Slashdot Mirror

I believe Mark Twain explained that: http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/lin...

German IS great

Mark Twain wouldn't agree (see some of his thoughts on German here); just a short quotation for edification:

A person who has not studied German can form no idea of what a perplexing language it is.

Surely there is not another language that is so slipshod and systemless, and so slippery and elusive to the grasp. One is washed about in it, hither and thither, in the most helpless way; and when at last he thinks he has captured a rule which offers firm ground to take a rest on amid the general rage and turmoil of the ten parts of speech, he turns over the page and reads, "Let the pupil make careful note of the following exceptions." He runs his eye down and finds that there are more exceptions to the rule than instances of it.

Jokes aside, German has a great advantage over English (even Mark Twain agrees): it's spelling is much closer to phonemic.

Perhaps we could chose the language(s) on their respective merits. http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/awfgrmlg.html

Mark Twain disagrees. http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/awfgrmlg.html

Indeed! English has a perfectly good person pronoun: he in the subjective, him in the objective, and his in the possessive. It's not biased to write using that pronoun: it's standard. It's been used for centuries. You might say that Shakespeare used "they", but he used he far more often, as most writers did for centuries.

For fuck's sake, it's a pronoun. Changing it won't erase gender equality! Of course any sensible reader will interpret "when a scientist runs a PCR on his genetic sample" to mean a male or female scientist. Obviously. It's just grammar. Mark Twain commented on the corresponding problem in German in his great "The Awful German Language"

Gretchen. Wilhelm, where is the turnip?
  Wilhelm. She has gone to the kitchen.
  Gretchen. Where is the accomplished and beautiful English
maiden?
  Wilhelm. It has gone to the opera."

Yet nobody claims German is a sexist language. If you insist on twisting the fine English language to eliminate a purely grammatical gender distinction that's not actually a problem, you might as well go all the way and start talking about Newton's Rape Manual.

Some of us prefer to have a computer over a console. I'd rather play Fallout 3 on my computer because I can't stand console controllers, especially for FPSs. Its nice to be able to Alt-tab out of games and check things out, and to be able to download patches for buggy games, and extra content for the expandable ones. Consoles also suck for RTS games, as in there aren't any to speak of.

Some of us prefer genres other than FPS and RTS, such as "party" minigame collections, "smash" platform fighting games, and other kinds of arcade-style multiplayer action games whose major-label publishers have traditionally ignored the PC platform.

Also PCs are cheaper to deal with, once you have one for gaming. Throw in a $80 video card every 2-3 years and your good to go.

Until they stop making video cards for your motherboard (e.g. the transition from AGP to PCIe). Or until the CPU is also inadequate.

Yes, more expensive to begin with

Especially if you have to buy four PCs at once, one for each player. Online play doesn't help when your friends are visiting your house.

Also, why the heck would I want to buy a console with either a 50% failure rate (360), or one that costs a heap more than its functionality warrants? Neither of which even come close to a computer when you don't pony up $1500 for a new TV graphics wise.

An entry-level $600 TV makes Wii look good. Not all genres need 1080p or higher resolution.

Also

You know...

can you play Dwarf Fortress II or Nethack on your big fancy PS3, out of the box?

They don't come preinstalled. But Linux runs on PLAYSTATION 3 well enough to run NetHack.

Just think of where computer science would be without Mad Magazine...

You are looking for this :-)

The rest of your argument, however, is not. 'Singular they' is indeed a revision, motivated by gender politicists unsatisfied with the availability of 'he' as the natural gender neutral third person singular pronoun in English.

(Earlier, 'she' was imported for similar reasons as well.)

The early uses sometimes claimed as 'singular they' in fact are invariably actually 'indefinate they' where the *number* is indefinite.

Read Mark Twain's The Awful German Language Gender in German is very arbitrary.

Queue up That Awful German Language by Mark Twain.

I've studied German and find it to be a very difficult language. I've also studied Spanish, French, Italian, Latin, and Ancient Greek. With the exception of Greek, all of the other languages I've studied have been vastly easier to learn than German.

--Mike

Sorry, you're wrong. See the singular their.

We only use "they" when the subject is plural.

If my "we" you mean, "myself and other ignorant people," fair enough.

The rest of us don't find "their" and "they" as singular indefinite pronouns to be a problem. Indeed, "their" as a singular indefinite pronoun has a long history. If it was good enough for the King James Bible, Shakespeare, Walt Whitman, C.S. Lewis, and Oscar Wilde, it's good enough for me.

Don't be grammar nazi unless you're damn sure of yourself. And even then, don't be a grammar nazi because it makes you a dick.

We only use "they" when the subject is plural.

If my "we" you mean, "myself and other ignorant people," fair enough.

The rest of us don't find "their" and "they" as singular indefinite pronouns to be a problem. Indeed, "their" as a singular indefinite pronoun has a long history. If it was good enough for the King James Bible, Shakespeare, Walt Whitman, C.S. Lewis, and Oscar Wilde, it's good enough for me.

Don't be grammar nazi unless you're damn sure of yourself. And even then, don't be a grammar nazi because it makes you a dick.

I can find you examples of sigular "them" usage in thousands of books. Get off your high horse you pedantic bastard.

See:
http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/austheir.html

Consider this alleged barbarism, brought up by nearly every language maven:

"Everyone returned to their seats." ... [or]

"If anyone calls, tell them I can't come to the phone." ... [or]

"He's one of those guys who's always patting themself on the back." [an actual quote from Holden Caulfield in J. D. Salinger's Catcher in the Rye]

They explain: everyone means every one, a singular subject, which may not serve as the antecedent of a plural pronoun like them later in the sentence. "Everyone returned to his seat," they insist. "If anyone calls, tell him I can't come to the phone."

If you were the target of these lessons, at this point you might be getting a bit uncomfortable..... Such feelings of disquiet -- a red flag to any serious linguist -- are well founded in this case....

The logical point that you, Holden Caulfield, and everyone but the language mavens intuitively grasp is that everyone and they are not an "antecedent" and a "pronoun" referring to the same person in the world, which would force them to agree in number. They are a "quantifier" and a "bound variable," a different logical relationship..... Since these are not real referential pronouns but only homonyms of them, there is no reason that the vernacular decision to borrow they, their, them for the task is any worse than the prescriptivists' recommenda

You may have a point about the particular article to which prizog linked, but a Google search for "singular (they OR their)" (without quotes) revealed some interesting results.

Summary of my findings (subject to change upon further research):

• Use of "they/their" as a singular, gender-neutral pronoun has been around for quite a while, and was not considered improper until around two centuries ago when certain Grammarians decided to apply Latin rules of grammar logic to English, despite this being counter-intuitive in some cases. (Examples: don't end a sentence with a preposition, don't split infinitives.)
• English does lack a singular, gender-neutral pronoun, and this is a problem. (Various work-arounds suggested here.)

The English Language (or language in general, for that matter) is a funny thing. There are some things that are definitely (grammatically) wrong, but since language evolves, and there's no single authority for such things, I'm not sure there's always a right answer to these sorts of issues. There's just what's been done before, and what's popular now.

"They" has been singular since before Shakespeare. It works fine.

Precedence depends in large part upon emphasis. If you say "he or she" a lot, you tend to do so quickly, which leads to a tighter binding.

"It looks like he or she went shopping" is far from a garden path sentence. You don't hit "he" and stop parsing, because you can't end the sentence there. Do you also object to "It looks like he or Samantha went shopping"?

There are cases where you can stop parsing earlier (example: "Someone gave it to him or her.") But again, this doesn't seem to represent a real problem, since the ambiguity is resolved in two words, and since there are many analagous cases where there's a similar parsing issue which you're not complaining about ("Someone gave it to Bob or Alice").

"They" is the singular indefinite pronoun in my dialect of English ("If a person drinks too much, they will likely experience a hangover"). "They" also happens to be the indefinite plural pronoun.

Shakespeare's, too.

The "load up the operands" and, at the end, execute multiple operators reminds me of the German language.

Kind of like,

Let us the stage with players set and, at the end, execute.
Till there be but one briefly shining result,
Soon to be vanquished with his fellows upon a clear eks.
Fear not, valued intermediate result!
Enjoy ye forever the sanctuary of stow zero!

[I wish I could find a worthy replacement for my HP-15C but the newer models seem to have sacrificed the "landscape" form factor.]

Singular 'they' is perfectly acceptable English, in use since at least the 14th century A.D.

It was only in the 19th century that some grammarians attempted to rid us of that usage, based on the fact that it didn't match up with Latin.

http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/austheir.html

http://www.vocabula.com/2003/VRSept03Altieri.htm

I remember there was a good post on Kuroshin a while back advocating the creation of a gender neutral pronoun. I think they (ha!) promoted the idea of using 'They' which is often used (incorrectly) in place of he/she.

Geoffrey Chaucer, Edmund Spenser, William Shakespeare, the King James Bible, The Spectator, Jonathan Swift, Daniel Defoe, Frances Sheridan, Oliver Goldsmith, Henry Fielding, Maria Edgeworth, Percy Shelley, Lord Byron, William Makepeace Thackeray, Sir Walter Scott, George Eliot [Mary Anne Evans], Charles Dickens, Mrs. Gaskell, Anthony Trollope, John Ruskin, Robert Louis Stevenson, Walt Whitman, George Bernard Shaw, Lewis Carroll, Oscar Wilde, Rudyard Kipling, H. G. Wells, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Edith Wharton, W. H. Auden, Lord Dunsany, George Orwell, and C. S. Lewis.

Call me a bumbling idiot, but I like using "they" as a non-gendered singular pronoun, as well as using "their" when referring to a non-gendered singular "them". It's intuitively clear, and more concise than "he or she". If such a construct isn't an accepted part of the English language, it should be. In fact, at one time it was...


http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/austheir.htm l


http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/s-pinker.htm l


http://www.english.vt.edu/~grammar/GrammarForWri te rs/forum/ForumTheir.html

Call me a bumbling idiot, but I like using "they" as a non-gendered singular pronoun, as well as using "their" when referring to a non-gendered singular "them". It's intuitively clear, and more concise than "he or she". If such a construct isn't an accepted part of the English language, it should be. In fact, at one time it was...


http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/austheir.htm l


http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/s-pinker.htm l


http://www.english.vt.edu/~grammar/GrammarForWri te rs/forum/ForumTheir.html

According to Mark Twain, a German-influenced programming language might look something like this:

whi {
...statements...
} le (condition)

and

if x 5 {
..statements..
} >=

Wrong. `themself' isn't a word. Sorry, Tom, but as a writer, you should know better.

In any event, it most certainly is, which means this is another annoying case of paradiorthosis. :-(

See the entry for "themself" in the 3rd Edition of Fowler. Make sure you also read both Steven Pinker and this collection by Henry Churchyard, which is replete with endless examples of singular they and its declensions from the 1300s to the present day.

And as for the "themself" versus "themselves" thing, we use "yourself" when the antecedent is singular. For example: "You're going by yourself, aren't you, Johnny?" Notice there's no "yourselves" there. English has always done this, so "themself" over "themselves" works just as well now as it did back in 1570 when Caxton wrote, "Each of them should make themself ready."

Now, wouldn't it be nice to get back to talking about Larry's article instead of make false corrections? :-(

Wrong. `themself' isn't a word. Sorry, Tom, but as a writer, you should know better.

In any event, it most certainly is, which means this is another annoying case of paradiorthosis. :-(

See the entry for "themself" in the 3rd Edition of Fowler. Make sure you also read both Steven Pinker and this collection by Henry Churchyard, which is replete with endless examples of singular they and its declensions from the 1300s to the present day.

And as for the "themself" versus "themselves" thing, we use "yourself" when the antecedent is singular. For example: "You're going by yourself, aren't you, Johnny?" Notice there's no "yourselves" there. English has always done this, so "themself" over "themselves" works just as well now as it did back in 1570 when Caxton wrote, "Each of them should make themself ready."

Now, wouldn't it be nice to get back to talking about Larry's article instead of make false corrections? :-(

Using "their" is incorrect when referring to an individual because "their" is a plural pronoun. Inviduals are hardly plural.

1. First, get thee to a dictionary:
   • they: Often used in reference to a singular noun made universal by every, any, no, etc., or applicable to one of either sex (= `he or she'). [ See Jespersen Progress in Lang. Sect.24. ]

   • 1526 Pilgr. Perf. (W. de W. 1531) 163 b, - Yf..a psalme scape ony persone, or a lesson, or else yt they omyt one verse or twayne.
   • 1535 Fisher Ways perf. Relig. ix. Wks. (1876) 383 - He neuer forsaketh any creature vnlesse they before haue forsaken them selues.
   • 1749 Fielding Tom Jones viii. xi, - Every Body fell a laughing, as how could they help it.
   • 1759 Chesterf. Lett. IV. ccclv. 170 - If a person is born of a..gloomy temper..they cannot help it.
   • 1835 Whewell in Life (1881) 173 - Nobody can deprive us of the Church, if they would.
   • 1858 Bagehot Lit. Stud. (1879) II. 206 - Nobody fancies for a moment that they are reading about anything beyond the pale of ordinary propriety.
   • 1866 Ruskin Crown Wild Olives Sect.38 (1873) 44 - Now, nobody does anything well that they cannot help doing.
   • 1874 [see themselves 5].

2. them: Often used for `him or her', referring to a singular person whose sex is not stated, or to anybody, nobody, somebody, whoever, etc. Cf. they 2.
   • 1742 Richardson Pamela III. 127 - Little did I think..to make a..Complaint against a Person very dear to you,..but dont let them be so proud..as to make them not care how they affront everybody else.
   • 1853 Miss Yonge Heir of Redclyffe xliv, - Nobody else..has so little to plague them.
   • 1874 Dasent Half a Life II. 198 - Whenever any one was ill, she brewed them a drink.

3. their: Often used in relation to a singular sb. or pronoun denoting a person, after each, every, either, neither, no one, every one, etc. Also so used instead of `his or her', when the gender is inclusive or uncertain. Cf. they pron. 2, them pron. 2; nobody 1 b, somebody.
   • 13.. Cursor M. 389 (Cott.) - Bath ware made sun and mon, Aiper wit per ouen light.
   • C. 1420 Sir Amadace (Camden) l, - Iche mon in thayre degre.
   • 14.. Arth. & Merl. 2440 (Kölbing) - Many a Sarazen lost their liffe.
   • 1533 [see themselves 5].
   • 1545 Abp. Parker Let. to Bp. Gardiner 8 May, - Thus was it agreed among us that every president should assemble their companies.
   • 1563 Win3et Four Scoir Thre Quest. liv, - A man or woman being lang absent fra thair party.
   • 1641 [see A. %lt;alpha>].
   • 1643 Trapp Comm. Gen. xxiv. 22 - Each Countrey hath their fashions, and garnishes.
   • 1749 Fielding Tom Jones vii. xiv, - Every one in the House were in their Beds.
   • 1771 Goldsm. Hist. Eng. III. 241 - Every person..now recovered their liberty.
   • A. 1845 Syd. Smith Wks. (1850) 175 - Every human being must do something with their existence.
   • 1848 Thackeray Van. Fair xli, - A person can't help their birth.
   • 1858 Bagehot Lit. Studies (1879) II. 206 - Nobody in their senses would describe Gray's `Elegy' as [etc.].
   • 1898 G. B. Shaw Plays II. Candida 86 - It's enough to drive anyone out of their senses.

4. Next, read Fowler's Modern English Usage on this matter. Don't forget to read about themself.

5. Finally, read the definitive page on the matter of singular they.

Your grammar school teachers just didn't know what they were talking about.