View mode: basic / threaded / horizontal-split · Log in · Help
May 13, 2009
Re: D users in Munich, Rome, Venice, or Frankfurt?
BCS wrote:
> Hello Derek,
> 
>> On Wed, 13 May 2009 01:04:19 +0000 (UTC), BCS wrote:
>>
>>> Ah! One of my favorite qwerks of the English language, how to refer
>>> to a specific single someone of unknown gender without insulting
>>> them: "it"?
>>>
>> I hate it but what can I do?
>>
>> Use "they". Sure, its wrong but everyone knows what you mean. As in
>> ... "A good coder will write useful comments because *they* care."
>>
> 
> Yeah, much as I dislike it, you end up having to. And as someone else 
> pointed out, "they" is actually correct (why, I don't know).

There is no "why" in linguistics, just "whence".
May 13, 2009
Re: D users in Munich, Rome, Venice, or Frankfurt?
Christopher Wright wrote:
> BCS wrote:
>> Hello Derek,
>>
>>> On Wed, 13 May 2009 01:04:19 +0000 (UTC), BCS wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ah! One of my favorite qwerks of the English language, how to refer
>>>> to a specific single someone of unknown gender without insulting
>>>> them: "it"?
>>>>
>>> I hate it but what can I do?
>>>
>>> Use "they". Sure, its wrong but everyone knows what you mean. As in
>>> ... "A good coder will write useful comments because *they* care."
>>>
>>
>> Yeah, much as I dislike it, you end up having to. And as someone else 
>> pointed out, "they" is actually correct (why, I don't know).
> 
> There is no "why" in linguistics, just "whence".

Damn! Now that you mention it, it's actually true! Funny I never thought 
about it like that.
May 13, 2009
Re: D users in Munich, Rome, Venice, or Frankfurt?
BCS wrote:
> Hello Derek,
> 
>> On Wed, 13 May 2009 01:04:19 +0000 (UTC), BCS wrote:
>>
>>> Ah! One of my favorite qwerks of the English language, how to refer
>>> to a specific single someone of unknown gender without insulting
>>> them: "it"?
>>>
>> I hate it but what can I do?
>>
>> Use "they". Sure, its wrong but everyone knows what you mean. As in
>> ... "A good coder will write useful comments because *they* care."
>>
> 
> Yeah, much as I dislike it, you end up having to. And as someone else 
> pointed out, "they" is actually correct (why, I don't know). Also, in 
> your case, it's the generic "they" and in one way of thinking, it *is* 
> plural (as in there are many people that it can refer to) so it kind of 
> sounds reasonable.

"why" in descriptive linguistics means "what most native speakers judge 
to be correct" (which is often different from "what textbooks like to 
assert is correct"). Basically, native speakers have an understanding of 
a language that may be different from any official "specification" of 
the language (just like DMD ;-P). This is why native Esperanto speakers 
tend to speak a slightly different version of Esperanto than the 
official one.

Some native speakers may judge "he" to be more correct than "they" 
(especially those in academia or snobby middle-class white socialites), 
so one or the other might be correct in different varieties of English.

I read a study (of Americans, probably college students at whatever 
university it was done at) that showed that the processing time for a 
sentence containing "they" for a singular unknown referent tended to be 
faster than the processing time for a sentence containing "he" in the 
same position for 90+% of speakers, even for speakers who believed that 
"he" was the correct choice. I'm too lazy to dredge up the study, but 
basically:

third-person "they" is easier to understand for native speakers!
May 13, 2009
Re: D users in Munich, Rome, Venice, or Frankfurt?
BCS wrote:
> Hello Georg,
> 
>>
>> A serious point, however, is that (in my first language) Finnish, the
>> spoken language doesn't only *not* differentiate between gender, it
>> also /doesn't/ differentiate between humans and other instances (be
>> they living or inanimate!!!). You'd say
>>
>> "se meni ulos" -- {he | she | the dog} went out
>> "se putos" -- {he | she | the dog | a flowerpot | a brick} dropped
>> Contrast this to "modern, politically correct American English", where
>> one says "she" of the programmer, and "they" of any third person. The
>> latter of which is not only semantically + grammatically incorrect, it
>> also makes sentences cumbersome, but foremost, diffuses and murks up
>> the original intent of the author.
>>
> 
> Ah! One of my favorite qwerks of the English language, how to refer to a 
> specific single someone of unknown gender without insulting them: "it"?


Yeah, you can't use "it", because that's really derogatory. I remember a 
movie (probably something with Meryl Streep), where this person referred 
to the spouse as "it".
May 13, 2009
Re: D users in Munich, Rome, Venice, or Frankfurt?
"BCS" <none@anon.com> wrote in message 
news:a6268ff5b338cba14afe6aca70@news.digitalmars.com...
> I have more problems with singular they making it hard to exclude the 
> plural than anything else. It's right up there with (but not as common as) 
> some neutral statements being promoted to negative ones: "I don't like 
> cheese" vs. "I dislike cheese", making it hard to state some things.
>

That's a *HUGE* pet peeve of mine. I get sooo frustrated when attempting 
make a neutral statement around people who just simply will not accept that 
neutral statements exist. Drives me absolutely crazy. "Suzie is not 
tall/happy/beautiful" does NOT mean "Suzie is short/unhappy/ugly" (or even 
mid-height/calm/average-looking for that matter), but most people absolutely 
insist in believing that everything is either one extreme or the other and 
just can't comprehend neutrality unless you very, very blatantly spell it 
out for them and prop everything up with boatloads of disclaimers.

A similar thing that also drives me absolutely crazy is when people take a 
*comparison* and automatically assume that absolute statements are being 
made about one or both of the things being compared. For instance, saying 
"Babylon 5 is worse than Stargate SG-1", does *NOT* imply "I dislike Babylon 
5" nor does it imply "I dislike Stargate SG-1". But I have frequently come 
across people that have made both those assumptions when presented with a 
sentence in that form. Similarly, saying "Murder is better than genocide" 
does *NOT* imply "I think murder is perfectly acceptable." But a lot of 
people seem to be completely incapable of comprehending these distinctions.

Another note: Just because I used "Murder is better than genocide" as an 
example, does *not* mean that I'm actually saying that I consider murder to 
be better than genocide. And that previous sentence that I just wrote does 
*NOT* imply that I consider genocide to be better than murder, or that I 
consider them equal in severity. In fact, nowhere in this entire message 
have I (or will I) made *any* indication of my opinions on murder, genocide, 
or how they compare, or that I even have or don't have opinions on the 
matter, and it pisses me off that I frequently find myself needing to make 
qualifications like these just to prevent people from putting words in my 
mouth.

Regarding that last sentence in the previous paragraph, note that a lot of 
people would take that as me saying "I need to make this particular 
qualification because I think the people on this NG would be unable to 
correctly understand it without the qualification." And as per the whole 
point of my entire above rant, I'm not saying anything of the sort, or the 
opposite, or etc...

I hope all of the above serves as a good example of why people need to be 
able to make neutral statements and comparisons without the listener 
automatically assuming a bunch of extra garbage. Because when that happens, 
speakers are forced to turn perfectly simple ideas into an absolute mess of 
disclaimers and qualifications such as above. (Not that I'm saying I was 
forced to make such disclaimers in this particular case...etc...etc...)
May 13, 2009
Re: D users in Munich, Rome, Venice, or Frankfurt?
Reply to Nick,

[...]

LOL

> I hope all of the above serves as a good example of why people need to
> be able to make neutral statements and comparisons without the
> listener automatically assuming a bunch of extra garbage. Because when
> that happens, speakers are forced to turn perfectly simple ideas into
> an absolute mess of disclaimers and qualifications such as above. (Not
> that I'm saying I was forced to make such disclaimers in this
> particular case...etc...etc...)
>
May 13, 2009
Re: D users in Munich, Rome, Venice, or Frankfurt?
On Wed, 13 May 2009 16:04:49 -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

> "BCS" <none@anon.com> wrote in message 
> news:a6268ff5b338cba14afe6aca70@news.digitalmars.com...
>> I have more problems with singular they making it hard to exclude the 
>> plural than anything else. It's right up there with (but not as common as) 
>> some neutral statements being promoted to negative ones: "I don't like 
>> cheese" vs. "I dislike cheese", making it hard to state some things.
>>
> 
> That's a *HUGE* pet peeve of mine. I get sooo frustrated when attempting 
> make a neutral statement around people who just simply will not accept that 
> neutral statements exist. 


> A similar thing that also drives me absolutely crazy is when people take a 
> *comparison* and automatically assume that absolute statements are being 
> made about one or both of the things being compared. 

I have the same personality disorder ;-)

But if people behaved as you suggested, then what would lawyers,
politicians and union bosses be doing for a lot of their time?


-- 
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia
skype: derek.j.parnell
May 14, 2009
Re: D users in Munich, Rome, Venice, or Frankfurt?
"Derek Parnell" <derek@psych.ward> wrote in message 
news:163i1iantpbgs.1i0ruyoi9ogmo.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Wed, 13 May 2009 16:04:49 -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>
>> A similar thing that also drives me absolutely crazy is when people take 
>> a
>> *comparison* and automatically assume that absolute statements are being
>> made about one or both of the things being compared.
>
> I have the same personality disorder ;-)
>
> But if people behaved as you suggested, then what would lawyers,
> politicians and union bosses be doing for a lot of their time?
>

I have a few things I could suggest to them ;)
May 14, 2009
Re: D users in Munich, Rome, Venice, or Frankfurt?
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> I hope all of the above serves as a good example of why people need to be 
> able to make neutral statements and comparisons without the listener 
> automatically assuming a bunch of extra garbage.

That's because some people actively look for offense.
Next ›   Last »
1 2
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home