[FairfieldLife] RE: Personal Gender Pronouns
Just for fun, Hebrew personal pronouns: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Hebrew/Personal_Pronouns http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Hebrew/Personal_Pronouns ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote: This new practice is catching on in a SF Bay Area college for women--and a few others in the country. Will the English language be changed? http://news.yahoo.com/preferred-pronouns-gain-traction-us-colleges-064437446.html http://news.yahoo.com/preferred-pronouns-gain-traction-us-colleges-064437446.html
[FairfieldLife] RE: Personal Gender Pronouns
Hebrew excercise: mi: hu: (me who?) = Who (mi:) [is] he (hu:)? LoL! ? It may take some time go grasp that, eh?? ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill@... wrote: Just address them by their true pronoun descriptor ... it. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote: This new practice is catching on in a SF Bay Area college for women--and a few others in the country. Will the English language be changed? http://news.yahoo.com/preferred-pronouns-gain-traction-us-colleges-064437446.html http://news.yahoo.com/preferred-pronouns-gain-traction-us-colleges-064437446.html
[FairfieldLife] RE: Personal Gender Pronouns
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?
[FairfieldLife] RE: Personal Gender Pronouns
Barry, Whatever happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas. ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: It's a grammar jungle out there imho (-: http://www.buzzfeed.com/aj8/19-jokes-only-grammar-nerds-will-understand-cfe3 http://www.buzzfeed.com/aj8/19-jokes-only-grammar-nerds-will-understand-cfe3
[FairfieldLife] RE: Personal Gender Pronouns
Re I don't believe they as a single pronoun would pass muster in a formal report to Congress.: Yes, I was wondering if legal documents have strict rules on this to avoid dangerous ambiguity. Don't many US colleges encourage students to use she as the singular (instead of he) or is that just a myth put about by right-wingers? Is there a house style at universities where they insist students stick to one preferred solution? Another alternative is to use she and he more-or-less alternately in an article. In some contexts that can work fine - it even adds variety to a piece - but in many cases it just makes me pause and wonder if indeed a woman or a man is actually being discussed rather than a generic human. ---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?
[FairfieldLife] RE: Personal Gender Pronouns
Re the accepted authority in the USA for the American English usage is contained in Elements of Style by Strunk and White.: Yes, I have a copy. I've found it both useful and reader friendly. I think there's a generation gap on this gender-neutral controversy. I was taught that he, mankind, etc, always included both men and women. That's how I always hear it. That's how my ear is attuned. With the rise of feminist objections it's probably the case that younger people have now learnt to associate he, him with males. It doesn't bother me, but as it bothers so many I suspect that using they is the best of the available alternatives. Judy's suggestion that men should always use he and women use she is one strategy I've not come across before. Maybe that would work and take the sting out of the debate. As I said above, the one I really hated was the s/he usage. How would you pronounce it? Another bugbear of mine is using words like chair or chairperson. If we know the sex what's wrong with chairman or chairwoman? ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote: S3, When a writer wants to address both or all genders, it is recommended to use a generic term such as the spectator or meditator. If the writer wants to be more specific, then the gender specific pronouns. like he and she, can be used. But the accepted authority in the USA for the American English usage is contained in Elements of Style by Strunk and White. Also, for specific organizations, there are several style manuals that are used. http://www.calstatela.edu/library/styleman.htm http://www.calstatela.edu/library/styleman.htm ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote: Re I don't believe they as a single pronoun would pass muster in a formal report to Congress.: Yes, I was wondering if legal documents have strict rules on this to avoid dangerous ambiguity. Don't many US colleges encourage students to use she as the singular (instead of he) or is that just a myth put about by right-wingers? Is there a house style at universities where they insist students stick to one preferred solution? Another alternative is to use she and he more-or-less alternately in an article. In some contexts that can work fine - it even adds variety to a piece - but in many cases it just makes me pause and wonder if indeed a woman or a man is actually being discussed rather than a generic human. ---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?
[FairfieldLife] RE: Personal Gender Pronouns
Just address them by their true pronoun descriptor ... it. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote: This new practice is catching on in a SF Bay Area college for women--and a few others in the country. Will the English language be changed? http://news.yahoo.com/preferred-pronouns-gain-traction-us-colleges-064437446.html http://news.yahoo.com/preferred-pronouns-gain-traction-us-colleges-064437446.html
[FairfieldLife] RE: Personal Gender Pronouns
It's standard practice on the Web. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote: This new practice is catching on in a SF Bay Area college for women--and a few others in the country. Will the English language be changed? http://news.yahoo.com/preferred-pronouns-gain-traction-us-colleges-064437446.html http://news.yahoo.com/preferred-pronouns-gain-traction-us-colleges-064437446.html
[FairfieldLife] RE: Personal Gender Pronouns
Rather than an insightful insult, consider it an epiphanym. ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote: Some people would probably take that as an offense since it applies to an inanimate being or something impersonal. But I do have a problem with addressing one person as they. Some people may find this as rude and a violation of good etiquette. Nonetheless, there are some languages in the world where the pronouns are genderless as part of their accepted grammatical rules. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill@... wrote: Just address them by their true pronoun descriptor ... it. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote: This new practice is catching on in a SF Bay Area college for women--and a few others in the country. Will the English language be changed? http://news.yahoo.com/preferred-pronouns-gain-traction-us-colleges-064437446.html http://news.yahoo.com/preferred-pronouns-gain-traction-us-colleges-064437446.html
[FairfieldLife] RE: Personal Gender Pronouns
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? ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill@... wrote: Rather than an insightful insult, consider it an epiphanym. ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote: Some people would probably take that as an offense since it applies to an inanimate being or something impersonal. But I do have a problem with addressing one person as they. Some people may find this as rude and a violation of good etiquette. Nonetheless, there are some languages in the world where the pronouns are genderless as part of their accepted grammatical rules. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill@... wrote: Just address them by their true pronoun descriptor ... it. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote: This new practice is catching on in a SF Bay Area college for women--and a few others in the country. Will the English language be changed? http://news.yahoo.com/preferred-pronouns-gain-traction-us-colleges-064437446.html http://news.yahoo.com/preferred-pronouns-gain-traction-us-colleges-064437446.html
[FairfieldLife] RE: Personal Gender Pronouns
Re For example, foreign words have become acceptable over here, such as tacos, chow mein, sushi, shish-kabob, and tandoori chicken.: You mean shish-kebab. All those foreign words are accepted in UK. By the way: a recent survey reveals that Chinese stir-fry has now replaced chicken tikka masala as Britain’s favourite dish! Whatever happened to roast beef? I am so very pleased to tell you that I am emphatically not hep to the street language in big cities! ---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? ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill@... wrote: Rather than an insightful insult, consider it an epiphanym. ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote: Some people would probably take that as an offense since it applies to an inanimate being or something impersonal. But I do have a problem with addressing one person as they. Some people may find this as rude and a violation of good etiquette. Nonetheless, there are some languages in the world where the pronouns are genderless as part of their accepted grammatical rules. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill@... wrote: Just address them by their true pronoun descriptor ... it. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote: This new practice is catching on in a SF Bay Area college for women--and a few others in the country. Will the English language be changed? http://news.yahoo.com/preferred-pronouns-gain-traction-us-colleges-064437446.html http://news.yahoo.com/preferred-pronouns-gain-traction-us-colleges-064437446.html
[FairfieldLife] RE: Personal Gender Pronouns
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?
