Thanks John.  I haven't found that "success" in terms of promotion or better 
pay depends much on good writing as a criteria in general, but depends on the 
position.  "Success" is a subjective term and certainly to enjoy one's work is 
to have succeeded.
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <jr_esq@...> wrote:

 Emily,
 

 It means one gets promoted to a better position that requires good writing, 
job security, and better pay.  If one can't achieve this in one organization, 
there will be others who will gladly take him or her.  Above all, you should be 
enjoying the work itself to be successful at it. 
 

 ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, <emilymaenot@...> wrote:

 JR, how do you define "success" in the context of your comment?  
 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <jr_esq@...> wrote:

 Share,
 

 That is a good reason why a person who can write well will be successful in 
any big organization like the government and universities. 
 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <sharelong60@...> wrote:

 John and Judy, I have been shocked by the grammar and spelling mistakes I have 
seen in so called formal documents, such as business memos. So nothing would 
surprise me in that regard. Like how many people get it's and its wrong; don't 
use possessive before a gerund; get there, their and they're wrong.
 

 
 
 On Sunday, December 1, 2013 9:32 AM, "authfriend@..." <authfriend@...> wrote:
 
   Probably not, at least right now, but it's becoming increasingly accepted in 
less-formal contexts, as I say. 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <jr_esq@...> wrote:

 Judy,
 

 I don't  believe "they" as a single pronoun would pass muster in a formal 
report to Congress.
 

 ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, <authfriend@...> wrote:

 John, as Seraphita points out, "they" as a singular pronoun has been in 
popular use for a long time, including by some top-notch writers. It was 
declared a solecism in the 18th century by overly persnickety grammarians, but 
that didn't succeed in stamping it out; and it's currently undergoing a revival.
 

 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <jr_esq@...> wrote:

  I would agree that the use of the person's given name sounds better and would 
be grammatically correct.  It would take a long time for "they" to be accepted 
as a singular pronoun.  As it is, American English is probably evolving quite 
differently from British English.  For example, foreign words have become 
acceptable over here, such as tacos, chow mein, sushi, shish-kabob, and 
tandoori chicken.
 

 Or, sometimes existential verbs are inferred in a sentence, such as "He the 
man", which could refer to the past, present and future.  The use of this 
sentence could also show that you're "hep" to the street language in big cities.
 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <s3raphita@...> wrote:

 It's not a *personal* gender pronoun but "they" has distinguished precedent as 
a singular pronoun.  It grates a little bit but if even Shakespeare and Jane 
Austen used it I can feel relaxed about following suit.
 

 And "they" is definitely preferable to "he or she" and "him and her" both of 
which kill natural rhythm in English. And that ghastly 1970s attempt to foist 
"s/he" on us has mercifully fallen by the wayside.
 

 Rather than a *personal* gender pronoun why not just use someone's name?

 

 As a bonus here's how to end a sentence with five prepositions:
 Mother, what did you bring that book that I don't like to be read to out of up 
for?





 



 
 

 
 




 
 
 
 







 


Reply via email to