This is the big problem with "gender-neutral" and "non-normative"> language reforms. The new term, at first neutral, becomes a synonym> for the previous one, obviating the effect.
This doesn't seem to be true for gender-neutral language. There is no tendency mentioned anywhere I've seen for "zir" or whatever to be taken to specifically mean the male, for example.
On Sat, 14 May 2005 16:14:12 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
Ric Locke <warlocke@mesh.net> writes:>
This is the big problem with "gender-neutral" and "non-normative">> language reforms. The new term, at first neutral, becomes a synonym>> for the previous one, obviating the effect.>
This doesn't seem to be true for gender-neutral language. There is no> tendency mentioned anywhere I've seen for "zir" or whatever to be> taken to specifically mean the male, for example. >
I agree that it tends to happen for euphemism; but the gender-neutral> language reforms aren't euphemisms.
Despite considerable effort from academia, gender-neutral neologisms haven't caught on in the communications of the general public. When (if) they do the process will occur.
The only attempt at gender neutrality that has escaped into the wild in m experience is the singular "they" employed as a substitute for a pronoun, and that's just regularization of a common error.
On 14 May 2005 16:36:03 -0700, Constantinople wrote:
David Dyer-Bennet wrote:>> Ric Locke <warlocke@mesh.net> writes:>>
This is the big problem with "gender-neutral" and "non-normative">>> language reforms. The new term, at first neutral, becomes a synonym>>> for the previous one, obviating the effect.>>
This doesn't seem to be true for gender-neutral language. There is> no>> tendency mentioned anywhere I've seen for "zir" or whatever to be>> taken to specifically mean the male, for example.>>
I agree that it tends to happen for euphemism; but the gender-neutral>> language reforms aren't euphemisms.>
Two points.>
1) "zir" is way, way too much a minority usage to consider as having> been through the linguistic grinder like "disabled" has. Wide use is> going to include use by people who are not ideologically-minded,> whereas I don't think anyone uses "zir" who isn't himself a strong> advocate of the goals of using "zir".>
2) Gender-neutral exists in some languages and for all I know> gender-neutral could arise in English,
It has: singular "they."
so I don't mean (1) to imply> that gender-neutral isn't going to happen, only that it hasn't really> been put to the test like the more widely-adopted new words.
On Sat, 14 May 2005 19:09:54 -0500, Ric Locke <warlocke@mesh.net> wrote in <news:3mfrfiddpcuo$.4zgly0tqlkel.dlg@40tude.net> in rec.arts.sf.composition:
[...]
The only attempt at gender neutrality that has escaped> into the wild in m experience is the singular "they"> employed as a substitute for a pronoun,
It *is* a pronoun. Did you mean 'for a singular pronoun'?
and that's just regularization of a common error.
Historically speaking, it's not an error, for all that it grates horribly on my ear; it's a long-standing feature of the language as she is spoke. In any case, I think that there's little doubt that the usage is being strongly reinforced by a desire for a gender-neutral personal pronoun; very likely that -- or rather, gender-inclusiveness and lack of gender-specificity -- was always a major reason for the usage. I see no reason to dismiss it as 'just' anything.
On 14 May 2005 20:15:24 -0700, Constantinople wrote:
Dan Goodman wrote:>> On 14 May 2005 16:36:03 -0700, Constantinople wrote:>
2) Gender-neutral exists in some languages and for all I know>>> gender-neutral could arise in English,>>
It has: singular "they.">
Indeed. However I was thinking of a language where a gender neutral> third person singular pronoun was primary. In English we have "he" and> "she". In Mandarin Chinese, the standard word that is used in the place> of "he" and "she" is (sounds like) "ta" and is gender neutral, or so I> was instructed.
I understand this is the case in American Sign Language.
Which can be more precise in other ways. I'm told that a skilled signer can "say" "he/she said, and then she/he said, and..." keeping up to six people being referred to distinct.
Historically speaking, it's not an error, for all that it> grates horribly on my ear; it's a long-standing feature of> the language as she is spoke.
... which is why it is handy: people at least understand what you're talking about, and right now I can say "foo@aol.com emailled me, and they want to know ..." and be understood by third parties, not thought utterly illiterate, and not cause offence to Foo no matter what their gender.
Actually, in some ways, it's handy that 'they' is plural ... because sometimes you don't know if Foo is one person, or the Foo Family, Inc., but you're happy to reply to them anyway. Having the singular as a special case of the plural makes some sense.
Will 'they is' become acceptable? Will it mutate to 'tey is' or 'te is'? Tune in next century ...
On 16 May 2005 10:37:59 -0700, Constantinople wrote:
Dan Goodman wrote:>> On 14 May 2005 20:15:24 -0700, Constantinople wrote:>>
Dan Goodman wrote:>>>> On 14 May 2005 16:36:03 -0700, Constantinople wrote:>>>
2) Gender-neutral exists in some languages and for all I know>>>>> gender-neutral could arise in English,>>>>
It has: singular "they.">>>
Indeed. However I was thinking of a language where a gender neutral>>> third person singular pronoun was primary. In English we have "he" and>>> "she". In Mandarin Chinese, the standard word that is used in the>>> place of "he" and "she" is (sounds like) "ta" and is gender neutral,>>> or so I was instructed.>>
I understand this is the case in American Sign Language. >>
Which can be more precise in other ways. I'm told that a skilled>> signer can "say" "he/she said, and then she/he said, and..." keeping up>> to six people being referred to distinct.>
I could not say what the actual approach is, but I would imagine that> sign language could make good use of the three dimensions in which the> signs are produced. For example, each participant's identifier-pronoun> could be located at a different spatial point in front of the signer.
James A . Donald 17 May 2005 10:10:52 [ permanent link ]
-- On 14 May 2005 16:36:03 -0700, Constantinople wrote:> > 2) Gender-neutral exists in some languages and for > > all I know gender-neutral could arise in English,
Dan Goodman> It has: singular "they."
Trouble with singular "they" is that it increases, rather than reduces, ambiguity. That is not the direction in which English walks,
"He that stealeth a man and selleth him shall be put to death"
No one is likely to doubt that she that stealeth a man, and he that stealeth a women, shall be put to death.
If we say "They that stealeth a person and selleth them shall be put to death" - well I guess we still know what it means, but it is kind of muddy and awkward. As with the startrek slogan, something is lost.
--digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG 3984cJ3gWdaSbhEGwsDZO4jHPVqkXLyKK3u0kA18 46F0d/Lky7gqkdxNwQDhAukCC1gUxvyZnkzsoPbBO
2) Gender-neutral exists in some languages and for >>>all I know gender-neutral could arise in English,>
Dan Goodman>
It has: singular "they.">
Trouble with singular "they" is that it increases, > rather than reduces, ambiguity. That is not the > direction in which English walks,>
"He that stealeth a man and selleth him shall be put to > death">
No one is likely to doubt that she that stealeth a man, > and he that stealeth a women, shall be put to death.>
If we say "They that stealeth a person and selleth them > shall be put to death" - well I guess we still know what > it means, but it is kind of muddy and awkward.
No it isn't. It's perfectly understandable and clear and no more awkward than using he/him or she/her (or he/her or she/him).
If singular "they" wasn't so useful, why has it been around for so long?
If we say "They that stealeth a person and selleth them > > shall be put to death" - well I guess we still know what > > it means, but it is kind of muddy and awkward.>
No it isn't. It's perfectly understandable and clear and> no more awkward than using he/him or she/her (or he/her or> she/him).
I think it's awkward because it's grammatically incorrect: should be, I'm fairly certain, "They that steal a person and sell them".
On Tue, 17 May 2005 12:43:34 -0600, Keith Morrison <keithm@polarnet.ca> wrote in <news:d6de8n02h2a@news1.newsguy.com> in rec.arts.sf.composition:
James A. Donald wrote:
[...]
If we say "They that stealeth a person and selleth them >> shall be put to death" - well I guess we still know what >> it means, but it is kind of muddy and awkward.
No it isn't. It's perfectly understandable and clear and> no more awkward than using he/him or she/her (or he/her or> she/him).
For you. For me it requires an extra moment's thought to parse the expression with the mismatched number.
This really is a function of individual idiolect. My language simply doesn't permit the construction; I understand it, of course, but I also find it awkward and in many cases a bit unprepossessing.
On Wed, 18 May 2005 08:24:57 +1200, Zeborah <zeborah@gmail.com> wrote in <news:1gwr0kq.1agmkif149cswjN%zeborah@gmail.com> in rec.arts.sf.composition:
Keith Morrison <keithm@polarnet.ca> wrote:
James A. Donald wrote:
If we say "They that stealeth a person and selleth them >>> shall be put to death" - well I guess we still know what >>> it means, but it is kind of muddy and awkward.
No it isn't. It's perfectly understandable and clear and>> no more awkward than using he/him or she/her (or he/her or>> she/him).
I think it's awkward because it's grammatically incorrect: should be,> I'm fairly certain, "They that steal a person and sell them".
It should, but that does nothing to reduce the awkwardness of 'a person ... them' for those of us who automatically expect number agreement.
On Wed, 18 May 2005 08:24:57 +1200, Zeborah> <zeborah@gmail.com> wrote in> <news:1gwr0kq.1agmkif149cswjN%zeborah@gmail.com> in> rec.arts.sf.composition:>
I think it's awkward because it's grammatically incorrect: should be,> > I'm fairly certain, "They that steal a person and sell them".>
It should, but that does nothing to reduce the awkwardness> of 'a person ... them' for those of us who automatically> expect number agreement.
Oh, I expect number agreement; it's just that "them" counts as singular for me. Clearly it doesn't for you.
When I'm writing assignments, I'll usually make everything plural, in case my lecturer doesn't count 'them' as singular: "They that steal people and sell them..."
On Wed, 18 May 2005 16:54:32 +1200, Zeborah <zeborah@gmail.com> wrote in <news:1gwrnzk.j31uc318ve3srN%zeborah@gmail.com> in rec.arts.sf.composition:
Brian M. Scott <b.scott@csuohio.edu> wrote:
On Wed, 18 May 2005 08:24:57 +1200, Zeborah>> <zeborah@gmail.com> wrote in>> <news:1gwr0kq.1agmkif149cswjN%zeborah@gmail.com> in>> rec.arts.sf.composition:
I think it's awkward because it's grammatically incorrect: should be,>>> I'm fairly certain, "They that steal a person and sell them".
It should, but that does nothing to reduce the awkwardness>> of 'a person ... them' for those of us who automatically>> expect number agreement.
Oh, I expect number agreement; it's just that "them"> counts as singular for me.
<blink>
Clearly it doesn't for you.
Indeed not. To the extent that I've apparently had a real mental blind spot for a long time now: it never even occurred to me that anyone actually counted 'them' as singular, even those who use it that way.
In article <emz6uky89gp6$.10zcq6xxwqtis.dlg@40tude.net>, b.scott@csuohio.edu says...> On Tue, 17 May 2005 12:43:34 -0600, Keith Morrison> <keithm@polarnet.ca> wrote in> <news:d6de8n02h2a@news1.newsguy.com> in> rec.arts.sf.composition:> > James A. Donald wrote:>
If we say "They that stealeth a person and selleth them > >> shall be put to death" - well I guess we still know what > >> it means, but it is kind of muddy and awkward.>
No it isn't. It's perfectly understandable and clear and> > no more awkward than using he/him or she/her (or he/her or> > she/him).>
For you. For me it requires an extra moment's thought to> parse the expression with the mismatched number.>
This really is a function of individual idiolect. My> language simply doesn't permit the construction; I> understand it, of course, but I also find it awkward and in> many cases a bit unprepossessing.
I am the same. The use of plural as gender-neutral singular often works fine, but sometimes it can back you into a hole. The above is an example, IMO.
You can say "A person should brush their teeth after eating" without any real problems, but at times constructions of this kind can come tumbling down.
You can say "A person should brush their teeth after eating" without> any real problems, but at times constructions of this kind can come> tumbling down.
James A . Donald 19 May 2005 02:49:03 [ permanent link ]
-- On Wed, 18 May 2005 16:54:32 +1200, zeborah@gmail.com (Zeborah) wrote:> When I'm writing assignments, I'll usually make > everything plural, in case my lecturer doesn't count > 'them' as singular: "They that steal people and sell > them..."
"He that steals a man and sells him shall be put to death" leaves a certain ambiguity - are female slavers permitted? Is abducting women OK?
"They that steal people and sell them shall be put to death" suggests that we are only going to suppress large scale slaving operations - which is a plausible false meaning. We have solved one problem, but produced another - in this case a more serious ambiguity.
The singular "they" produces ambiguity, because of confusion with the plural "they", just as the human "he" produces confusion with the masculine "he".
In many sentences, the singular "they" produces mighty feeble sentences, whereas the human "he" produces vigorous sentences. That "he" shall be put to death just has more impact, more deterrent effect, than that "they" shall be put to death.
--digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG YazDRxNYk5WVA/LAgXORRPVWmD5xArHLLKY0zK8M 49fG2kM60nrCk7AacoSJqjEL8yI+jAcB9+qO4Egpa
On Wed, 18 May 2005 16:54:32 +1200, Zeborah> <zeborah@gmail.com> wrote in> <news:1gwrnzk.j31uc318ve3srN%zeborah@gmail.com> in> rec.arts.sf.composition:>
Oh, I expect number agreement; it's just that "them"> > counts as singular for me. >
<blink>>
Clearly it doesn't for you.>
Indeed not. To the extent that I've apparently had a real> mental blind spot for a long time now: it never even> occurred to me that anyone actually counted 'them' as> singular, even those who use it that way.
Well, I think I must count it that way, short of very constrained definitions of my mental process. Aside from usage, if I had to answer a multi-choice question:
What number is "they"? a) singular b) plural
If I *had* to choose one over the other, I'd choose b because I'd know that's what the examiner meant; but I'd far rather choose: c) both, depending on context.
On Wed, 18 May 2005 16:54:32 +1200, zeborah@gmail.com > (Zeborah) wrote:> > When I'm writing assignments, I'll usually make > > everything plural, in case my lecturer doesn't count > > 'them' as singular: "They that steal people and sell > > them...">
"He that steals a man and sells him shall be put to > death" leaves a certain ambiguity - are female slavers > permitted? Is abducting women OK?>
"They that steal people and sell them shall be put to > death" suggests that we are only going to suppress large > scale slaving operations - which is a plausible false > meaning. We have solved one problem, but produced > another - in this case a more serious ambiguity.
I don't think it's that ambiguous; the plural does subsume the singular in English, otherwise generalisations wouldn't work. "Red polar bears like iceblocks," doesn't just mean that a mass of red polar bears likes a mass of iceblocks; it also means that any one given polar bear will like any one given iceblock.
If I was writing it in modern English, though, I'd at least start with "Anyone", just because it sounds better. To remove any and all ambiguity, I'd try something like, "Anyone who steals, kidnaps, sells, and/or buys one or more people will be locked up and forced to make shoes for a very long time."
But I don't think that's significantly less ambiguous.
James A . Donald 19 May 2005 09:32:58 [ permanent link ]
-- On Thu, 19 May 2005 14:58:15 +1200, zeborah@gmail.com (Zeborah) wrote:> I don't think it's that ambiguous; the plural does > subsume the singular in English, otherwise > generalisations wouldn't work.
Similarly, "He that steals a man and sells him shall be put to death" is not all that ambiguous either. Neither ambiguity is likely cause the reader to err - merely distract the reader with a confusion of false meanings that need to be discarded and so reduce the impact of the statement.
--digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG 4bt+aqZHokF+IUbxUTqIUkHtXtXFmrbyrzNHO+b 4tw+uEaVSZisWF8canCozAgXNhFIdcs1s9gHPfhy1
James A . Donald 19 May 2005 19:13:55 [ permanent link ]
-- Mean Green Dancing Machine> > That's true, and that's one reason I'm a primary > > proponent of GNPs other than "they". (My preference > > is zie/zir.)
James A. Donald:> "Zie that steals a person and sells zir shall be put > to death" [...] suggests to me a French homosexual > speaking
Following up my own post. We already have an example of a new pronoun differentiation arising naturally: "You" and "Y'all"
Seems to me that new gender neutral pronouns cannot be introduced by fiat from nowhere, but must start by differentiating existing pronouns, then abbreviate the differentiation.
Surely, in some dialect somewhere, there is something less sissy sounding than zie/zir?
--digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG l6A2+d9Xydd6VJXgLT1zkce8sTitAqJfAGgB7b05 4dUsdtdSL5xjkybIiiWAioIQQ80tUMivBmV9Aig/W
In article <loap819gu1otg3hjj2niltteuldq2kdts7@4ax.com>, jamesd@echeque.com says...
Following up my own post. We already have an example of > a new pronoun differentiation arising naturally: "You"> and "Y'all">
Seems to me that new gender neutral pronouns cannot be > introduced by fiat from nowhere, but must start by > differentiating existing pronouns, then abbreviate the > differentiation.
That seems at least possible; I assume we're all open to suggestions as to just how this differentiation might be done.>
Surely, in some dialect somewhere, there is something > less sissy sounding than zie/zir?
Are you suggesting that anything containing the fine upstanding letter "Z" is a sissy thing? What, exactly, in your opinion makes something sissy, aside from the all-too-well-known presence of "th"? (Aha, so *that's* the objection to "them"/"their"! But shouldn't "th" only count if it's soft?)
-- "I never understood people who don't have bookshelves." --George Plimpton
I myself often cave and use "they", because I am making some other> point and I do not want some idiot to sidetrack the discussion into one> about the sexism of language. I don't like "he or she", and I certainly> will not use the neologisms which no one will understand. "They" is my> best choice in the current environment.
"They" as indefinite singular has been used for centuries. The idea that it is a modern usage to be a gender-neutral pronoun is plain and simply wrong.
Quite honestly I wonder how much of this is being driven by attempts, unconscious or not, to make English some kind of grammatically pure language that doesn't have the hacks common in every natural language on the planet, especially when said hacks have been around for ages. In this particular case, demonstrably used from at least the late 1300s which means it's been around practically as long as Modern English.
The known specific complaint about this usage, saying it's wrong, dates about 400 years later.
Jonathan L Cunningham 19 May 2005 21:36:58 [ permanent link ]
On Wed, 18 May 2005 01:28:42 -0400, "Brian M. Scott" <b.scott@csuohio.edu> wrote:
On Wed, 18 May 2005 16:54:32 +1200, Zeborah><zeborah@gmail.com> wrote in
Oh, I expect number agreement; it's just that "them">> counts as singular for me. >
<blink>>
Clearly it doesn't for you.>
Indeed not. To the extent that I've apparently had a real>mental blind spot for a long time now: it never even>occurred to me that anyone actually counted 'them' as>singular, even those who use it that way.
... even them that uses it that way.
<g,d,r>
Jonathan
-- Mail to spam auto-deleted, use jlc1 instead. (That's jay ell cee one, if your font makes l and 1 look the same)
Jonathan L Cunningham 19 May 2005 21:36:59 [ permanent link ]
On 14 May 2005 21:05:34 -0700, "Constantinople" <constantinopoli@gmail.com> wrote:
[They]>It is not, however, grammatically singular, which is unfortunate. We>say "they are" even when using "they" to mean one person. While the>wording "they is" seems vaguely familiar to my ears, it'll be a while I>expect before it predominates.
It's taking quite a while for "you is" as a singular form to predominate, too ...
Jonathan (Me is wondering if "I is" or "I are" will predominate eventually. It be likely the "are" form methinks.)
-- Mail to spam auto-deleted, use jlc1 instead. (That's jay ell cee one, if your font makes l and 1 look the same)
"JAD" == James A Donald <jamesd@echeque.com> writes:
(Zeborah) wrote: >> When I'm writing assignments, I'll usually make everything >> plural, in case my lecturer doesn't count 'them' as singular: >> "They that steal people and sell them..."
"He that steals a man and sells him shall be put to death" JAD> leaves a certain ambiguity - are female slavers permitted? JAD> Is abducting women OK?
Trivially fixed: "Anyone that steals a man or woman and sells him or her shall be put to death." "Anyone that steals and sells a person shall be put to death." "The punishment for stealing and selling people is death."
Like most matters of rhetoric and style, the author's particular choice of words carries connotative weight. There are several solutions to gender-neutral and gender-ambiguous language, and the choice itself conveys information too -- usually about the author.
Charlton
-- cwilbur at chromatico dot net cwilbur at mac dot com
On Thu, 19 May 2005 17:36:58 GMT, Jonathan L Cunningham <spam@softluck.plus.com> wrote in <news:428cc7b4.13274322@usenet.plus.net> in rec.arts.sf.composition:
On Wed, 18 May 2005 01:28:42 -0400, "Brian M. Scott"> <b.scott@csuohio.edu> wrote:
On Wed, 18 May 2005 16:54:32 +1200, Zeborah>><zeborah@gmail.com> wrote in
Oh, I expect number agreement; it's just that "them">>> counts as singular for me.
<blink>
Clearly it doesn't for you.
Indeed not. To the extent that I've apparently had a real>>mental blind spot for a long time now: it never even>>occurred to me that anyone actually counted 'them' as>>singular, even those who use it that way.
"They" as indefinite singular has been used for centuries. The idea>>that it is a modern usage to be a gender-neutral pronoun is plain and>>simply wrong.>
I did not say that it is a modern usage to be a gender-neutral pronoun.> I said that it is *my* usage to be a gender-neutral pronoun. I would> prefer "he". My problem with "they" is the number in the verb ("they"> takes "are", not "is").
So? You're looking at "to be" which is ridiculously inflected in comparison to many English verbs. If you look at other English verbs, the singular and plural are identical words.
"I heard a person enter the room. They dropped something heavy on the floor and I heard them whisper a curse."
On Thu, 19 May 2005 14:31:01 -0600, Keith Morrison <keithm@polarnet.ca> wrote in <news:d6itae0phn@news4.newsguy.com> in rec.arts.sf.composition:
Constantinople wrote:
[...]
I did not say that it is a modern usage to be a gender-neutral pronoun.>> I said that it is *my* usage to be a gender-neutral pronoun. I would>> prefer "he". My problem with "they" is the number in the verb ("they">> takes "are", not "is").
So? You're looking at "to be" which is ridiculously inflected in > comparison to many English verbs. If you look at other English verbs,> the singular and plural are identical words.
On 16 May 2005 10:37:59 -0700, "Constantinople" <constantinopoli@gmail.com> wrotD:
I could not say what the actual approach is, but I would imagine that>sign language could make good use of the three dimensions in which the>signs are produced. For example, each participant's identifier-pronoun>could be located at a different spatial point in front of the signer.
Spatial point is part of it, emphasis of movement another.
Steve
Crystal Soldier on sale worldwide Balance of Trade:Hal Clement Award Best YA Novel 2004 Local Custom audiobook from Buzzy Multimedia 6/27 --
James A . Donald 20 May 2005 07:22:31 [ permanent link ]
-- James A. Donald:> > Surely, in some dialect somewhere, there is > > something less sissy sounding than zie/zir?
Joann Zimmerman> Are you suggesting that anything containing the fine > upstanding letter "Z" is a sissy thing?
I cannot exactly explain why, but the sentence "Zie that steals a person and sells zir shall be put to death" causes me to visualize the speaker as a ludicrously effeminate frenchman.
Suppose. for example, instead of zie/zer, we use ke/kim "Ke that steals a person and sells kim shall be put to death". Sounds quite different.
Not that I am suggesting such a usage. I doubt you can introduce a new gender neutral singular pronoun by decree. A more feasible route might well be to find some real life dialect with alternate pronouns, and then attach a plausible differentiation to them, thereby ending the PC holy pronoun wars by allowing english to express the precise meaning intended. With a sufficient supply of pronouns, we will not have to fight over them - and we will be free from the looming threat of "they is"
--digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG nRdiE+rF3182KBKTa6rqpZgpd/d/SBXh9iI4hnii 4WSjJJE//1i9Gik841CzCrLuGT6EjSbBVlxEJsk5O
There's more to it than personal preference. "They" is unambiguously> plural in the grammatical sense that it must take the plural form of> the verb. "They are," not "they is".
Jonathan L Cunningham <spam@softluck.plus.com> wrote:
(Me is wondering if "I is" or "I are" will predominate eventually.> It be likely the "are" form methinks.)
We already use it for negative questions: "Aren't I ...?"
But possibly, in US English, "I be" -- the whole conjugation regularised. (Possibly two separate verbs. I'm not familiar enough with what's going on with 'be', but I know it's complicated.) With ignorant people writing novels of 20th century times where people used "I are" and "he are", possibly with "they is" thrown in, just as one finds "thee hath" and other atrocities in present-day novels about Shakespearean times.
In article <1116562244.240960.177090@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Constantinople <constantinopoli@gmail.com> wrote:>
"You" is second person. In second person there is no grammatical>distinction between singular and plural so far as I know (though there>kinda used to be - "thou art" was singular, I believe, though I don't>know if there was an unambiguously plural verb form).
Once upon a time, "ye" (nominative) / "you" (accusative) was unambiguously plural. However, English underwent the same change so many other European languages did: turn a plural into a very polite singular.
Dorothy J. Heydt Albany, California djheydt@kithrup.com
There's more to it than personal preference. "They" is> > > unambiguously> > > plural in the grammatical sense that it must take the plural form> > > of the verb. "They are," not "they is".> >
So is "you".>
"You" is second person. In second person there is no grammatical> distinction between singular and plural so far as I know (though there> kinda used to be - "thou art" was singular, I believe, though I don't> know if there was an unambiguously plural verb form).
Originally, inasmuch as one can use that word with regard to language, "thou art" was singular; "ye are" was unambiguously plural. No "kinda" about it.
(singular) (plural) I am we are thou art ye are s/he is they are
Over time, "ye" aka "you" came to refer to both singular and plural, and both now take "are".
I can readily imagine, during this period of transition, people arguing that "you" should only be plural, and saying:
"There's more to it than just personal preference. 'You' is unambiguously plural in the grammatical sense that it must take the plural form of the verb. 'You are,' not 'you art'."
Over time, people got over it.
(Incidentally "you are" is a little like "them are". Consider yourself lucky that you only have plural->singular to worry about, and not accusative->nominative!)
In third person> and first person there is a distinction between singular and plural.> "They are" is either grammatically plural, or an exception to the rule> that in the third person, "is" is singular and "are" is plural.
"'You are' is either grammatically plural, or an exception to the rule that in the second person, 'art' is singular and 'are' is plural."
On Fri, 20 May 2005 18:07:29 +1200, Zeborah <zeborah@gmail.com> wrote in <news:1gwvg5j.8fjg7y1k9oni8N%zeborah@gmail.com> in rec.arts.sf.composition:
[...]
Originally, inasmuch as one can use that word with regard to language,> "thou art" was singular; "ye are" was unambiguously plural. No "kinda"> about it.
(singular) (plural)> I am we are> thou art ye are> s/he is they are
Not to mention <thou bist>, <thou beest>, <ye ar(e)n>, <ye beeГѕ>, <ye ben>, ... .
Blame it on Old English, which had two forms for the present indicative of 'to be'. The <be> forms, of course, are now lost except in dialect. Too bad, that.
I did not say that it is a modern usage to be a gender-neutral pronoun.>>> I said that it is *my* usage to be a gender-neutral pronoun. I would>>> prefer "he". My problem with "they" is the number in the verb ("they">>> takes "are", not "is").>
So? You're looking at "to be" which is ridiculously inflected in >> comparison to many English verbs. If you look at other English verbs,>> the singular and plural are identical words.>
Not in the third person present.
Part of my point. Complaining that the verb in English doesn't agree with in number seems a silly argument when there's no consistent pattern in verb form when it comes to indicating number.
They run, He/she/it runs
but
they ran, he/she/it ran they will run, he/she/it will run they were running, he/she/it was running they will be running, he/she/it will be running they have been running, he/she/it has been running
Sometimes the verb form changes to indicate a change in number, sometimes it doesn't. If I show you the verb form "will be running", you have no idea if it's singular or plural.
There's more to it than personal preference. "They" is> unambiguously> > > plural in the grammatical sense that it must take the plural form> of> > > the verb. "They are," not "they is".> >
So is "you".> >
Zeborah>
"You" is second person. In second person there is no grammatical> distinction between singular and plural so far as I know (though there> kinda used to be - "thou art" was singular, I believe, though I don't> know if there was an unambiguously plural verb form). In third person> and first person there is a distinction between singular and plural.> "They are" is either grammatically plural, or an exception to the rule> that in the third person, "is" is singular and "are" is plural.
Doesn't that just mean that the process you are objecting to in the case of "they"--shifting a plural to singular usage, while keeping the plural verb form--happened earlier?
On Fri, 20 May 2005 00:57:27 -0600, Keith Morrison <keithm@polarnet.ca> wrote in <news:q22r81plmuiqk9bfndvugpomp9g4j3ntoh@4ax.com> in rec.arts.sf.composition:
[...]
Part of my point. Complaining that the verb in English> doesn't agree with in number seems a silly argument when> there's no consistent pattern in verb form when it comes> to indicating number.
But there is: with just a few exceptions, number is indicated in, and only in, the third person present indicative. That is an almost completely consistent pattern.
Blame it on Old English, which had two forms for the present> indicative of 'to be'. The <be> forms, of course, are now> lost except in dialect. Too bad, that.
Zeborah wrote:> > I can readily imagine, during this period of transition, people> > arguing that "you" should only be plural, and saying:> >
"There's more to it than just personal preference. 'You' is> > unambiguously plural in the grammatical sense that it must take the> > plural form of the verb. 'You are,' not 'you art'."> >
Over time, people got over it.>
But their argument would be wrong. My argument rests on points the> analogs of which are unavailable to them. "The dog" is unambiguously> singular and "the dogs" is unambiguously plural.
Your argument has not once, until this moment, mentioned "the dog" or "the dogs".
Nevertheless, in response to this new argument:
In language, rules can be determined by the sounds in the environment (phonetically), by the words in the environment (lexically), by the grammatical structure of the environment (syntactically), or by the meaning of the environment (semantically).
But frequently rules are determined by a _mixture_ of some of these factors.
For example, in French adjectives have to agree with the nouns they modify. "La table est belle" vs "Le livre est beau". In this case it's lexical: each noun carries with it a "this is feminine/masculine" rule. It's not governed by the sound of the word, there's no grammar that's different between the two, and it's certainly not based here on the meaning.
But once you use pronouns instead things are a little different. Either "Je suis beau" or "Je suis belle" is grammatical -- "je" does not lexically determine the gender of agreement. Instead that gender is determined primarily semantically, by the meaning: is the person talking male or female?
So in French, gender agreement is determined lexically for noun phrases and semantically for (some) pronouns.
I argue that in English, noun-verb agreement is determined semantically for noun phrases and lexically for pronouns.
Yes, we have to say "the dog is" but "the dogs are". Moreover we have to say "the (one) sheep is" but "the (many) sheep are". It's the sense that determines whether we use "is" or "are" in this case.
But pronouns are different: each pronoun forces its verb to be in a certain form. "I" + BE must be said "I am". "You" + BE must be said "you are" -- whether or not this is singular or plural 'you'. The word 'you' refuses to be combined with 'art' to form *you art. Likewise, "they" + BE must be said "they are", not "they is" and singular ('royal') "we" must form "We are not amused", not "We am not amused."
No, that's not what I mean. I am saying that there is an irregularity> within the third person that does not exist within the second person.> Actually, I am saying that *if they are right* that "they are" is> singular, then there is an irregularity.
And God forbid the English language should have any irregularities!
No, that's not what I mean. I am saying that there is an irregularity> within the third person that does not exist within the second person.> Actually, I am saying that *if they are right* that "they are" is> singular, then there is an irregularity. I'm not entirely convinced of> that.
And so on for ten thousand nouns, "is" is singular and "are" is plural.> Then we get to "they". Supposedly, "they are" is both singular and> plural.
Which it is.
Look, I hate to break the bad news but you're fighting a battle that is not only lost, it was lost long before people started trying to fight it. Singular "they" is as well established as any other item in modern English and the only people who, at this point, don't recognize this fact have an issue dealing with reality.
Alma Hromic Deckert 20 May 2005 21:01:16 [ permanent link ]
On Fri, 20 May 2005 09:33:05 -0600, Keith Morrison <keithm@polarnet.ca> wrote:
Constantinople wrote:>
No, that's not what I mean. I am saying that there is an irregularity>> within the third person that does not exist within the second person.>> Actually, I am saying that *if they are right* that "they are" is>> singular, then there is an irregularity. I'm not entirely convinced of>> that.>
An irregularity in English. Shocking, I tell you.
I have heard English described as the languge where the exceptions define the rule...
On Fri, 20 May 2005 20:29:15 +1200, Zeborah <zeborah@gmail.com> wrote in <news:1gwvniz.vk567qw9xsfkN%zeborah@gmail.com> in rec.arts.sf.composition:
Brian M. Scott <b.scott@csuohio.edu> wrote:
Blame it on Old English, which had two forms for the present>> indicative of 'to be'. The <be> forms, of course, are now>> lost except in dialect. Too bad, that.
On 20 May 2005 09:14:22 -0700, Constantinople <constantinopoli@gmail.com> wrote in <news:1116605662.906716.297260@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> in rec.arts.sf.composition:
[...]
Merely asserting out of the blue that "they" can be> singlar does nothing to show that it is.
Since the usage has been around for centuries, it's hardly 'out of the blue'. The empirical fact is that <they> is used as a 3rd person singular pronoun and has been for a very long time.
One could with equal justice assert that "hte" is a> correct spelling for "the" since so many people spell it> that way when they're not paying particular attention. In> English many things occur which are errors and this does> not make them part of English, [...]
Note, however, that 'error' is not the same as 'what Miss Thistlebottom marks wrong on your essay', and that there are many Englishes.
Alma Hromic Deckert anghara@vaxer.net wrote in <6u5s81hp3ogrpvkmu97vhhhnj592r77aq5@4ax.com>:> On Fri, 20 May 2005 09:33:05 -0600, Keith Morrison> <keithm@polarnet.ca> wrote:>
Constantinople wrote:> >
No, that's not what I mean. I am saying that there is an irregularity> >> within the third person that does not exist within the second person.> >> Actually, I am saying that *if they are right* that "they are" is> >> singular, then there is an irregularity. I'm not entirely convinced of> >> that.> >
An irregularity in English. Shocking, I tell you.>
I have heard English described as the languge where the exceptions> define the rule...>
I blame the weather. In England we don't have a climate, we just have weather. So it seems perfectly natural not to have a grammar, just a set of grammatical irregularities.
In article <gqkq815p7uhrlghehva83jntoc3rosc78p@4ax.com>, jamesd@echeque.com says...> --> James A. Donald:> > > Surely, in some dialect somewhere, there is > > > something less sissy sounding than zie/zir?>
Joann Zimmerman> > Are you suggesting that anything containing the fine > > upstanding letter "Z" is a sissy thing?>
I cannot exactly explain why, but the sentence "Zie that > steals a person and sells zir shall be put to death" > causes me to visualize the speaker as a ludicrously > effeminate frenchman.
No, no, that sounds *German*. Gotta.>
Suppose. for example, instead of zie/zer, we use ke/kim > "Ke that steals a person and sells kim shall be put to > death". Sounds quite different.
Different, but no less "French" than the other. It does have no lingustic ticklers to my ear; since I can't figure out what its roots might be, it just sounds weird.
- and we will be free from the looming threat of "they> is"
Is we now?
-- "I never understood people who don't have bookshelves." --George Plimpton
In article <MPG.1cf83da3674830d798c76b@news.dircon.co.uk>, Eric Jarvis <web@ericjarvis.co.uk> wrote:
Alma Hromic Deckert anghara@vaxer.net wrote in > <6u5s81hp3ogrpvkmu97vhhhnj592r77aq5@4ax.com>:> > On Fri, 20 May 2005 09:33:05 -0600, Keith Morrison> > <keithm@polarnet.ca> wrote:> >
Constantinople wrote:> > >
No, that's not what I mean. I am saying that there is an irregularity> > >> within the third person that does not exist within the second person.> > >> Actually, I am saying that *if they are right* that "they are" is> > >> singular, then there is an irregularity. I'm not entirely convinced of> > >> that.> > >
An irregularity in English. Shocking, I tell you.> >
I have heard English described as the languge where the exceptions> > define the rule...> >
I blame the weather. In England we don't have a climate, we just have > weather. So it seems perfectly natural not to have a grammar, just a set > of grammatical irregularities.
On Fri, 20 May 2005 13:37:32 -0500, Joann Zimmerman <jzimm@bellereti.com> wrote in <news:MPG.1cf7ea6ac9e1f607989882@news.individual.net> in rec.arts.sf.composition:
In article <gqkq815p7uhrlghehva83jntoc3rosc78p@4ax.com>, > jamesd@echeque.com says...
[...]
Suppose. for example, instead of zie/zer, we use ke/kim >> "Ke that steals a person and sells kim shall be put to >> death". Sounds quite different.
Different, but no less "French" than the other. It does have no > lingustic ticklers to my ear; since I can't figure out what its roots > might be, it just sounds weird.
'An ke steal a person and sell kim, kill kim!'
---
Child: 'Sam hit kim!' Teacher: 'Is Kim hurt?' Child, pointing: 'No, but ke is.'
On 20 May 2005 11:59:41 -0700, Constantinople <constantinopoli@gmail.com> wrote in <news:1116615581.050968.60800@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> in rec.arts.sf.composition:
Brian M. Scott wrote:
On 20 May 2005 09:14:22 -0700, Constantinople>> <constantinopoli@gmail.com> wrote in>> <news:1116605662.906716.297260@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>>> in rec.arts.sf.composition:
[...]
Merely asserting out of the blue that "they" can be>>> singlar does nothing to show that it is.
