at tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
}>>According to dave at viper.Lynx.MN.Org (David Messer):
}>>>"To avoid confusing the reader by using a gender-specific pronoun where
}>>>proper English usage is to use a gender-unspecified pronoun, namely 'he.'"
}>>proper English usage may change to the optional
}>>use of "she" or "he" according to the whim of the writer.
}>>
}>Like it or not, the proper gender-unspecified singular pronoun is "they".
}>Various 'grammar fascists' have tried to suppress this usage over the
}>years by insisting that it is plural, however, the usage by native
}>speakers is the proper definition of 'correct' grammar and there are
}>pervasive examples in English literature where "they" is used as the
}>singular "he or she" equivalent.  Just think of "they" as number-
}>unspecified (possibly or specifically singular from context) as well
}>as gender-unspecified.

}Like it or not, the first poster is correct, feminist chest thumping to
}the contrary. (Boy, I bet that hurts :-)  Quoting from "Reference Manual
}for Stenographers and Typists" by Gavin & Sabin on page 155, 

'correct' is in the eye of the beholder, of course.  To paraphrase the
subject line of this: the nature of English is that it *changes*.
...

}So there  you have it.  According to my mom who is a retired executive
}secretary, this book has been the authority on proper grammar since day
}one and does not respond to the political correct-think of the day. 

'Since day one' is hardly a commendation, any more than claiming that a
defintion from the "New Century Dictionary" [from 1900] is the final
authority on the proper, _contemporary_ use of the word.

}(I typed this in under Unix which makes it relevant to this group :-)

Yes, this all isn't relevant, but what the hell...:-)...   If you're a
fan of old authorities, I think that Fowler ["Modern Egnlish Usage"
from the 1920's] generally presents the case for the realities of the
language better than the 'know it all' grammar references that are so
handy when you only want a simple yes-or-no answer, but aren't so good
when your inquiry is a bit more contemplative.

What Fowler has to say about this matter is pretty reasonable (as is much of
Fowler):

Number (11) Pronouns and possessives after {\it each}, {\it every},
{\it anyone}, [...] and the rest are all singular; that is undisputed;
in a perfect language there would exist pronouns and possessives that
were of as doubtful gender as they and yet were, like them, singular;
i.e., it would have words meaning him-or-her, himself-or-herself,
his-or-her.  But, just as French lacks our power to distinguishing
(without additional words) between his, her, and its, so we lack the
French power of saying in one word his-or-her.  Ther are three
makeshifts: first, {\it as anybody can see for himself or herself};
second {\it as anybody can see for themselves}; and third, {\it as
anybody can see for himself}.  No one who can help it chooses the
first; it is correct, and is sometimes necessary, but it is so clumsy
as to be ridiculous except when explicitness is urgent, and it usually
sounds like a bit of pendantic humour.  The second is the popular
solution [this in 1926 in _England_!  -- /b\]; it sets the literary
man's teeh on edge, and he exerts himself to give the same meaning in
some entirely different way if he is not prepared to risk the third,
which is here recommended.  It involves the convention (statutory in
the interpretation of documents) that where the matter of sex is not
conspicuous or important the masculine form shall be allowed to
represent a person instead of a man, or say a man (homo)instead of a
man (vir.)  Whether that convention, with {\it  himself or herself} in
the background for especial exactititudes, and paraphrase always
possible in dubious cases, is an arrogant demand on the part of male
England, everyone must decide for himself (or for himself or herself,
or for themselves).


Don't you wish every grammar book was as readable, strightforward about
the realities of the problems and alternatives, generall as informative
about things as Fowler?  Sure beats the "I know it all and you do it THIS
way" grammar books...

We now return you to your regularly scheduled Unix flame war...

  /Bernie\