Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
From: Chris Croughton <chris@keristor.net>
Newsgroups: alt.languages.english
Subject: Re: her instead of "his or her"
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 10:50:24 +0000
Lines: 34
Message-ID: <slrneo2b3g.unh.chris@ccserver.keris.net>
References: <el40sk$aio$1@fata.cs.interbusiness.it> <Misc-BEA1D6.18151805122006@coml.de> <slrnene5e3.lkm.chris@ccserver.keris.net> <Misc-D76EE3.22102506122006@coml.de>
Reply-To: chris@keristor.net
X-Trace: individual.net 7KN69kVtabWd7mMV6TeccwEYdeb1/5TmzPxJyGG3PB/L4ryCY=
X-Orig-Path: ccserver.keris.net!news
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.4 (Linux)
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.languages.english:1368
On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 22:10:25 -0800, Miss Elaine Eos
<Misc@*your-pants*PlayNaked.com> wrote:
> In article <slrnene5e3.lkm.chris@ccserver.keris.net>,
> Chris Croughton <chris@keristor.net> wrote:
>
>> I dislike the use of singular 'their' because it grammatically implies
>> the plural, and whichever way it is used seems wrong:
>>
>> "They were playing with their ball."
>> "They was playing with their ball."
>
> True in those examples, however:
>
> The child ran home to get their ball.
> or
> The author signed copies of their book until well after closing time.
>
> Oddly, these scan all right. But perhaps that's just because I grew up
> when this was the preferred substitution for "his" -- sort of the first
> evolution in an attempt to find a comfortable word.
Oddly, I find the second less objectionable than the first. This is
possibly, as you suggest, a matter of familiarity (an 'author' seems
less personal than a 'child', if that makes sense).
> I tend to agree with you about the chip on the shoulder, though. "His"
> was good enough for a thousand years or so of written English, it can be
> good for another 50 years or so until after I'm gone... :)
Probably not that long for me (males in my family rarely get above their
mid eighties, and I'm past my demicentury)...
Chris C
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
|