From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: The Gallows [was Cambridge
Reply-To: hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: DESY ZEUS Central Data Acquisition
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 19:58:34 GMT

In article <9207221731.AA04150@cs.utexas.edu>,
gene_ledbetter@internetqm.llnl.gov (Gene Ledbetter) writes:

|>         Regarding:               The Gallows [was Cambridge bike]_
|>              
|>Someone had the gall to write:
|>
|>>> ... and I would like to think that even in the most
|>>> casual of situations a true devotee of British culture
|>>> can make the effort to get THEIR English grammar correct.
|>
|>Hang him or her by his or her silly neck!
|>
|>Someone defended with:
|>
|>> HIS would be grammatically correct; THEIR is merely
|>> politically correct.

Oh ho, and what does Fowler & Fowler have to say on the matter... 

Naturaly such a tome is not intended to be read, merely cited in defense
of an assertion which one knows must be true and hence Fowler^2 must
agree with one.

|>The shift in number is abominable, and therefore its use is 
|>growing rapidly.
|>
|>At the very least:
|>
|> ... and I would like to think that even in the most
|> casual of situations true DEVOTEES of British culture
|> can make the effort to get THEIR English grammar correct.

Nope that is a generic insult. What the original poster wanted was to
attack a specific opponent and watch them squirm for their edification
[ohhh] and edifaction.

|>I used to have a book (burned the damned thing) by two 
|>feminist writers who invariably wrote she/her/hers.  Well, 

That might well be correct in a novel about troilism in a lesbian
cooperative, can we try to keep to the subject though rather than
discussing your purient reading habits?

|>the blasted feminists caused the fuss and they should have 
|>offered a decent solution but they didn't because all they 
|>want to do is cause trouble.  It must be admitted that the 

They did, have you not heard of the use of herm to refer to an object of
indefinite gender (cue cheap joke concerning thesbian member of a
certain family).

|>French, who seem to have a firm grip on gender and its 
|>proper uses, don't need to know the subject's gender because 
|>they refer to the object's gender.  (A true devotee of 
|>British culture can make the effort to get ITS English 
|>grammar correct.)

The futlity of this argument is demonstrated by the fact that the
possesive is entirely unnecessary in that sentence. Hence it's inclusion
can only be to emphasise the fact that language is a personal possesion
and not a communal object. Thus by deconstructing the sentence we arive
at the inevitable conclusion that contrary to the surface impression the
statement contains a subliminal declaration of the supremacy of the
individual over the tyrany of the masses, the right to define for
oneself the well foundedness of syntactic structures is held to be as an
unalienable human right, go on Cambridge I can write this stuff as well
as Desidera, so where's the Honorary degree?


|>Unless someone comes up with something better (like using 
|>he/his/him all the time), I would be willing to follow the 
|>example of the two incinerated feminists.  Let the gender of 

What you burned the feminists as well as the book? I think that someone
might have words to say about that.

|>the object reflect the gender of the writer.

What about hermaphrodites, where do they fit in?


Phill Hallam-Baker