RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: RE: Personal Gender Pronouns
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?
RE: RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: RE: Personal Gender Pronouns
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?
