HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: djohns@elm.circa.ufl.edu (David A. Johns)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: A gender neutral pronoun
Date: 25 Dec 92 13:13:10 GMT
Organization: University of Florida, Gainesville

In article <724649705@majors4.cs.duke.edu> dsb@duke.cs.duke.edu (D. Scott Bigham) writes:

# All the examples you cite are spoken English (or "written spoken
# English", as we have it on the Net -- essentially, declarative or
# expository text, as opposed to descriptive or narrative).

There is one contingent of anti-theys who claim (1) that the use of a
plural pronoun with a grammatically singular antecedent introduces
unnecessary ambiguity into the language and (2) that this usage is
linguistic engineering -- i.e., an unnatural imposition for social
purposes.  My "research" was meant to counter these claims, not the
much more legitimate esthetic one.

# If you've been following this thread at all, you've doubtless seen
# the stranger-in-trenchcoat example paragraph.  Go back to that
# paragraph and try replacing "he" with "they".  Reads horribly,
# doesn't it?  That's all I'm trying to say.

There are at least two problems with the trenchcoat example.  First,
we very seldom use "stranger" to refer to females.  As a result, we
have an inductive set to expect a male -- as several posters
demonstrated by ignoring the explicit disclaimer in one of the
versions.  Second, in a situation like that, where a narrator is
reporting first-hand observation, we normally find that the sex of the
observed person is known.  Because of these two factors, readers have
to strain to conceptualize a situation that fits the narrative but
leaves the sex of the referent unknown.

The importance of this is that we normally do *not* use "they" when
speaking of a definite individual whose sex is known.  Thus the
trenchcoat example requires too much mental exercise to force it into
the correct shape for "they" to be appropriate.

I personally think that the definiteness factor is stronger than the
known sex factor.  To illustrate:

        *In the cradle I heard a baby quietly babbling to themself.

        I'll go out with anyone as long as they don't smoke.

[Note to Mandar: The asterisk means I consider the sentence
unacceptable.  It's just a shorthand we linguists have got(ten) used
to.]

I've definitely heard examples like this second sentence in contexts
where I was fairly sure the speaker wasn't flaunting __ bisexuality.

Now look at the sentence I just wrote.  "Their" doesn't sound good to
me in the blank space, but neither does "his or her".  Again, the
problem is that I had a particular speaker in mind, and so I can't be
indefinite about sex, no matter what the means.

In short, the question is not nearly as simple as many people would
like it to be.

By the way, do you have a reference for the use of "spake" as a past
participle?

# From the Holy Book of <37851@uflorida.cis.ufl.edu>
#   as spake by djohns@elm.circa.ufl.edu (David A. Johns) :


David Johns
From: LMEBGO@kiera.ericsson.se (Bengt G{llmo, L M Ericsson, Stockholm, Sweden)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: 'Professor' in Canada - what does it mean?
Date: 29 Dec 1992 07:19:09 -0600
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca writes:

>In any case, 'professor' clearly has a much broader range of meaning here
>than in Europe, incuding in some contexts the equivalent of a European
>lecturer and in others a European 'professor'.

There is no such thing as a 'European professor' (and, in fact, almost
no 'European' anything).  The concept of 'professor' in Italy differs 
at least as much from that in Britain as does the Canadian concept.  
In Italy, as I understand it, 'professore' means 'teacher', nothing more.  

As for Sweden, a department, e.g. the dept of Physics, will have a fixed 
(or very slowly changing) number of professor chairs.  A person is 
appointed to one of these chairs for life, i.e. until retirement.  
Unfortunately, some professors will make their contributions in their 
first 10 years or so, and then just occupy their chairs until retirement.  
What Americans call assistant or associate professors are not professors 
in Sweden, except when they translate their titles for an American.  

There is one type of professor other than a full professor, however.  
This is what we call an 'adjunct professor'.  He (I don't know of any 
she) serves as a professor typically 20% of his time.  The rest, he 
spends in industry.  The university appoints him, and requires the
same qualifications as a full professor, but industry usually pays 
100% of his salary.  The number of adjunct professor chairs is not 
fixed.  From industry's point of view, funding an adjunct professor 
(and preferably supplying the person) is a good way of getting 
something started in a neglected area.  In 5 years time, hopefully, 
the university will have been able to create a new chair for a full 
professor.   

Bengt       
-- 
Forwarded-By:
Bengt Gallmo                        e-mail: lmebgo@kiera.ericsson.se
Telefonaktiebolaget L M Ericsson    phone:  +46 8 719 1940
S-126 25 STOCKHOLM                  fax:    +46 8 719 3988
SWEDEN

The bad thing about good things is that they usually come to an end.
The good thing about bad things is that they, also, usually come to an end.
From: dam@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (David Morning)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Excrement in the English Language
Keywords: scatology, slang
Date: 21 Dec 92 14:53:57 GMT
Organization: Glasgow University Computing Science Dept.

charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Charles Geyer) writes:

>And the old Army saying

>   Shit flows downhill.

Must be some diet they have in the US army.

Prunes, rhubarb and baked beans all washed down with a couple
of pints of Guinness?
:-)

Dave

-- 
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca ()
Subject: Re: American English
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 18:44:23 GMT

(Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:

>Amazing how the very Americans who shouted down the program/me
>distinction, applaud the freshman/first-year distinction!

Amazing how the very people who embrace the program/me distinction to
resolve an ambiguity that is trivial to avoid, and has never even been
noticed on a continent with a significant fraction of the world's
computer programmers, are the same people (2 of them anyway) that
resist perfectly natural use of gender neutral language that resolves
ambiguities that otherwise occur everyday, and moreover, are offensive
to many.

Werner





>                                                             Mandar.
>-- 
>"Imagine there are no countries. It isn't hard to do. Nothing to kill or die 
> for, and no religion too. Imagine all the people living life in peace.
> You may say that I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. I hope that some
> day you'll join us, and the world will be as one." - John Lennon.
From: jtchew@csa3.lbl.gov (Ad absurdum per aspera)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: More English Excrement
Date: 22 Dec 1992 07:14 PST
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.198
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

> "shit-eating grin". I've never really understood what particular sort 
> of grin this is, nor why someone eating shit would be grinning. Any thoughts?

A big fatuous egg-sucking Carl Sagan kind of grin that says "everything
is going just ducky in my world at the moment, and for a reason you'd
never guess and might not approve of."  I think it has to have elements
of a smirk in it.  

When a picture was being taken of people, my father, who grew up on a farm
in Illinois, used to say, "Grin like a possum eatin' s. out of a dead horse."
Believe me, it worked a lot better, or at least more dramatically, than the
usual "Say cheese."

Happy holidays,
Joe
"Broken English is the official language of science"
                            Francois Kourilsky, CRNS
Organization: The American University - University Computing Center
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 13:25:20 EST
From: <HERSCH@auvm.american.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: American English

In article <1i04t7INNlvn@uwm.edu>, jgd@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (John G Dobnick) says:
>
>Unfortunately, the radical feminists _don't_ acknowledge that.
>At least, not those that I've seen quoted.   Sigh....  :-(

Sometimes I suspect "the radical feminists" have the same
ontological status as Mrs. Harris.

H.

Herschel Browne
"The" American University
From: jjf@dsbc.icl.co.uk (J J Farrell)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Real English (was: Sexist language)
Date: 23 Dec 92 03:04:41 GMT
Organization: International Computers Limited

In article <BzMvK3.GD5@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>In article <8040@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM> briand@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM writes:
>>
>>Most of us on the net are humble enough to recognize that there *is* no
>>standard English, just local standards. 
>
>Yes, there are local standards. But which standard should be used when
>resolving an inter-standard conflict? Obviously, it is the English 
>English standard.
>
>>Anything else is to claim that, say,
>>a Canadian English dictionary is better or worse than, say, an Australian
>>English dictionary. Shall we rank all the variants? To whose standards?
>>
>English English.

You're going to have to be a great deal more precise than that. I can
detect differences of dialect between certain towns 10 miles apart, and
I'm far from an expert. Anyone with working ears can hear differences
of dialect between groups of 17-year-olds and groups of 70-year-olds.

And all of them native English speakers living in England. Which of the
thousands of versions of English spoken in England are you referring to?
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: kaygee@hardy.u.washington.edu (Kevin Giansante)
Subject: Re: An apology
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 18:02:32 GMT

From kaygee@u.washington.edu Thu Dec 24 10:00:50 1992
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 09:30:49 -0800 (PST)
From: Kevin Giansante <kaygee@u.washington.edu>
To: Kevin Giansante <kaygee@u.washington.edu>
Subject: 

In an earlier post,  Curious Al <CLINDSAY@vma.cc.nd.edu> asks us:


>I have a question unrelated to this subject line.
>In the sentence, "She felt someone tug her coat" what justifies
>the form "tug"?  Is it a subjunctive perhaps?  I note how it differs
>in meaning from "she felt someone tugged her coat" and "she felt
>somone tugging her coat" but how can "tug" be the verb of "someone"?
>(It's not an imperative of course: "someone tug her coat please.")
>Curious Al


There's a pattern here...

I saw someone throw a stone.
I heard John scream at Mary.
Bill saw Fred eat a watermelon.

But:

I remember someone('s) throwing a stone.
I imagined John('s) screaming at Mary.
Bill thought he saw Fred eating a watermelon.

I think what we're seeing in the first group, and in your example, is the
convention of using the continuous form "only for deliberate actions"
(Practical English Grammar, Thomson and Martinet).  Verbs of the senses
are presumed to refer to involuntary actions.  While this can easily be
argued against, that's pretty much the pat traditional grammatical argument.

Doesn't tell you much, does it?  Well, that's the problem with traditional
grammatical arguments.

I think that either you're right, and it's a derivative of some use of the
subjunctive (perhaps the senses were considered unreliable?), or it
represents some kind of syntactic anomaly that's just happened to become
generalized, or something else...

That doesn't tell you much either, does it?  That's the problem with
non-traditional linguists, I guess.

Thanks for interrupting the usual strident pedantry of alt.usage.english, by
the way.  Your question was a welcome break.  And you shouldn't ever
apologize for breaking the thread of argument; the dogfights get awfully
tedious sometimes.

KG
From: djohns@elm.circa.ufl.edu (David A. Johns)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: They (was Re: Shaking people up with "she"? (was Re: Sexist language))
Date: 25 Dec 92 03:05:55 GMT
Organization: University of Florida, Gainesville

In article <BzMryC.Dy5@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:d

# Remember that "adult native speakers" doesn't include only your
# closeted world. There are LOTS of speakers who DON'T find the use
# of "they", "their" grammatical in the sentences provided by me.

Mandar, the sentences "provided by you" are not English.

David JOhns

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi)
Subject: History
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 00:22:09 GMT
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA


This is in direct response to Herschel (sp?) 's contention that "history"
isn't considered sexist by ANY feminist. He/She asked for references
which disprove this conjecture.  Also, he/she contended that "herstory" 
isn't used seriously and people refer to it in jocular exchanges. He/she
asked me to provide an example where such a reference isn't jocular.

Reference : Robin Lakoff : "Language and Women's place". 45-80.

Lakoff considers the argument for changing the word "history". The
argument goes as follows. A part of the word "history" is the masculine
"his" (you can read the word as "his story") but women also make history; 
therefore, the usage demeans women.

      
     Yes, I agree that *most* women don't find "history" demeaning. But
I place before you the irrefutable proof that *some* women, very
obviously, do find it demeaning.  


Now for the word "herstory". It will surprise you H. Brown that there
is a BOOK entitled Herstory.

Herstory : A woman's view of American history - Sochen June.


         
                                                           Mandar.


-- 
"Imagine there's no countries. It isn't hard to do. Nothing to kill or die 
 for, and no religion too. Imagine all the people living life in peace.
 You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. I hope some
 day you'll join us, and the world will be as one." - John Lennon.
From: djohns@elm.circa.ufl.edu (David A. Johns)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Sexist hypocrites
Date: 28 Dec 92 23:26:36 GMT
Organization: University of Florida, Gainesville

In article <12207@scott.ed.ac.uk> iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:

# >["wifman"] DID evolve from man. "Man" was gender neutral
# >previously. "wif" was used as a suffix to denote gender.
#
# 'Tis an extraordinary suffix that goes before the root.  :-)
#
# Disclaimer: I use "suffix" as linguists do.  The common
# Englishman's mileage may vary.

Well, we all know what a linguist's opinion is worth, don't we.

David Johns

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: Sexist language
Organization: Cuddlehogs Anonymous
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 06:00:27 GMT

In article <92361.171126HERSCH@auvm.american.edu> <HERSCH@auvm.american.edu> writes:
:>I too have heard a *few* women object to "history", singing "hymns",
:>etc.  It never occurred to me that they represent feminists as a
:>group, but neither did it occur to me that they didn't exist despite
:>the evidence of my senses.  Every movement has its lunatic groupies.
:>
:
:I certainly can't argue with your final sentence. As to the rest,
:if you say so. I don't know you, but so far I have no reason to
:doubt your truthfulness. All I can say is that *I* have never heard
:this kind of thing proposed seriously, in print or otherwise.

You haven't been hanging aound in soc.bi these last few months then -
there are more than a few PC language police who *do* say these things
with (ahem) a straight face.  Fortunately they're by no means in the
majority.

G
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Subject: Re: Sexist hypocrites
Reply-To: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 03:49:56 GMT

In article <92363.204204HERSCH@auvm.american.edu> <HERSCH@auvm.american.edu> writes:
>In article <1992Dec28.232023.17000@news.columbia.edu>,
>gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener) says:
>>
>>
>>The PC folks (or perhaps we should call them the logically challenged) cannot
>>grasp a concept that speakers of almost every other romance language grasp
>>with ease and without problem.
>>
>
>Hm. Maybe this is the source of all the problems I have with some of
>the things that you say, Gabe. Apparently you're under some weird
>misapprehension that English is a Romance language! 

No, I'm under no such misapprehension.  I am aware, however, that English 
borrows a good deal from many Romance languages.

>Maybe all the
>misunderstandings, prejudices, and misjudgments

i.e. things you disagree with

> spring from this!

Well, you're entitled to your opinion, just as I'm entitled to mine.


--
Gabe Wiener - Columbia Univ.     "This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings 
gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu       to be seriously considered as a means of 
N2GPZ in ham radio circles        communication. The device is inherently of
72355,1226 on CI$                 no value to us." -Western Union memo, 1877
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: wkl1@Ra.MsState.Edu (Wing-Keong Loke                                               the consummate chronic prevaricator)
Subject: Re: Dictionaries
Organization: Mississippi State University
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 00:27:12 GMT

In article <5597@daily-planet.concordia.ca> mckay@alcor.concordia.ca (John McKay) writes:
>
>I have a theory of change which is that dictionaries serve two purposes:
>they record usage - correct and incorrect - and they also act as a resource
>in that the presence of a word and its meaning in a dictionary will often
>be interpreted as authoritative. It is not hard to see that these two
>interpretations lend themselves to propagating change, sometimes 
>unnecessarily.
>

	Could be.  But I've heard of people say that the pronounciation
of a word in the dictionary is wrong, and they have got it right!  We
get all kinds, all kinds ... .
From: wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: K Street
Date: 30 Dec 92 13:35:31 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

In article <BzwIBD.74y@techbook.com>, dant@techbook.com (Dan Tilque) writes:
>>Downing Street (for the Prime Minister's Office)
> 
> I've always heard it as 10 Downing Street.  Has the street number got
> lost in current British usage?
> 
News reports seem to me to use just the street name, but political dramas
always use `number ten' to distinguish it from number 11 (The Chancellor of the
Exchequer) and number 12 (the whips' office).

-- 

Stephen Wilcox             |   For Sale: Posts in British Government. Suit
wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk    |   outgoing American. Highest bids accepted.
From: djohns@elm.circa.ufl.edu (David A. Johns)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Shaking people up with "she"? (was Re: Sexist language)
Date: 24 Dec 92 23:35:38 GMT
Organization: University of Florida, Gainesville

In article <BzDw15.MnD@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:

# Imagine there are no countries.

Imagine there *were* no countries.  Since countries exist, a
counterfactual is required.

# It isn't hard to do.

Difficult, not hard.  Metals are hard; imagination is difficult.

# Nothing to kill or die for, and no religion too.

Nothing for which to kill or die, if you please.  And no religion
*either*.  No native speaker would ever say "no religion too".

# Imagine all the people living life in peace.

What else do you live but a life?  I'm sure we can get by with "living
in peace".

# You may say that I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.

Hmmm.  Even complete incompetents occasionally get something right.

# I hope that some day you'll join us, and the world will be as one.

Join us?  Are we getting married?  Why not avoid the ambiguity by
saying join *with* us?  And how can a singular noun be *as* one?

# - John Lennon.

Where is this Lennon fellow from?  Certainly not England!

David Johns
From: djohns@elm.circa.ufl.edu (David A. Johns)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Sexist language
Date: 23 Dec 92 16:09:50 GMT
Organization: University of Florida, Gainesville

In article <12151@scott.ed.ac.uk> iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:

# Given that "they" is rejected by many native speakers, it is bloody
# obvious that it is not at all perfectly fine.  It beats me how
# anyone can state the opposite.

Well, to begin with, you have to define a range of contexts.  As far
as I can tell, most English speakers accept -- and produce --
sentences where "they" refers to an indefinite pronoun.  A somewhat
smaller number accepts "they" referring to a category noun used
generically ("person", "doctor", etc.), with a gradation of acceptance
roughly proportional to the specificity of the noun.  Probably most
speakers reject this usage if the gender of the referent is actually
known, or perhaps known to be known to the hearer but not to the
speaker.

If you're claiming that "many" native speakers reject *all* use of
singular "they", well, I'd have to point out that "many" native
speakers also reject stranded prepositions and split infinitives, and
maybe I'd suggest that you are surrounded by a higher percentage of
pedants there at Edinburgh than are generally extant in the
population.

On the other hand, if you're claiming that "many" speakers reject
*some* instances of singular "they", I'd have to agree, but add also
that "many" speakers don't accept generic "he".

There simply doesn't seem to be a neat solution to this problem.

David Johns
From: HERSCH@auvm.american.edu
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Sexist hypocrites
Date: 23 Dec 92 20:58:39 GMT
Organization: The American University - University Computing Center

In article <Bzon6A.764@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu>,
mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) says:
>
>

(Evidence that Mandar actually went and looked something up when
challenged to do so deleted. That is, a brief etymology of "woman",
showing its true relation to "wife" and "man", rather than the
nonsense he had posted earlier about "wife of man".)

>      The etymologists on this group will indeed confirm the fact
>that "woman" evolved from "wifman" which itself evolved from "man".

"Wifman" didn't evolve from "man", as you yourself showed; it evolved
from a compound of "wif" and "man".

>(as a means of specifying the gender). Now, according to you, if
>"man" is sexist, and so is "hostess", then "woman" itself should
>be sexist.

Now this is pretty stupid, don't you think? Is your claim really
what it seems to be? Let me restate it for you: People claim that
to use the word "man" as if it includes women is or can be sexist
or can have the effect of reinforcing sexist patterns of thought.
Many hundreds of years ago, the word "woman" evolved from "wif"
and "man", the latter word at the time carrying no gender information.
Therefore logical consistency requires that we now consider the
word "woman" sexist when applied to women. This is what you're
saying, and it sure sounds dumb to me.

H.

Herschel Browne
"The" American University
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english