Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site mhuxr.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mfs
From: mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: A Small Victory; Not at All
Message-ID: <277@mhuxr.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 26-Mar-85 09:25:34 EST
Article-I.D.: mhuxr.277
Posted: Tue Mar 26 09:25:34 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 27-Mar-85 03:32:14 EST
References: <824@druxo.UUCP> <269@mhuxr.UUCP> <2349@randvax.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 33

> Ed Hall: 
> How, pray tell, does using the generic ``they'' make things ``more difficult
> to understand''?  As a matter of fact, I find *less* ambiguity in its use,
> since it clearly indicates that sex is unimportant, whereas the use of ``he''
> always implies the possibility of restriction to males.  The use of ``they''
> introduces a singular/plural ambiguity that is much less of a problem, since
> context usually makes it quite unambiguous.
> 
'One' does that too, and it does not have a singular/plural ambiguity.

> And except for language purists (who have problems with the inherently
> ambiguous nature of natural language), the use of ``they'' is a lot more
> natural than the convolutions necessary to eliminate such pronouns
> altogether.  This leaves the mind clear to think about other aspects of
> meaning.
> 
Sorry, but it goes the other way around. If you have a clear conception of
what you want to say, you will have no problem with stating it clearly.
Using linguistic shortcuts is an indication of incompletely formed
prop[ositions.
> Ambiguity in language is *essential*--it allows us to point to those
> elements of a statement which are important, and discard those which
> are not.  As a tool of our thoughts, it influences how we form concepts,
> and as the chief instrument of our social learning, it influences the
> very structure of our society.
Say what!!!! Ambiguous language does precisely the opposite. It prevents
those with whom one communicates from understanding the important points of
the communication, surely the opposite of the communicator's intentions.
Unless one communicates with the intent of deceiving or otherwise not
being understood, one should strive for as little ambiguity as possible
(unless of course, one is a diplomat :-)

Marcel Simon