Endless debate over use of "their" with indefinite pronouns

Actually, it's the rules that we 'absorbed' at our mama's knee that help us to write. These rules do this because they are the real rules of language, the rules that are unaffected by the prescriptions.

It's a common misconception but a huge misconception nevertheless that the rules one finds in prescriptive grammars are the ones that guide us in language. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Pick one of your favorite PG books. Read one of the prescriptions and then, instead of just accepting this as one of the Ten Commandments, look a bit further, search for the proof that substantiates the prescription. When it comes to giving proof, PGs are exceedingly parsimonious.

=====================

http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articles/media/1994_01_24_thenewrepublic.html

But once introduced, a prescriptive rule is very hard to eradicate, no matter how ridiculous. Inside the educational and writing establishments, the rules survive by the same dynamic that perpetuates ritual genital mutilations and college fraternity hazing: I had to go through it and am none the worse, so why should you have it any easier?

Anyone daring to overturn a rule by example must always worry that readers will think he or she is ignorant of the rule, rather than challenging it. Perhaps most importantly, since prescriptive rules are so psychologically unnatural that only those with access to the right schooling can abide by them, they serve as shibboleths, differentiating the elite from the rabble.

0 Replies

I'm familiar with Pinker. Razz

I'll respond to the rest later, but for now, I'm just exhuming a factoid picked up in Latin. Pinker says that "are" was "clearly" a plural form originally, but I've seen a much better explanation from my Latin prof that pegs it as originally being singular. I don't remember the entire lecture, so bear with me here. I also don't know how speculatory it is, but somehow I doubt that there are too many real verifyable facts about the early development of English.

The theory was that the the English system for conjugating the word "to be" was originally very similar to the Latin system, that is, that the singular present conjugated like so:

1st: am
2nd: as
3rd: at

Plurals were probably "was" and subjunctives were probably "wese", or somthing.

Then via rhotacism, the second-person form changed into "are" (and the plurals and subjunctives into "were").

I'm not trying to prove anything - I just thought that was really interesting. I have to study for an exam now, but I'll come back to this later.

0 Replies

There's actually tons of verifiable information about the early history of English. Unfortunately, I know virtually nothing about it! If people are interested, I'll ask around my department and gather up some factoids Smile

0 Replies

Came across an interesting quote that certainly applies to language, although it's, by no means, limited to this area.

H.L. Mencken: "The most common of all follies is to believe passionately in the palpably not true. It's the chief occupation of humankind."

Could a quote be anymore dead on when it comes to Republicans and GWB?

:wink:

0 Replies

Ok...

JTT wrote:

But I must admit that I am finding it more than a bit difficult to imagine the crucial distinction between inaccurate and wrong.

By "wrong" you indicate a value judgement of some kind - that there is a correct way of using English and an incorrect way. It's not better for you to say that elements of "prescriptive" grammar are wrong than it is for the prescriptive grammarians to say that your English is wrong. By "innacurate" I simply mean that the definitions of prescriptive grammar do not accurately describe English as it is commonly spoken.

Quote:

JTT: "is" is a single surface structure which is used to represent several different meanings. One of them is the plural use. It's not a singular verb, in the context of words like everyone.

I can't think of a single example besides "everyone". I think rather than defining a totally new set of forms for a category consisting of only a few (one?) words, it would be more useful to simply categorize this as an English idiom to refer to "everyone" as plural in a following sentence.

Quote:

JTT: You couldn't use in a following sentence, anything BUT a plural. That should clue you in to the ACTUAL meaning of words like everyone.

But we've established that meaning is different than form.

Quote:

JTT: The gaps in your logic are astonishing, Ruffio. "are" clearly was/is a plural verb and it became accepted into use as the default verb with 'singular 'you'. If English can handle this type of adjustment, then there no reason to NOT make the same assumption about 'everyone', to wit, 'is' is not a singular verb in this case.

I'm sure it can handle it. I doubt very much that it has actually happened.

Quote:

But why all the mental contortions. English simply makes use of that which is the most meaningful. It's a complete red herring that we don't switch to "everyone are". We don't simply because it's conventional to use 'is'.

And don't you think there's a logical reason for the convention? Language is nothing if not logical.

Quote:

JTT: Language science simply doesn't support that view, Rufio.

I supposed these rules just appeared ex nihilo then. No matter what science you subscribe to, there is a cause for every effect. Quite a significant cause, too, I'd say, from the effect's entrenched nature.

Quote:

Most of the prescriptive rules of the language mavens make no sense on any level. They are bits of folklore that originated for screwball reasons several hundred years ago and have perpetuated themselves ever since. For as long as they have existed, speakers have flouted them, spawning identical plaints about the imminent decline of the language century after century. All the best writers in English have been among the flagrant flouters. The rules conform neither to logic nor tradition, and if they were ever followed they would force writers into fuzzy, clumsy, wordy, ambiguous, incomprehensible prose, in which certain thoughts are not expressible at all. Indeed, most of the "ignorant errors" these rules are supposed to correct display an elegant logic and an acute sensitivity to the grammatical texture of the language, to which the mavens are oblivious.

Yep, that sounds just like Pinker. He is an interesting read, but a bit self-important, I think. Language exists in a larger context - not just your dialect, not just this time, or this place. As long as people are speaking the language, the language will have some sort of internal, a priori structure. Funny, but I thought that was what Pinker's point was, actually.

0 Replies

Thank you for your response, Rufio.

Quote:

JTT wrote:

But I must admit that I am finding it more than a bit difficult to imagine the crucial distinction between inaccurate and wrong.

Quote:

R:
By "wrong" you indicate a value judgement of some kind - that there is a correct way of using English and an incorrect way. It's not better for you to say that elements of "prescriptive" grammar are wrong than it is for the prescriptive grammarians to say that your English is wrong. By "innacurate" I simply mean that the definitions of prescriptive grammar do not accurately describe English as it is commonly spoken.

JTT: This is precisely the falsehood, Rufio, one that's gone on far too long. There doesn't need to be any value judgment. Every person who speaks English, speaks it perfectly according to their dialect. So to suggest that someone's English is wrong is nonsensical.

What IS fine is for one to point out that there is standard English and its use is sometimes required. This is vastly different than the nonsense that has been perpetuated by PGs and their ilk for centuries, ie. maligning the language use of some, and what's so ironic, they were so often wrong and when they were right they followed highly specious reasoning.

AmE was ridiculed by the Brits long ago. Do you think that AmE has gained its rightful place because all Americans simply conformed to the 'rules' of either BrE or PG?

Quote:

JTT: "is" is a single surface structure which is used to represent several different meanings. One of them is the plural use. It's not a singular verb, in the context of words like everyone.

Quote:

R:
I can't think of a single example besides "everyone". I think rather than defining a totally new set of forms for a category consisting of only a few (one?) words, it would be more useful to simply categorize this as an English idiom to refer to "everyone" as plural in a following sentence.

JTT: My quote, above, was merely a tongue in cheek poke at the illogic of whoever owned that quote in the first place. Your suggestion is a typical PG copout. There's no reason to maintain a fiction just to placate some old language luddites. English idiom is precisely what makes and defines the rules.

Quote:

JTT: You couldn't use in a following sentence, anything BUT a plural. That should clue you in to the ACTUAL meaning of words like everyone.

Quote:

R:
But we've established that meaning is different than form.

JTT: And the users of English have clearly defined just what form works best to effect the given meaning. "everyone" is not singular, it merely employs a singular verb.

Why is this so lost on PGs? PGs have never, with their 'rules', eradicated the very things that they seek to eradicate.

A typical PG: I just can't understand it. I tell people that the correct way to breath is through their nose but I find person after person flouting this rule and breathing through their mouth. What is wrong with people? Have they no respect for the finer traditions, blah blah blah?

Quote:

JTT: The gaps in your logic are astonishing, Ruffio. "are" clearly was/is a plural verb and it became accepted into use as the default verb with 'singular 'you'. If English can handle this type of adjustment, then there no reason to NOT make the same assumption about 'everyone', to wit, 'is' is not a singular verb in this case.

Quote:

R:
I'm sure it can handle it. I doubt very much that it has actually happened.

It had happened long before the rule was written.

See,

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

Why do these nonsensical rules stay around so long? Precisely because people like yourself just accept what you're told even though there are major contradictions staring you full in the face.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
S Pinker:
But once introduced, a prescriptive rule is very hard to eradicate, no matter how ridiculous. Inside the educational and writing establishments, the rules survive by the same dynamic that perpetuates ritual genital mutilations and college fraternity hazing: I had to go through it and am none the worse, so why should you have it any easier? Anyone daring to overturn a rule by example must always worry that readers will think he or she is ignorant of the rule, rather than challenging it. Perhaps most importantly, since prescriptive rules are so psychologically unnatural that only those with access to the right schooling can abide by them, they serve as shibboleths, differentiating the elite from the rabble.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Quote:
JTT:
But why all the mental contortions. English simply makes use of that which is the most meaningful. It's a complete red herring that we don't switch to "everyone are". We don't simply because it's conventional to use 'is'.

Quote:
R:
And don't you think there's a logical reason for the convention? Language is nothing if not logical.

JTT: There could very well be some logical historical justifications for this. But, does that then mean that we should then make up illogical rules to attain some unrealistic "purity"?

Language is meant for communication. It's not meant to meet some folks' misguided notions that are based more on a Miss Manners mentality than on hard science.

Quote:

JTT: Language science simply doesn't support that view, Rufio.

Quote:
R:
I supposed these rules just appeared ex nihilo then. No matter what science you subscribe to, there is a cause for every effect. Quite a significant cause, too, I'd say, from the effect's entrenched nature.

JTT: [addressed above]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
S Pinker

Most of the prescriptive rules of the language mavens make no sense on any level. They are bits of folklore that originated for screwball reasons several hundred years ago and have perpetuated themselves ever since. For as long as they have existed, speakers have flouted them, spawning identical plaints about the imminent decline of the language century after century. All the best writers in English have been among the flagrant flouters.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Quote:
R:
Yep, that sounds just like Pinker. He is an interesting read, but a bit self-important, I think. Language exists in a larger context - not just your dialect, not just this time, or this place. As long as people are speaking the language, the language will have some sort of internal, a priori structure. Funny, but I thought that was what Pinker's point was, actually.

You've mistake 'confidence', something that comes with knowing your subject well with 'self importance'. The latter is what you see in people like Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity and the like. They rely on bluster and BS because lies can't be supported except by more bluster and more BS.

But you still seem to be missing the point. Of course, the old PGs had some reasons. You've presented one or two of them here. So, here is the point you're missing, again.

"Most of the prescriptive rules of the language mavens make no sense on any level. They are bits of folklore that originated for screwball reasons several hundred years ago and have perpetuated themselves ever since."

0 Replies

A quick interjection.

These "rules" of grammar and "categorizations" into parts of speech, etc, do not necessarily represent linguistic REALITY. They are simply descriptions of people's observations of how language is actually used at a particular point in time.

So saying things like "is" is a singular verb, etc., doesn't really have much content as a statement of fact, since it's a simple observation of the distribution of the use of "is" as opposed to other verbs. Usage changes over time, language is fluid, there is no "it was originally an x..." that wasn't preceded by an earlier form, etc.

Just something to keep in mind!

0 Replies

JTT wrote:

Quote:
JTT: "is" is a single surface structure which is used to represent several different meanings. One of them is the plural use. It's not a singular verb, in the context of words like everyone.

JTT: My quote, above, was merely a tongue in cheek poke at the illogic of whoever owned that quote in the first place. Your suggestion is a typical PG copout. There's no reason to maintain a fiction just to placate some old language luddites. English idiom is precisely what makes and defines the rules.

My point is that you are arguing semantics. Why redefine plurality for the purpose of explaining an idiom unique (unless you have examples) to English? Why not just take the language as it is? I like structuralism, but every theory runs up against walls where you are essentially just grasping for straws. You'd think that in English, of all languages, you'd be able to leave room for exceptions.

Quote:

Why do these nonsensical rules stay around so long? Precisely because people like yourself just accept what you're told even though there are major contradictions staring you full in the face.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
S Pinker:
But once introduced, a prescriptive rule is very hard to eradicate, no matter how ridiculous. Inside the educational and writing establishments, the rules survive by the same dynamic that perpetuates ritual genital mutilations and college fraternity hazing: I had to go through it and am none the worse, so why should you have it any easier? Anyone daring to overturn a rule by example must always worry that readers will think he or she is ignorant of the rule, rather than challenging it. Perhaps most importantly, since prescriptive rules are so psychologically unnatural that only those with access to the right schooling can abide by them, they serve as shibboleths, differentiating the elite from the rabble.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

The discussion has officially degraded into madness when you are comparing use of linguistic constructions with ritual genital mutilation. I love Pinker, but unfortunately, he is the Michael Moore of linguistics, and Michael Moore is a hop and skip away from the Ann Coulter types you mention later.

Yes, prescriptive grammar has to be educated into us. So does non-prescriptive grammar, or any grammar whatsoever in fact. Pinker points out in his own book that children not inducted into language through immersion don't ever acquire it fully. If some part of language is "psychologically unnatural" because it has to be learned through official schooling, than all language is similarly unnatural since it has to be learned through unofficial schooling.

Quote:

Quote:
R:
I supposed these rules just appeared ex nihilo then. No matter what science you subscribe to, there is a cause for every effect. Quite a significant cause, too, I'd say, from the effect's entrenched nature.

JTT: [addressed above]

No you didn't. You said something flippant about them not being logical. I'm interested, if you think they are so illogical, how they came to entrench themselves so thoroughly in the minds of people whose brains are undoubtably just as logical as yours? And don't spout crap about brainwashing. People like to bitch vehemently that something they don't like is unnatural and illogical, but are for some reason never able to explain how it came to be in that case.

You state as your "main point":

Quote:

"Most of the prescriptive rules of the language mavens make no sense on any level. They are bits of folklore that originated for screwball reasons several hundred years ago and have perpetuated themselves ever since."

If all you have to prove your point is a quote from someone else containing no actual facts or references thereto, it's not a very strong point, IMO. This is my point about Pinker. He announces something, pulls out a few examples, and says "Ooh! See! I was right! Eat my shorts!" and doesn't give justification other than his few empirical examples which are supposed to influence us to join the Pinker Cult. If you are going to say that "everyone" is plural, I want some more evidence. From other languages, from older versions of English, etc. Don't just pull a few examples out and wave them around like irrefutable proof.

0 Replies

Thank you again for your response, Rufio.

Rufio:
My point is that you are arguing semantics. Why redefine plurality for the purpose of explaining an idiom unique (unless you have examples) to English? Why not just take the language as it is? I like structuralism, but every theory runs up against walls where you are essentially just grasping for straws. You'd think that in English, of all languages, you'd be able to leave room for exceptions.

JTT: How did you switch this around, Rufio? That was neat. I'm the one who said, "Why not just take the language as it is?". I'm not the one arguing that people are misusing their own language. It really doesn't matter how this thing is explained, the simple fact of the matter is, it's perfectly grammatical and in common use.

As Mr Pinker says, "Indeed, 'they' has the advantage of embracing both sexes and feeling right in a wider variety of sentences." I can remember being taught this silly rule when I was a kid of maybe, 12 and I knew then that it was nonsense. But it has escaped you, ... okay.

==============================

Rufio:
The discussion has officially degraded into madness when you are comparing use of linguistic constructions with ritual genital mutilation. I love Pinker, but unfortunately, he is the Michael Moore of linguistics, and Michael Moore is a hop and skip away from the Ann Coulter types you mention later.

JTT: Two things; one, that wasn't me; two, there has been NO comparison of the "use of linguistic constructions with ritual genital mutilation".

What was actually stated was that the TYPE OF THINKING that keeps other idiotic things [like ritual genital mutilation] in place also has kept these prescriptions in place. Compare the two types of thought and they are perilously close to exact.

What fraternity were you in, Rufio? Wink

===============================

Rufio:
Yes, prescriptive grammar has to be educated into us. So does non-prescriptive grammar, or any grammar whatsoever in fact. Pinker points out in his own book that children not inducted into language through immersion don't ever acquire it fully. If some part of language is "psychologically unnatural" because it has to be learned through official schooling, than all language is similarly unnatural since it has to be learned through unofficial schooling.

JTT: You skipped the book and just read the Coles Notes, right? Maybe we can do this at another time when you're up to speed.

=================================

Rufio:
No you didn't. You said something flippant about them not being logical. I'm interested, if you think they are so illogical, how they came to entrench themselves so thoroughly in the minds of people whose brains are undoubtably just as logical as yours? And don't spout crap about brainwashing. People like to bitch vehemently that something they don't like is unnatural and illogical, but are for some reason never able to explain how it came to be in that case.

You state as your "main point":

Pinker: "Most of the prescriptive rules of the language mavens make no sense on any level. They are bits of folklore that originated for screwball reasons several hundred years ago and have perpetuated themselves ever since."

JTT: I hardly know where to start, listing the errant rules. But since this thread is not about "them", we'll leave "them" for another day.

"... how they came to entrench themselves so thoroughly in the minds of people whose brains are undoubtably just as logical as yours?"

This is no argument at all, Rufio. Many logical people believed that the earth was flat; many believed that god created the universe, many still do. The list is endless and I don't feel like reciting an encyclopedia.

Check into the Pet Peeve thread. It's loaded with old canards.Virtually everything that came out of the Peevist's mouths was a recycling of this old nonsense.

============================

Rufio:
If all you have to prove your point is a quote from someone else containing no actual facts or references thereto, it's not a very strong point, IMO. This is my point about Pinker. He announces something, pulls out a few examples, and says "Ooh! See! I was right! Eat my shorts!" and doesn't give justification other than his few empirical examples which are supposed to influence us to join the Pinker Cult. If you are going to say that "everyone" is plural, I want some more evidence. From other languages, from older versions of English, etc. Don't just pull a few examples out and wave them around like irrefutable proof.

JTT: Why do you demand proof now when it seems like you've been more than willing to just swallow, hook line and sinker, whatever prescriptive nonsense you were handed?

All Professor Pinker needed was a few empirical examples. With these, he was able to show that the prescriptivists, the language mavens as he called them, had not a leg to stand on. But you would have missed that with the Coles Notes version.

It's more than a bit interesting to note that none of those "language experts", you know, William Safire, Richard Lederer, etc have ever bothered to defend their positions [at least none that I've ever been able to locate, though I'd love to see some].

One of them that I contacted directly and pointedly asked why he had never bothered to reply replied and I quote, "I never issued any response and never encountered any response from other mavens."

When I enquired further on this response, above;

--------------------------

"Thank you again for your response, Mr {name removed}.

Part of my article addresses this very issue that you've raised with your reply. Why haven't there been any responses, by you or anyone, to the issues adressed by S Pinker in The Language Instinct?

This is truly puzzling for it seems to me that language professionals would defend their respective positions. Would you care to comment further on this? It would be most helpful if you would."
-----------------------------

I got this response and I quote once again;

"I have nothing additionally helpful to add here."

Now, why, Rufio, would you think that these "logical minds" couldn't address the issues raised?

Rufio wrote:
"He announces something, pulls out a few examples, and says "Ooh! See! I was right! Eat my shorts!" and doesn't give justification other than his few empirical examples which are supposed to influence us to join the Pinker Cult. If you are going to say that "everyone" is plural, I want some more evidence."

JTT: Pure delusion on your part, Rufio. Professor Pinker used a complete chapter, Chapter 12, to demolish, in a step by step manner, the "language mavens", something which he did so effectively that not a one has dared raise a peep.

He specifically addressed and explained "everyone/they". This time, go to the library, get the actual book, sit down and read, pages 377, starting in the last paragraph to page 379, about the middle of the page.

[(note to self) Remind Rufio to check the dictionary for the meaning of 'empirical']

0 Replies

JTT wrote:

JTT: How did you switch this around, Rufio? That was neat. I'm the one who said, "Why not just take the language as it is?". I'm not the one arguing that people are misusing their own language. It really doesn't matter how this thing is explained, the simple fact of the matter is, it's perfectly grammatical and in common use.

I never disagreed with that point.... but I dislike this totalitarian approach you're taking to it, and just because some people think that it's better to say x instead of y is no reason to call them ignorant sheep. Also, the proposition that "everyone" is plural is pretty silly regardless.

Quote:

As Mr Pinker says, "Indeed, 'they' has the advantage of embracing both sexes and feeling right in a wider variety of sentences." I can remember being taught this silly rule when I was a kid of maybe, 12 and I knew then that it was nonsense. But it has escaped you, ... okay.

English has lots of ways of indicating gender-inclusiveness. I don't like using "their" primarily because it smacks of overreactive feminists. And yes, I'm female. A feminist, even, I suppose. But I can express myself perfectly well without a singular "their".

Quote:

JTT: Two things; one, that wasn't me; two, there has been NO comparison of the "use of linguistic constructions with ritual genital mutilation".

Not in so many words. But I think Pinker was overreacting just a tad.

Quote:

JTT: You skipped the book and just read the Coles Notes, right? Maybe we can do this at another time when you're up to speed.

It's been a while since I read it, maybe I'm forgetting the part you're referring to. No, Pinker never says that "prescriptive grammar" is "logical". But he does say that language is logical because it is spoken and used by human minds, which have an innate logical structure. All I'm saying is that language that contains "prescriptive grammar" is spoken by human beings as well. Equipped with Universal Grammar and everything.

Quote:

This is no argument at all, Rufio. Many logical people believed that the earth was flat; many believed that god created the universe, many still do. The list is endless and I don't feel like reciting an encyclopedia.

But now you're talking about objective fact. Language isn't objective in the same way as the earth being round is, because it originates in the minds of people, not in some greater seperate universe. Unlike the shape of the earth, people can change the nature of their language, however locally, simply by believing it to be a certain way, because that ultimately effects how they speak it.

Quote:

JTT: Why do you demand proof now when it seems like you've been more than willing to just swallow, hook line and sinker, whatever prescriptive nonsense you were handed?

I've never said that anything "was" a certain way beyond a shadow of a doubt. The only thing I've done was criticise you for making such assumptions. Probably, somewhere, someone speaks English in just about every possible way we can think of, prescriptive, descriptive, or whatever. Make vast declarations about what is "logical" and what isn't is ultimately going to be a bit narrow (and thus inaccurate).

Quote:

He specifically addressed and explained "everyone/they". This time, go to the library, get the actual book, sit down and read, pages 377, starting in the last paragraph to page 379, about the middle of the page.

I'd pull it off of bookshelf, if I could remember where I put it. Care to remind me what he said? I'm not really one for remembering every single word of my textbooks.

Quote:

(note to self) Remind Rufio to check the dictionary for the meaning of 'empirical'

Enlighten me. What do you think it means?

0 Replies

Rufio:
I never disagreed with that point.... but I dislike this totalitarian approach you're taking to it, and just because some people think that it's better to say x instead of y is no reason to call them ignorant sheep.

JTT: I never called anyone an ignorant sheep. How can an accurate description of how something works be a totalitarian approach? I have no problem with anyone using anything they want. Just don't try to pass these canards off as some sanctified form of language.

----------------------------------

Rufio:
Also, the proposition that "everyone" is plural is pretty silly regardless.

JTT: Well that cinches it then, doesn't it? You've convinced me, you silver tongued orator you! Smile

----------------------------------

Rufio: English has lots of ways of indicating gender-inclusiveness. I don't like using "their" primarily because it smacks of overreactive feminists. And yes, I'm female. A feminist, even, I suppose. But I can express myself perfectly well without a singular "their".

JTT: You mean overreactive feminists like "Jane Austen: 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".

You mean like these overreactive feminists, right?

---------------------------------

Quote:

JTT: Two things; one, that wasn't me; two, there has been NO comparison of the "use of linguistic constructions with ritual genital mutilation".

Rufio: Not in so many words. But I think Pinker was overreacting just a tad.

JTT: No, not at all in so many words. I think the tenacity with which some hold on to this fluff shows he was right on the mark.

--------------------------------

Quote:

JTT: You skipped the book and just read the Coles Notes, right? Maybe we can do this at another time when you're up to speed.

Rufio:
It's been a while since I read it, maybe I'm forgetting the part you're referring to. No, Pinker never says that "prescriptive grammar" is "logical". {Of course not! That's a contradiction in terms} But he does say that language is logical because it is spoken and used by human minds, which have an innate logical structure. All I'm saying is that language that contains "prescriptive grammar" is spoken by human beings as well. Equipped with Universal Grammar and everything.

JTT: But those prescriptions aren't followed when people use language in natural situations, Rufio. Having an old grammar marm pound something unnatural into your brain is not what language is about.

-----------------------------------------------

Quote:

This is no argument at all, Rufio. Many logical people believed that the earth was flat; many believed that god created the universe, many still do. The list is endless and I don't feel like reciting an encyclopedia.

Rufio:
But now you're talking about objective fact. Language isn't objective in the same way as the earth being round is, because it originates in the minds of people, not in some greater seperate universe. Unlike the shape of the earth, people can change the nature of their language, however locally, simply by believing it to be a certain way, because that ultimately effects how they speak it.

JTT: Uh-huh, I agree, so what's your point?

--------------------------------------------------

Quote:

JTT: Why do you demand proof now when it seems like you've been more than willing to just swallow, hook line and sinker, whatever prescriptive nonsense you were handed?

Rufio:
I've never said that anything "was" a certain way beyond a shadow of a doubt. The only thing I've done was criticise you for making such assumptions. Probably, somewhere, someone speaks English in just about every possible way we can think of, prescriptive, descriptive, or whatever. Make vast declarations about what is "logical" and what isn't is ultimately going to be a bit narrow (and thus inaccurate).

JTT: It's impossible for people, acting in a natural fashion, to speak English prescriptively because those prescriptive rules aren't part of the grammar of English. Notice when and how they are taught. By then, every child has learned the rules of their language.

Let's take just one example. I guess you're American but no matter. Children get to school and they are taught that 'can' cannot be used for permission. Now this isn't taught to them in a manner to encourage politeness, rather the children are taught using lies.

By this time, their REAL grammars know this to be false, but some of these children, the more gullible ones, will still grow up mouthing this falsehood.

Teachers tell it to students and in the next breath, say; "Can I borrrow a pen?" This is the kind of logic that drives prescriptive grammar.

-----------------------------------------------

Quote:

He specifically addressed and explained "everyone/they". This time, go to the library, get the actual book, sit down and read, pages 377, starting in the last paragraph to page 379, about the middle of the page.

Rufio:
I'd pull it off of bookshelf, if I could remember where I put it. Care to remind me what he said? I'm not really one for remembering every single word of my textbooks.

JTT: Nice try, R. Smile

------------------------------

Quote:

(note to self) Remind Rufio to check the dictionary for the meaning of 'empirical'

Rufio: Enlighten me. What do you think it means?

JTT: An even nicer try, R. Very Happy

0 Replies

"The word 'everyone' is singular", state the PGs. If it's so singular, why doesn't it match all that well with singular pronouns.

*Every one of me is going.*

*Every one of her is going.*

*Every one of him is going.*

*Every one of it is going.*

*John, every one of you is going.*

{* denotes ungrammatical}

But these "singular entities" seems to work just fine with plural pronouns.

Every one of us is going.

Every one of them is going.

{gesturing to a group of people} Every one of you is going.

Strange indeed!

0 Replies

JTT wrote:

JTT: I never called anyone an ignorant sheep. How can an accurate description of how something works be a totalitarian approach? I have no problem with anyone using anything they want. Just don't try to pass these canards off as some sanctified form of language.

How do you know that it's accurate? Have you asked everyone?

Quote:

JTT: You mean overreactive feminists like "Jane Austen: 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".

You mean like these overreactive feminists, right?

Now you're being silly. My personal experiences with feminism have nothing to do with them. Not to mention that most of them died some time ago and are in no place to say anything about the nature of modern usage of English.

Quote:

JTT: But those prescriptions aren't followed when people use language in natural situations, Rufio. Having an old grammar marm pound something unnatural into your brain is not what language is about.

Define "natural situation". A use of language is a use of language, end of story. Someone speaks it, someone else understands it, it conveys meaning or facilitates social interaction. If we're going to be scientific about this, you can't throw out data because it's not a "natural situation".

Quote:

JTT: Uh-huh, I agree, so what's your point?

Indeed. If you don't agree with something, don't argue it.

Quote:

JTT: It's impossible for people, acting in a natural fashion, to speak English prescriptively because those prescriptive rules aren't part of the grammar of English.

Again, I challenge you to define what an "unnatural" interaction might be. You are just as fanatically devoted to your own idea of "The Grammar of English" as are the prescriptive grammarians you denounce. Think about it for a minute.

Quote:

Let's take just one example. I guess you're American but no matter. Children get to school and they are taught that 'can' cannot be used for permission. Now this isn't taught to them in a manner to encourage politeness, rather the children are taught using lies.

By this time, their REAL grammars know this to be false, but some of these children, the more gullible ones, will still grow up mouthing this falsehood.

Teachers tell it to students and in the next breath, say; "Can I borrrow a pen?" This is the kind of logic that drives prescriptive grammar.

That's not an issue here. The difference between "can" and "may" is not a grammatical one, it's a difference in the formalness or politeness that you mentioned. Using "can" to mean to be allowed to as opposed to be able to is a colloquialism, and English teachers generally want formal language in a classroom. They may not always follow their own rules about formal behavior, but they are in a slightly elevated social position in their own classrooms, and different rules do apply to them in that situation. It doesn't change the naturalness or unnaturalness of the use of "may," which is just one of the many differences between language you would use in a classroom as opposed to language you would use outside. And the rules are different for different classrooms. Having been in many different varieties of them, I think I can speak for that.

Quote:

Rufio:
I'd pull it off of bookshelf, if I could remember where I put it. Care to remind me what he said? I'm not really one for remembering every single word of my textbooks.

JTT: Nice try, R.

It has been 3 years since I took that class, and in that time I have moved all of my earthly possessions across the country (and that would be America, yes) a total of about 12 times. Frankly, it's a miracle I still know where anything is. I also have a sneaking suspicion that the book in question is currently in a box in my father's house, stored wherever it is he stores things.

Just tell me that damn quote already.

Quote:

Quote:
(note to self) Remind Rufio to check the dictionary for the meaning of 'empirical'

Rufio: Enlighten me. What do you think it means?

JTT: An even nicer try, R.

I know what it means. I used it correctly. What did you think it meant?

Quote:

*Every one of me is going.*

*Every one of her is going.*

*Every one of him is going.*

*Every one of it is going.*

*John, every one of you is going.*

I hate to break it to you, but those are all grammatically correct. Semantically vacuous, yes, but grammatically correct.

Quote:

But these "singular entities" seems to work just fine with plural pronouns.

Every one of us is going.

Every one of them is going.

{gesturing to a group of people} Every one of you is going.

These are partative genitive constructions, and agreement isn't an issue - except where the singular verb "is" is concerned. I could also say, "he is one of us," or even "he is of princes and kings" (a little archaic in usage, but grammatical nonetheless). Or are you going to equivocate and say that "one" and "he" are both plural too?

0 Replies

Endless debate over use of "their" with indefinite pronouns

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know